Being that I consider myself a post-Objectivist, I do agree that many of the mouth pieces that hold legal ownership of Rand's legacy have become dogmatic in the extreme. To which makes it hard for folks to digest what Rand really meant by her words. In many ways, after taking a listen to half of Mises' Human Action, I find myself thinking that not only was Rand a Rationalist influenced heavily by Aristotle, but that Mises' own words and hers on issues of epistemology (and human action itself) mirror the same conclusions. But the key difference here is that Mises really finishes up where Rand simply starts off (in ITOE). So, I don't see the real issue with Rand or her philosophy (if it could be called one these days). If Giles wants to bitch, let the old coger bitch. I'm not his nurse.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
I just don't agree with her views on aesthetics, or sex. She also breaks with methodogical individualism when she states that the USA can morally attack oppressive states. Besides that, she was a great thinker.
ivanfoofoo: I just don't agree with her views on aesthetics, or sex. She also breaks with methodogical individualism when she states that the USA can morally attack oppressive states. Besides that, she was a great thinker.
I agree, there's some other issues I do not agree with her on aswell. Also, her explanations are kinda misleading sometimes, "if man wants to live on earth" for example. I do not see how people on this forum can say that she's totally wrong though, since Rothbard's ethics are similar and much of what she said is a part of modern Austro-libertarianism.