"Q: Why don’t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works? [FHF: “The Age of Mediocrity,” 1981]
AR: Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program. " - http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians
I don't understand this at all. I would not identify myself as objectivist, but I do know libertarians who started off with Rand personally, as well many famous ones, so why was Rand so much against Libertarianism? And why so hostile? Does "Mozart Was A Red" explain this well enough?
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Well, if you agree with her, you are plagiarizer, if you disagree, you are scum.
Ayn Rand hates everyone that's not Ayn Rand.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Libertyandlife: "Q: Why don’t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works? [FHF: “The Age of Mediocrity,” 1981] AR: Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program. " - http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians I don't understand this at all. I would not identify myself as objectivist, but I do know libertarians who started off with Rand personally, as well many famous ones, so why was Rand so much against Libertarianism? And why so hostile? Does "Mozart Was A Red" explain this well enough?
Although she wrote some very fun fiction, she was a bit of an ass. Case closed.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Capital 'L' Libertarians refer to members of the Libertarian Party which is likely where her criticism was directed towards?
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip
This might explain a few things: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html
"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner. "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.
So she's just really arrogant and pretentious? And of course some of her followers follow through, and the rest just become libertarians?
I think her opposition to Libertarianism is justified to an extent. Many Libertarians spend a lot of time compromising (i.e., betraying their ideals), and many view morality as subjective, both of which Rand vehemently disagreed with.
Now to your second question: 'Do those almost with us do more harm than 100% enemies?' I don't think that this can be answered with a flat 'yes' or 'no,' because the 'almost' is such a wide term and can cover so many different attitudes. I think each particular case has to be judged on his own performance, but there is one general rule to observe: those who are with us, but merely do not go far enough, yet do not serve the opposite cause in any way, are the ones who do us some good and who are worth educating. Those who agree with us in some respects, yet preach contradictory ideas at the same time, are definitely more harmful than 100% enemies . . . . As an example of the kind of 'almost' I would tolerate, I'd name Ludwig von Mises. . . . As an example of our most pernicious enemy, I would name Hayek. That one is real poison.
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.—Ludwig von Mises
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.
^ :'( I like Mises!
Yes, it is hard to know whom she is denouncing in particular. I went to one national LP convention and it would not have been difficult to come to the same conclusion after an event like this. We don't really know the context. On the other hand, I do think that Rand had a very real confusion over this problem of the ownership of ideas. This was, in my view, a fundamental mistake - one that was widely share by others in the day - it led to unjustified anger at anyone who learned from others. but I go into this issue more in a Mises Daily.
Publisher, Laissez-Faire Books
^Yeah but didn't she realize that there were precedents to the idea of either liberty or capitalism?