I've pretty much become a rothbardian over the last five-ten years, and yet I feel a strong distaste for objectivists, who in many ways are capitalist fellow travelers. Often more than against fullblown socialists.
Thing is, I've never read anything by Ayn Rand, the closest thing to objectivist literature I've ever read is the Sword of truth series, which I hate with such a passion that I read every single book so I could agonize over how much I hated it, so apparently my distaste for the philosophy and characters in those books was so strong and visceral that I became completely irrational. (Also, I was and still am a fantasy-buff)
I expect if I read any Rand I would probably agree with her philosophy, and yet I find the very word objectivist off-putting enough that I'm probably not going to.
Has anyone else experienced this, or something like it, and how did you come to terms with that irrational thought-process?
It's not irrational, because Rand wasn't a libertarian; she was a pro-war neoconservative. She was against States' rights, she supported IP, and she supported total war. She also had a piss poor understanding of economics because she believed the state should charge user fees. That then gives the state a monopoly over the things it charges user fees for.
If you like Rothbard and you dislike Rand you'll probably enjoy this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIk5C2qsRH8
And yes, although she has some good points, there are a few things about Rand that make me want to throw up. I remember, for example, a video interview with her where she said “very few people deserve to be loved”. :vomit:
While it's hard to realistically find that many difference between objectivists and libertarians in terms of philosophy (something only Rand herself could do), Randian ethics are even more bunk than normal Rothbardian ones. Objectivists are obnoxious, assuming that they have all of the answers, and they often pretend that anyone who disagrees with them doesn't use "philosophy" despite the fact that Rand's proof of ethics themselves is the most non-philisophical thing I've seen outside of modern liberalism. Conservative ethics follow more readily.
At any rate, to sum up what the normal objectivist has to say:
If you disagree with me and you're irrational. If you disagree with Rand you're a socialist. If you're a conservative you're an insane theocrat. If you're a liberal you're a socialist. If you're a moderate you're probably a Fascist. If you're a libertarian you're the slightly loopy cousin of freedom. If you're a socialist then you're a walking son of Lucifer.
This is not, however, to say that there aren't plenty of really intelligent Objectivists, nor to say that this generalization by any means encompasses all of them. Furthermore Rand was certainly intelligent, and her books were, if not fantastically well written, certainly well written and worthwhile reads, even if they left something to be desired in the area of brevity. Furthermore in the Fountainhead she makes some truly amazing arguments and statements in favor of personal liberty, and in Atlas Shrugged she does the same for personal self-determination and political non-intervention.
On that note, some writings people may be interested in:
Rand v. Rothbard
The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult by Murray Rothbard
Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard: Can't We All Just Get Along?
Political Freedom and Its Roots in Metaphysics
Essay on Rand & Rothbard: Diverse Champions of Liberty
Mises and Rand (and Rothbard)
Murray Rothbard's Randian Austrianism
excel:Has anyone else experienced this, or something like it, and how did you come to terms with that irrational thought-process?
You could just read her books....
bloomj31:You could just read her books....
This would require that I feel some desire to read her books. I don't read books to have read them, I read them because I want to. Which is sort of the problem I alluded to in the OP.
You could watch the movie, Atlas Shrugged. If it pisses you off, you probably wouldn't like the book. I've found that whatever philosophy of Ayn Rand's that people dislike doesn't come through much. There's a little bit of weird feminism that creeps in and she's nuts regarding human emotion and affection. Even strange people don't act like her characters in that regard, implicitly or otherwise. I think maybe because she wasn't very attractive this jaded her feelings a bit. Whatev, I dig the book myself.
@excel: I'm pretty similar. I don't expect that I would agree with Rand's philosophy. I'm working through Max Stirner's The Ego and Its Own (it's rough going) which has a somewhat Randian flavor to it (though Stirner wrote almost a century before Rand was born). Paradoxically, I feel like Stirner "gets it" in a way that less visceral philosophers of liberty fail to. It's not just a rational issue, it's not just about having the right technical knowledge and following the correct steps of reasoning. It's a visceral issue, it's something we feel, something that immerses our entire being. But, at the same time, Stirner's emphasis on the ego I believe misses the mark
And like Rand, Stirner's philosophy doesn't seem to have led him to a life of happiness and fulfillment or even to a virtue that was admired and respected by his peers. Rand was brazenly hypocritical and conscientiously cultivated her personality-cult. I like applause as much as the next guy but I think it's indicative of a lack of a real sense of your own self-worth (call it "self-esteem" if you like) to be utterly dependent on applause from people you yourself believe to be inferior. I'd rather just have an uncondtional sense of self-worth and if I can get some applause from my peers, so much the better.
Stirner was a wreck. He threw away a career in pursuit of his philosophical inquiries which might have been an admirable exercise of self-determination except that he married one of the women in his ambit who happened to have a bit of an inheritance, then frittered it away until she abandoned him, leaving him to spend the rest of his life trying to outrun his creditors. When Stirner's biographer tried to contact his ex-wife after Stirner's death, she didn't even want to meet the biographer in person, simply sending a letter explaining that Stirner was sly and that she had not loved or respected him during their marriage. These are the kind of people that make those depressing plots in soap operas - not exactly what I am aiming at in life. And you can see a causal relationship between their ideas and the way they lived their lives.
What I believe is missing in these egoistic ideas is the sophos in philosophy. Plenty of pathos but little or no ethos, no sophos. The social facts as they are get ignored because it is empty theorization. Where this becomes obvious is in the vacuum of discussion on family. Stirner discusses parents only in the context of parental punishment and the child's "obduracy". While he makes some profound insights on this basis, something is missing. The parent-child relationship isn't just about punishment and rebellion, there's clearly a lot more to it than that.
Anyway, just thought I'd share my thoughts on what I've read of Stirner, so far. He has fascinating insights and yet, at the same time, they are somehow frustratingly myopic.
Clayton -
I actually watched Atlas Shrugged when it came out. Completely forgot about that.
Ayn Rand has many good ideas that are congruent with libertarianism. However, she has many ideas that are not. Here is a link to an interview about her views About a Woman President. This is a link to a forum thread about her views on the subject. It has some excerpts from the essay. Read the thread for a bit and you'll see why you don't like Objectivists.
No2statism:[Rand] was a pro-war neoconservative...and she supported total war.
Really?
I think you may have confused Ayn Rand with the Ayn Rand Institute.
excel:I've pretty much become a rothbardian over the last five-ten years, and yet I feel a strong distaste for objectivists, who in many ways are capitalist fellow travelers...Has anyone else experienced this, or something like it, and how did you come to terms with that irrational thought-process?
It's actually quite a sad thing I've noticed. The more you learn and the more digging you do into a particular school of thought, the more differences you find between yourself and others that you might have previously seen as allies. You start finding conflicting ideas where you previously thought there was common ground.
I went from being a Socialist/Democrat to a small government Libertarian/Republican, then started following Rand and found out that she and Libertarians didn't exactly get along, then recently discovered the Austrian school and Anarcho-Capitalism, all of which tug me slightly in a different direction. Of course it's a good thing to read more and have a more well-informed opinion but I just think it's sad that you end up finding more enemies than friends. I felt happier when I percieved all of us anti-Statist types united under one banner, even though that perception was the result of ignorance. Such is the price of learning more about your principles.