Talk:Ayn Rand

Archive 1: October 2002 to August 2004
Archive 2: August 2004 to June 2005

Spinoza1111 07:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)(Edward G. Nilges) edits the Controversy section: comments are invited

I felt the Controversy section could be significantly deepened with a more thorough presentation of both sides. Part of the Rand phenomenon is that precisely because academic philosophers turn green or mauve when Rand is mentioned, writings about Rand tend, despite the best and most terribly Objective intentions of her publicists, the writings tend to blast out into the ionosphere as pure (*Reinen*) hagiography, hagiography that never encounters resistance and becomes thereby prophesying to the wind.

The result of this lack of resistance is that the aethereal hagiograph is suffused with a POV so global as to be unnoticed by Randroids, and considered moronic by all others, since it APPEARS, from the lack of a consciousness of any resistance (which, previous authors should know, stems not only from "analytic" philosophy but would also stem from most other schools were their mavens to deign to address Rand).

Therefore I have added the following to the Controversy section which in NPOV I trust presents two sides.

Rand's strengths, to Rand's supporters, are her weaknesses, to her detractors. To individuals enmeshed in lives made difficult by an undecidable combination of business and government, Rand, unlike a "professional" philosopher, provides a life-changing new narrative which has been especially empowering for some women.

For this reason, Rand fulfilled a demand made much later by the academic philosopher Martha Nussbaum who asked why we ask philosophy to improve our existence and flourishing, and why we instinctively find analytic philosophies so deficient on this basis.

Unlike most philosophers, even philosophers of society, Rand presents to her supporters a vivid picture of lives and societies damaged almost beyond repair by a soulless and Philistine socialism which Rand encountered first hand in Russia; her mother, Rand recounted, was attacked for reading a book on a train by some enthusiastic proles who accused Rand's mother of bourgeois tendencies.

To Rand's numerous detractors, including nonreaders of Rand who shrink in horror from her formidable presence in prose and in pictures, who may mentally image Rand as an Art Deco gargoyle suitable only for the Chrysler building, her stories are a massive oversimplification of what Adorno, a Frankfurt School theorist whom Rand would instinctively despise, called an "administered" world in which "government" as a puppet of private economic forces makes the rules on behalf of the sort of alpha males whom Rand thought to be first movers.

It is perhaps fortunate that during Rand's (and Adorno's) life-time, these two characters were never brought together on a talk show, DESPITE the fact that they shared a concern that industrial civilization no longer reflected our subjectivity, using "subjectivity" not to mean opinions but our objective moral seriousness and our will. This is because to Adorno, Rand fails to answer what for him was a central question, sometimes re-presented as avoiding another Holocaust of the Jews, a group that in Randian terms may have "deserved" their fate: the question of the existence and flourishing of people without sufficient grit, and sand, and bounce of the Randian flavor, and whether it is just they not survive.

Only an ironist with a bad attitude could appreciate the evolution between the way in which in Rand's heyday, Darwinian notions of "survival of the fittest" were popular and prepared the way for the reception of Atlas Shrugged, while today her natural constituency seems to have fled through some sort of Sinai to "intelligent design", perhaps on the just-in-time basis as America's Rust Belt fitness-for-survival turns out to be as out of date as the passenger trains Rand celebrated in her work. But her less than amused supporters would riposte that her man, being the measure of all things, would not make a simple reifying mistake, and would have by 1999 pulled out of the railroad business, for their Objectivism isn't confusable with objective things as such. And, the intersection set of intelligent "designers" and what are sometimes called "Randroids" is probably null or at most, unity, consisting, if unity, of a single nut bar with a Web site (one hopes).

By admitting novelistically that bad, weak men could flourish in a bad, weak society able to muddle through in the manner in which the postwar United Kingdom muddled through the 1970s, Rand, her detractors would point out, was essentially making the same mistake as her worst enemies. She was, they'd declare, asking for society to become heartless and Objective so as to better be an isomorph of the ideal mind and ideal man. She was, according to some of her detractors, merely singing from a Soviet songbook (about the New Socialist Man) in another register, and at a higher pitch (perhaps that of Tony Soprano).

However, these objections themselves indicate the depths which Rand explored and she needs to be taken seriously. Not least because Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve who is retiring next year and who is one of the most powerful men in the world, is and apparently remains influenced by Rand (he wrote a passionate defense of Atlas Shrugged as a letter to the New York Times book review on the publication of Rand's novel), it is very important to her detractors and her supporters to take Rand with the utmost seriousness. This formidable person would of course demand nothing less.

Use of the word 'archetype.'

In The Art of Fiction Rand says that her heroes are not in fact archetypes because they contain more aspects than what is necessitated by their perfection, i.e. if they were simply archetypes all the Randian heroes would be exactly the same. I'm removing it. I don't believe it's necessary to reference the term archetype because dissidents of Rand may believe that that's all they are, along with explanation, but if someone would like to do so I'd support it. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by D prime (talk • contribs)

I'm laughing at this. Alienus 14:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Nihilism

Quote : "She also encountered the philosophical ideas of Nietzsche, and loved his exaltation of the heroic and independent individual in Thus Spake Zarathustra. However, her enthusiasm soon waned due to Nietzsche's nihilism and psychological determinism; and she condemned his attack on rationality."

Sorry im going to have to remove the sentences after "Thus Spake Zaruthustra". It is incorrect because 1) Nietzsche was not a advocator of nihilism but rather despised it and condemned Christianity as being a 'nihilist religion'. However, he was the first to encounter nihilism and explore it, his beliefs on the 'ubermensch' have often been skewed as being called 'the nihilist philosopher' when actually it was the 'life affirming philosopher' who first used a nihilistic deconstruction of values and morals and formed his own free from influence. I don't believe Ayn Rand slated Nietzsche's "Psychological Determinism" as this would be quite contradictory from her own philosophies (which was largely influenced by Nietzschean philosophy and the Crime and punishment book which isn't to far off the mark from Nietzsche). --Raddicks 00:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I have removed Nietzsche from Ayn Rand's influences because there is absolutely no evidence that he influenced her, except in perhaps a negative way. She explicitly stated that he was one of the worst philosophers in history, and claimed that her only philosophical influence was Aristotle. 68.7.212.152 01:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Cats

After seeing the Ayn Rand biography, "A Sense of Life," I think we should work into the article her love of cats.

MSTCrow 00:38, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Care when reverting, & edit summaries

Joshua27: Please be more careful when reverting. Your edit summary said that you were reverting my deletions (and the rest of your edits had no edit summaries — note that these are required); what you in fact managed to do (apart from replacing material that I hadn't in fact deleted) was to remove the link to Petrograd University, and revert another editor's correction of a category. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Featured Article

How far is this article on the road to a featured article? --Mexaguil 2 July 2005 23:17 (UTC)

My take is that the article is in pretty good shape, but needs a little brushing up before it meets my personal standards for a featured article. The material is largely accurate, nothing major is missing, and it is well wikified. However, a few spots are awkwardly written, the bibliography needs cleanup, and there is a general absence of any specific source citations in the text, even for areas of controversy. Still, barring any major controversies over fixing those defects (or edits to introduce new ones), it could be feature-ready pretty quickly. --RL0919 14:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

External Links

Two things to discuss: one specific and one more general.

First, I just deleted a duplicate link for ARI Watch. Someone else did this earlier, and it was restored with a comment that the link had been "vandalized." I don't see any vandalism -- the identical link was on the list twice, so it is entirely appropriate to remove one of the two instances.

Second and more generally, I'm not sure if "ARI Watch" should even be on the list for this particular page. That site is about the Ayn Rand Institute, which was formed years after Rand was dead and buried. There is a separate page for the Institute, as well as one for the Objectivist movement. The ARI Watch link seems appropriate for those pages rather than this one. There are some other links that would also seem more appropriate for related pages rather than this page in particular.

Any thoughts on this from other Wikipedians are appreciated. --RL0919 21:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

After some thought, I've come to the conclusion that the link ought to be deleted from THIS page, and put on the Objectivism page. I believe that a page on a specific person ought to exclusively discuss that person's life, work, and influence. Ayn Rand certainly influenced the Ayn Rand Institute, and as such, the Institute ought to be (and is) discussed on this page. But the "ARI Watch" page was influenced far more by the ARI than by Rand herself. Another example of the same principle: Peter McLaren promotes Che, but that's no reason for an article criticizing the latter to appear on the former's page. --zenohockey 03:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment dated 18 Aug 2005: I will try to argue the following point:

  If the website of the Ayn Rand Institute -- 
  call it ARI -- is listed, then "ARI Watch" 
  should be listed as well.  

The reason is that ARI is not an honest representation of Ayn Rand's thought. Far from it. To make readers aware of this, "ARI Watch" reviews ARI using Ayn Rand's ideas.

I'm not saying remove ARI. But if it is kept, "ARI Watch" provides the necessary balance.

Another reason to include "ARI Watch" is that it features many quotes of Ayn Rand that are either not on the web or hard to find there.

ARI Watch is self-described as "The ‘Ayn Rand Institute’ under review." Its primary purpose is not to promote Ayn Rand's philosophy but to criticize ARI. ARI Watch does not belong in this article. Mwickens 13:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Reply (19 Aug 2005 About noon EDT): 'ARI Watch' cogently argues that ARI undermines Ayn Rand. If Wikipedia presents ARI as promoting Ayn Rand then Wikipedia ought, I think, to include 'ARI Watch' which truly promotes Ayn Rand.

If this is controversial, that is yet another reason why both views should be given an airing on Wikipedia.

Putting ARI Watch under the "Organizations promoting Ayn Rand's philosophy" heading is simply inaccurate. Its purpose is only secondarily to promote that philosophy. If ARI Watch is there, so could most of the other links under other headings.

It sounds like the real argument of the anonymous ARI Watch advocate(s) is that the Ayn Rand Institute itself does not belong on the list. If that's the point, they should argue for it rather than for fixing the alleged problem by demanding in-line refutation of the organization they think is illegitimate. Mwickens 18:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Reply (about 4:30 pm EDT): Yes, I don't think ARI belongs on the list. But ARI is there now, an accomplished fact. While ARI is there 'ARI Watch' ought to be there. Shall we allow ARI to get away with corrupting Ayn Rand's ideas without our providing some handy corrective, a corrective that goes right to the source: Ayn Rand herself?

Take for example two pages from 'ARI Watch': "Ayn Rand on Torture" and "Ayn Rand on Past Wars." These pages mention ARI only briefly, practically all their text is about what Ayn Rand wrote on these timely subjects or how her ideas apply to them.

Even if ARI is taken down, the fact that 'ARI Watch' promotes Ayn Rand's ideas still makes it a good link. But I don't see ARI being taken down, and staying down, soon. And even if it could be taken down permanently, I'd rather see ARI corrected with argument rather than eraser. -- Mark (author of all the replies so far)

Congratulations; you've convinced me. After studying the webpage more thoroughly, it seems that ARI Watch doesn't just criticize ARI, it also (or, perhaps, even primarily) defends its own reading of Rand's thought. It should be kept, but right under the link for ARI, and tabbed, so readers are aware that ARI Watch is largely a response to ARI's reading of Rand. --zenohockey 23:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Is ARI Watch an organization or a website? If the latter, even if it belongs in the article, it doesn't belong where it is now. Mwickens 19:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Minarchism

I'm uncomfortable with the recent anonymous edit that added the following text to the introduction: "She was one of history's most vehement advocates of minarchism." First of all, referring to someone as "one of history's most vehement advocates" of anything strikes me something other than a neutral fact — it is an evalutation or opinion. Also, "minarchy" and its cognates are not terms that Rand ever used to my knowledge, certainly not for self-description. Some of her admirers disclaim the term for that reason. This strikes me as closely related to the contentous question of calling her a "libertarian," which was placed into its own article. Finally, even with a more neutral wording (to reflect this as a category others place her in), I don't see a need for this point to be in the introduction, which was already quite long enough.

I don't want to take a sudden action on a potentially touchy political topic, but what I would like to do is cut this sentence from the introduction, but place a related mention in the "Politics" section farther down the page. It would go something like this: "She is often classified as an advocate of minarchism or libertarianism, although she did not use these terms to describe herself or her views. (See the article on Libertarianism and Objectivism for further discussion.)"

Feedback, please. I don't want to stir up a hornet's nest, but the sentence as-is strikes me as inappropriate. --RL0919 22:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd edited it before noticing your message; as you'll see, I agree that the wording was unacceptable, but I didn't move or delete the basic claim because I'm in position to judge. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm doing some additional research now to see if I can find any non-internet reference applying this term to Rand. The results thus far have been entirely negative — if authors are using this word, they aren't indexing it. The word is of recent coinage as well, so I'm not sure if it was even in use when Rand was alive. I can't find the word in dictionaries of that era, nor can I find a historical etymology of it. Based on internet discussion groups, I believe the term was coined by anarchists to describe an opposing group of libertarians, which would be a hit against its neutrality. Once I finish checking sources, odds are I'll move the mention of the term as I suggested above. --RL0919 18:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

She was an advocate of complete, UNCONDITIONAL, laissez-faire capitalism. Minarchism promotes the government being 'as small as possible,' which is incredibly vague. Considering the absoluteness/objectivity she used approaching what she supported, and consdiering her recorded distaste for libertarianism, I highly doubt she would have considered her self as 'minarchist.' I'm taking it out.69.192.139.156 23:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Uh, minarchists also advocate "complete, UNCONDITIONAL, laissez-faire capitalism", so what's your point? Yes, as small as possible is vague, but, since she most definitely was not an anarchist, and she did advocate some (minimal, as small as possible) government, she was a minarchist, by definition. Minarchism is not a movement, so far as I know. It's just a term used to differentiate believers in reducing government involvement from most aspects of our lives, which Rand most clearly was, from total anarchists, which Rand most clearly was not. Rand was the quintessential minarchist, even if the term was not yet in use during her lifetime. --Serge 01:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You ignored: "Considering the absoluteness/objectivity she used approaching what she supported, and consdiering her recorded distaste for libertarianism, I highly doubt she would have considered her self as 'minarchist.'" She never said that the government should be 'as small as possible.' This gives the libertarian impression that you should be 'reasonable' and be willing to not have it be 'too extreme.' She said that the government should be one, spacific, particular way, which was lassiez-faire capitalism.69.192.139.156 22:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I see two important questions here: First, is the idea that Rand is a "minarchist" a generally accepted fact, or a specific perspective? Second, is this particular important enough to belong in the summary at the top of the page, as opposed to being part of the later discussion? On the first point, the best evidence I have is that Rand never used this term herself, and professional scholars do not typically use it to describe her. The term appears to have originated in anarchist/non-anarchist disputes among libertarians, and "orthodox" Objectivists, who reject the labelling of Rand as a libertarian, typically also reject the use of this term. So I would treat it as a perspective about her, rather than simply describing her with the term. (That doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned, just that the wording needs to be adjusted.) On the second point, I would note that her politics is just one part of her philosophy (and an even smaller part of her overall life and career). Her political views are already (without the part about minarchism) described in the intro to an extent similar to the descriptions of other aspects of her philosophy. Therefore, I would say that this particular detail belongs in the more extended discussion of her political views later in the article. Serge's new version is far superior to the version I complained about initially, but I still plan to move it unless someone has a good argument for why this particular issue needs to be in the brief introduction of the article. --RL0919 02:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

To answer your first question, whether Rand being a "minarchist" is a "generally accepted fact", I really don't know. But to me, it seems obviously to be true by definition, and not even a matter of opinion. While she distanced herself (to put it mildly) from the term "libertarian", which carried a lot of emotional baggage for her (i.e., Nathaniel Branden), in its purest sense a libertarian is simply anyone who believes the NAP should never be violated, including by the state. In that sense, Rand clearly was a libertarian.

Now, among libertarians there is disagreement about the question of whether it's even possible to have a state that is not in violation of the NAP. So, libertarians are neatly divided into two camps: the anarchists and the minarchists; all libertarians must be one or the other. The anarchists believe the existence of any state is inherently a violation of the NAP. The minarchists believe that some "minimal" state is not only possible, but required, to maximize the protection of individual liberty within a society.

Is it important to label Rand as a minarchist in the opening paragraph? Probably not, but I think it is important to convey her beliefs regarding the proper role of government, and I know of no more clear and concise way to do so than to refer to her as a minarchist.

By the way, thanks for the complement about improving the wording. I believe I also improved the definition of minarchist at the minarchism Wiki, but it still has a ways to go. At least it no longer vaguely says "as small as possible". As small as possible to accomplish what? Here's the current opening sentence:

In civics, minarchism, sometimes called minimal statism, is the view that the size, role and influence of government in a free society should be minimal - only large enough to protect the liberty of each and every individual, without violating the liberty of any individuals itself.

Let me know what you think. --Serge 17:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

See? The term libertarian CAN be used to define her, but to avoid confusion and false affiliation, she didn't want it. We should not apply terms to people, when other terms are available (lassiez-faire capitalist) and they never used it themselves. I think it's obvious that this should be taken off 69.192.139.156 00:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

But a laissez-faire capitalist could be an anarchist. So can a libertarian (which is one reason Rand gave for not liking the label). But a minarchist, by definition, cannot be an anarchist. --Serge 00:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The difference is that she choose to be called a lasseiz-faire capitalist. It is questionable whether or not she would consider herself a 'minarchist.' Wikipedia is supposed to document fact only, is it not? D prime 04:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

No laissez-faire capitalist is an anarchist. The argument that laissez-fair equals anarchy is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. For a market to be free in the first place, robbery and murder cannot be legal. It is only when there is a de-facto monopoly on the use of harmful, deadly and coercive force that a market within its jurisdiction can be free. A state of war ("competition in the forcible restraint of men") is not a free market. Nor is minarchist a legitimate word in the English language, but rather, an anti-concept to obfuscate the notion of a free industrial society. translator

Contradictory sentences

The article claims:

One notable exception to the general disregard for Rand in the analytic philosophy community is the essay "On the Randian Argument" by philosopher Robert Nozick, which appears in his collection Socratic Puzzles. While some have suggested that Nozick's own somewhat libertarian views were influenced by Rand's work, Nozick's essay is strongly critical of Rand.

These two sentences contradict each other: the first sentence says that Nozick was an "exception to the general disregard for Rand", while the second sentence states Nozick was "strongly critical of Rand." This needs to be fixed. —Lowellian (talk) 19:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

The sentences are not contradictory. "Disregard" means ignoring, not low regard. Perhaps "disregard of" rather than "disregard for" would avoid any potential confusion. Mwickens 20:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

yes — "disregard for" certainly implies a positively negative (?) view; "of" is grammatically correct if you want to describe neglect. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I see. I was considering the wrong one of the two definitions of disregard (from dictionary.com):

1. To pay no attention or heed to; ignore.
2. To treat without proper respect or attentiveness.

While, changing from "for" to "of" would improve the situation slightly, I think it is better yet to simply substitute another turn of phrase. I have rephrased to avoid the word "disregard." —Lowellian (talk) 23:19, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ayn Rand and Leo Strauss, Pavlov too

Leo Strauss

Pavlov

I have always been fascinated on the possibility that they met each other, in person or by hearsay.

Did they??

What about Freud, plus Jung??

What about Skinner and John B. Watson??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner

Not quite as erudite as the above,

But nonetheless, have corrected typo, line 4 controversy "acquaintance"

WWords

Some suggest that much antagonism toward her philosophy in the academy is due to the political stance of her philosophy; specifically, the embrace of capitalism and denunciation of altruist ethics which they annoys what they see as a traditionally leftist academia.

Who are these some, and where did they do their suggesting? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted more unattributed claims:

• "These critics argue that the real reason Rand avoided academic publications was that she knew her writing would not stand up to serious scrutiny by trained thinkers"
• "Her critics point out that the accessibility argument does not justify her wholesale refusal to write for academic journals"
• "Indeed, her work is generally held in low esteem by professional philosophers, who find her expositions to be inadequate in their treatment of seminal issues in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics."
• "These critics argue that the real reason Rand avoided academic publications was that she knew her writing would not stand up to serious scrutiny by trained thinkers"

RJII 18:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but play fair. The comments attributed to "Rand's defenders" on the subject of peer-reviewed journals are equally mysterious and unscourced, so I've removed this too. In addition, this Darryl Wright fellow hasn't published anything on Rand that I can find, and so if you cite his views, also cite a publication which can be found. --Ben golub 20:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yaron Brook

Howdy, I did a little clean up and expansion of Yaron Brook, the current director of ARI. I'm hoping that some people with more experience than myself might be able ot take a look at this page and expand it a bit. Klonimus 15:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

content dispute on coercive monopoly

There appears to be a content dispute on the coercive monopoly article. If this subject is of interest to you, please reply to the straw poll at Talk:Coercive_monopoly. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 16:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

In this dispute note Ayn Rand's, Nathaniel Branden's, and Alan Greenpsan's explicit definition of coercive monopoly. Be aware of nature of their argumentation that proposes that a coercive monopoly can only be the result of government intervention. Please note the distinction between the definition of coercive monopoly, and the alleged causes of it. These essays are responses to the mainstream position that laissez-faire is the cause of coercive monopoly, coercive monopoly being explicitly defined as a monopoly that is immune from competition. RJII 16:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Too many digressions

The major works section strays into a book report on The Fountainhead. It's not even very NPOV: "Peter Keating may be one of the most brilliantly portrayed conflicted characters of literature."

Most of the stuff about the Fountainhead's characters should just be outright cut. --Starwed 06:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right. I cut all the character descriptions to make that section more in line with the details of Rand's other novels. --zenohockey 17:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Controversy

This is mostly to Serche: I have done my best to combine the recent fighting over this section into a compromise. I object to Serche's "like all controversial philosophies" sentence because it adds no content -- controversial means critized so it adds nothing to say that "Like all criticized philosophies, Rand's has been criticized." There is also no excuse for removing the data about Leiter's survey, which substantiates the claim about Rand being ignored. If you're going to refer to anthologies, I have no problem with that, but cite some so people can gauge exactly what anthologies you're talking about. The most prestigious ones still tend to exclude Rand, and that shouldn't be hidden in some vague unattributed wording.

Most of your changes to the Nozick paragraph have been completely unobjectionable so I have worked them in where appropriate. Thank you for the improvements.

The claims attributed to "Rand's defenders" in the section about not writing in peer reviewed journals need to be sourced if they are to be used. Wikipedia is not a debate forum, so presenting your own opinions about why it was legitimate to publish this way do not count unless they have been promulgated in the literature. It should be easy to find.

The edits about one-dimensional characters have been great, so I have left them.

Please do not revert mindlessly to your pevious version -- if you have issues with my compromise, let us discuss them. --Ben golub 19:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Reply from Serche: Regarding the "Controversy" section. I edited it with two things in mind.

One was to eliminate the occasionally turgid prose. Wikipedia is a general resource so high academic phrasing is inappropriate.

The other was to make sure that both sides of the controversies are included. Rand is criticized for x, y, and z, and there are standard replies that readers should know about. So, Ben (or whoever), I do not see why your re-editing keeps eliminating the replies.

That said, there are legitimate issues about how much referencing and elaboration of arguments is appropriate without losing the flow and bogging down in details.

For example, one sign of Rand’s entering the mainstream is that she now appears in textbooks and anthologies. Here’s a very partial list: Louis Pojman’s Philosophy: The Quest for Truth; G. Bowie, Meredith Michaels, and Robert Solomon’s Twenty Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy; Joel Feinberg’s Reason & Responsibility; Judith A. Boss, Perspectives on Ethics; John Burr and Milton Goldinger’s, Philosophy & Contemporary Issues; Gail M. Presbey, Karsten J. Strul, and Richard E. Olsen’s The Philosophical Quest: A Cross-Cultural Reader; and many others. But I will not include that list in the article because it is stylistically turgid, not likely to be of interest to the general Wikipedia reader, and it detracts from the flow.

I do not understand why the mention of the Ayn Rand Society at the American Philosophical Association has been deleted repeatedly. For almost two decades there has been a professional association of philosophers in the profession’s major academic organization—that is relevant to judging Rand’s reception in the academic world.

About the Leiter survey. I’m a fan in general of Leiter’s number-crunching, and including his survey is arguable. But the important point is already in the Wiki text: there is not much engagement with Rand in analytic circles. That is not controversial, so there’s no special need to add an awkward sentence about Leiter—just as there’s no special need to list the textbooks in which Rand’s writings appear.

And about Rand’s not writing for peer-reviewed journals. That is a standard criticism—and there’s no need to reference that widely-made criticism. The same holds for the standard response to the criticism: many important philosophical writers didn’t write for peer-reviewed journals or the academic organs of their day. Both the criticism and the response should be included in the Wiki article. But here is where the judgment call comes in: either both the criticism and the response should be referenced, or—since this Wiki entry is for a general reader and these are both obvious points—neither really needs footnotes or interspersed sources. I favor the latter.

If you're going to include the Ayn Rand society, it's only fair to include Leiter's data. It would be a violation of NPOV to substantiate the claims that she is entering the mainstream, but not to substantiate the opponents' claim that she is still irrelevant. --Ben golub 02:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Straw Man argument?

"Rand has sometimes been viewed with suspicion for her practice of presenting her philosophy in fiction and non-fiction books aimed at a general audience rather than publishing in peer-reviewed journals."

Has any notable person pressed this as an objection? I view with suspicion suspiciously vague phrases like "viewed with suspicion." I think this graf superfluos. Anyone disagree? --Christofurio 00:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe replace the "viewed with suspicion" words with "criticized." --Anagnorisis 05:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

With so many things that went around her, wouldn't it add flavor to the article having a trivia section? We could add comments about miscellaneous anecdotes surrounding her life. --Anagnorisis 05:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Spinoza1111 07:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)"Hey, Harv, are you into Trivia?" "I'm talkin' to ya, ain't I?" - Harvey Pekar, AMERICAN SPLENDOR

No, Rand deserves to be taken seriously.

"Seriousness" does not exclude fun, Anonymous (if you're referring to Spinoza1111's blurb above, of course, you're probably right). Personally, I'm all for a trivia section (not because of any concerns about flavor, but because I think it could add details about her and her life that don't fit into other sections). --zenohockey 00:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Rand v. Kant -- more than meets the eye

It was interesting that the page cites Immanuel Kant as the philosopher whom Ayn singled out as "evil." Interesting, because both her epistemological and ethical projects were so similar to his, in principle.

He wanted rational basis for the inductive principle, to avoid Hume's radical separation between observation and reason.

She declared "Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival", which appears remarkably similar to Kant's account of the senses. (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro)

He wanted to find a rational basis for ethics, a Categorical Imperative that justified itself. He concluded that each man must "Always act in such a way that you treat others not merely as a means, but always also at the same time an end."

She declared "Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others."

And yet ... Kant headed into an altruistic direction with the Categorical Imperative, while Rand ended up at Rational Self-Interest.

Anyone done any research on this? Are the similarities worth mentioning in either this article or the Objectivism article?

--jrcagle 01:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not unusual for people to be hostile to positions that are generally similar to their own but differ in conclusion or flavor. Consider Rand's hostility to those who call themselves Libertarians. Her own views fully qualify as Libertarian, but she was angry at them for not accepting the rest of Objectivism along with it. Alienus 02:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Never mind. Someone already pointed this out in the Objectivism article. I suppose I should be hostile (nstead of embarrassed) ;-). --jrcagle 05:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC) (P.S. I agree with you that her views are Libertarian, but you must understand that Libertarians aren't fully *rational* because they don't accept her governing of their beliefs. :-P)

Uhm, you made a little mistake there; you forgot to capitalize the 'r' in Rational. See, lower-case rational means based on reason, while uppper-case Rational means based on Rand and worshipped by all people who do not deserve our hatred. Glad that's settled. Alienus 06:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

An ignorant loudmouth

“The American philosophy of the Rights of Man was never grasped fully by European intellectuals. Europe’s predominant idea of emancipation consisted of changing the concept of man as a slave of the absolute state embodied by a kind, to the concept of man as a slave of the absolute state embodied by ‘the people’… European thinkers did not notice that during the 19th century, the galley slaves had been replaced by the inventors of steamboats, and the village blacksmiths by the owners of blast furnaces.” (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p13)

The ‘Rights of Man’ is Tom Paine’s translation of French Droit des Hommes, definitely males, implicitly just white males. Paine was born in England. the whole ‘rights’ philosophy had been developed in Europe, carried into slave-owning America. He and Rousseau are not in Ayn Rand’s index, nor is Adam Smith.

The steamship was also invented in Europe, and replaced the sailing ships that had always been the norm outside of the Mediterranean. The very last galley slaves were replaced just as plantation slavery was blossoming in Free America.

It is also odd to hold up blast furnaces as a better expression of freedom than village blacksmiths: wage labour dependent on a rich owner as a replacement for individual small producers. You could call it necessary or more productive, but how is freedom is best served by sweeping aside local production? I suppose it comes naturally when you are full of evangelical zeal: everything capitalist must be free, even if ignorant people who used to have their own independent businesses have the delusion that market forces has made them less free and dependent on others for their lives.

Ayn Rand ‘proves’ the merit of capitalism by simply crediting it with everything good, and blaming the state for everything bad. Thus the 1914-18 war is blamed on monarchist Germany and Czarist Russia (Germany was by then an Empire), who dragged in their freer allies (page 37). Which is sheer ignorance: France was not unambiguously obliged to support Russia, and Britain made a free decision to join a war in which Britain had been expected to stay neutral.

By a similar logic, the long peace following the Napoleonic Wars is credited to capitalism (page 38). Never mind that the USA had been at war with Britain from 1812 to 1814, and that two of the powers that helped make the Napoleonic peace were Czarist Russia and the Prussian Monarchy. She counts Russia and Prussia as capitalist for making peace in 1815, but not capitalist for making war in 1914.

She says 'objective' about things she feels strongly about, regardless of whether they are objective, things that any detached observer ought to believe.

--GwydionM 19:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that she let her politics skew her view of history. This is not news. Alienus 23:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I said she was ignorant. Richard Dawkins lets his belief skew his books on evolution, but is still well-informed and interesting. Ayn Rand makes really simple errors of fact. She shows 'encyclopaedic ignorance' - not knowning things that you could get from any decent encyclopaedia, if you were not already convinced of the 'objectiveness' of your own first thoughts. --GwydionM 18:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Spinoza1111 08:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Unfortunately I have to agree with Gwydion. Ayn Rand as an American philosopher is an embarassment with her cultishness and refusal to read Kant. Nonetheless, we should do her ghost the favor she never did Kant, and that's take her Very Seriously. It is to me my American duty by so doing to show what a laugh and a half her "philosophy" is, and as a way of apologizing to the rest of the world for The Great American Disaster...constituted by us Americans voting Reagan into office in 1980.

Spinoza1111 08:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)But this is not the place. My understanding is that while POVs and new facts (such as the fact above that the Bible does retail an anti-wealth story in the parable of Dives and Lazarus) are useful here, extended flamefests are not.

Not quite. Talk pages are intented to be used for improving the article. I hardly think this is accomplished by citing an anecdote from the Bible—which, as you are surely aware, would not have convinced Rand or any of her followers. --zenohockey 20:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Spinoza1111 08:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)To get to NPOV go by the way of POV.

'Feed The Rich' policies

Ayn Rand was eccentric in the Keynesian era, someone who ignored the lessons of the Great Depression and the success of the New Deal. Bizarre in her definition of big business as America’s persecuted minority (page 44)—this was back in 1961, when racial segregation was widespread and women lacked many rights that are now taken for granted. Yet Ayn Rand was gripped by a self-consistent madness: she has defined market forces as always fair.

Since markets are always free, provided there is no state role, then anything that happens through market forces is not coercion, even if ignorant people suppose that financial pressures are forcing them to do something they didn’t want. To have your way of life destroyed and an alien social pattern imposed on you through runaway market forces is to be free. To be the most privileged stratum, yet subject to some social rules, is to be persecuted. (Or it is if you are a big businessman—very few businesswomen in those days, and Ayn Rand saw nothing odd in that.)

Ayn Rand’s policy–big business not nearly privileged enough–became government policy in the 1980s, under the supervision of her one-time disciple Alan Greenspan. The economic benefits of the Keynesian semi-capitalist system were fairly shared between rich, poor and middle-income groups, the entire benefit of economic growth in the USA since the 1970s has gone to the richest 10%, especially to a dominant elite of some one million dollar-millionaires.

Those parts of the Keynesian system that benefit the rich have not been touched. The government underpins the financial markets and subsidises farmers, who then mostly vote against subsidies or protection for anyone else.

--GwydionM 19:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that she was a Libertarian. This is not news. Alienus 23:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Spinoza1111 07:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)No, he was saying that (1) Rand was a libertarian, that (2) libertarians suck, and (most important) (3) libertarianism sucks and blows because in a dynamic system, if you do not feed Dives you must feed Lazarus.

Any questions?

[Oh, all right. Dives was a poor man who was scratching his hairy ass in front of the Temple every day with his other paw out for quarters and dimes. Lazarus passed him every day and would not give Dives a penny.]

[After Judgement day, Lazarus was a burnin in that pit which is bottomless and he called upon Dives, who was walking on the blessed land, for to get a drop of water, but Dives said, I am in glory and you have what you deserve.]

[It's a harsh little old tale even if it was set to music by Ralph Vaughan Williams but like any parable it has to be read widdershins.]

[For we're not to question what happens after Glory in traditional religion of the sort from which this tale emerges, only to reflect that old Lazarus made a choice for which old Lazarus was responsible.]

[Libertarians say I need not choose, this life of mine here extends in all directions. I am no widow, and another man's death is news to me but no more. I am a rock, I am an island, and an island never cries.]

To 'Rock' (or 'Island')

You quote a load of words said by other people. A normal social process, but have you thought about (a) why you do this (b) why you are able to do this.

Libertarians are mostly conformist characters who have no idea even why they conform, or what else might be possible. They are liberated because they follow the rules without anyone coercing them to.

That is indeed the only way a libertarian or anarchic system can work, everyone obeying spontaneously so no one need by coerced. Which strikes me as a cure much worse than the disease.

--GwydionM 22:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This thread is a wonderful place to remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor is it a soapbox. Especially in light of recent events, we don't need to project the image of a bunch of Usenet rejects. --zenohockey 02:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Good news in article sited above - anonymous users will no longer be able to create new articles. The question is: why allow anonymous users at all? In my experience, a large majority of anon users are vandals. Libertarianism is all well and good, but... Camillus^{talk|contribs} 09:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Just FYI to those reading this section, especially late at night: the stuff in [ brackets ] above is *either* a bizarre parody *or* a badly misremembered version of Luke 16:19-31. — Preceding unsigned comment added by jrcagle (talk • contribs)

Spinoza1111 08:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Oh? Badly remembered?

Maybe I grow old, so I check out.

Oops.

"There was a rich man 13 who dressed in purple garments and fine linen and dined sumptuously each day. And lying at his door was a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who would gladly have eaten his fill of the scraps that fell from the rich man's table. Dogs even used to come and lick his sores. When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, and from the netherworld, where he was in torment, he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he cried out, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.' Abraham replied, 'My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented."

Now, the original may have been mistranslated. Perhaps old Dives pissed on Lazarus from a rich man's heaven like unto Dubai because Lazarus didn't have Prosperity Consciousness and wasn't Objective enuf.

But probably not. The folk memory of the tale appears to be accurate, and the Bible usually takes the poor man's side. See not only all the Gospels, see also Amos.

Nothing is meant to be parody.

This Discussion page, however, is no place for a flamefest nor a religious rant. I entered the room because I felt that for the sake of NPOV, the article should not be written exclusively by Randroids, and that it should engage other voices for the sake of NPOV.

I find that my original post improved the quality of the controversy section and although most of it was nuked (its original text is above) the point remains that Rand has villains succeed in disordered "socialist" societies to be sure. Which will raise the question in the sufficiently thoughtful reader's mind as to whether Rand's politics are circular.

The article does, IMO, a pretty good job now in giving a Fair and Balanced image of Rand so I be chilling.

Edit war on ARIWatch link

This is getting silly. I've seen this link added and deleted repeatedly, and without discussion, which goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. Let's hash it out right here and now. I'll start by saying the link should stay. Yes, it's not friendly to ARI, which considers itself the high church of Rand, but just because it's not canonical doesn't mean it's irrelevant. To list the ARI without ARIWatch is NPOV. Alienus 07:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I would also let the link stay. --Anagnorisis 07:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about it being NPOV to remove, but since there are countless other web links, leave it. Dyslexic agnostic 08:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Briefly, I consider it NPOV because it entails sharing the ARI interpretation of Rand while silencing the alternatives. In fact, I suspect that some of the people who've deleted the link are ARI loyalists. Alienus 17:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The link should stay, to give readers both sides of the debate over Rand's legacy and real positions. --zenohockey 16:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

What does a list of anti-war essays have to do with Ayn Rand? How is it an "organization promoting Ayn Rand's philosophy?" This like would be appropriate for the Ayn Rand Institute article, not this one.

Btw, the essays on that site claim that ARI misrepresents Ayn Rand’s views – yet they ignore many of her own essays and statements, such as those in the newly released “Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A,” which are far more radical than the things coming out of ARI.--GreedyCapitalist 18:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they claim ARI is not an accurate represenation of Rand's views. You clearly disagree, which is your POV. The article, however, is supposed to lack a POV, so I've restored the link that you erased. Alienus 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Update: There's been another edit attack against the ARI Watch link, this time without even bothering to pretend that some effort was being made to seek a consensus. No comment was made here and no name was associated with the IP. So far, the responses have largely supported the continued inclusion of this link, and the one stated disagreement offered only a subjective basis. As such, I feel that I have a mandaste to prevent the deletion of the link. Alienus 21:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the link should stay. --Anagnorisis 23:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

There's been a consistent pattern of vandalism by 65.115.199.90, both on Objectivist Philosophy and Ayn Rand. The vandalism is the removal of the ARI Watch link, presumably because the vandal is a supporter of ARI. Whenever this comes up for a vote, the response is strongly towards keeping the link, but the vandal doesn't much care for consensus. I'm thinking it's time to consider blocking their access to these two pages, so as allow us to stop wasting time cleaning up their vandalism. I think the pattern is quite visible if you look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=65.115.199.90&offset=0&limit=500 Alienus 20:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The vandalism is the ADDITION of the ARI Watch link which, as correctly pointed out, is a collection of subjective, one-sided and largely inaccurate essays. Note that other links that point to essays critical of Objectivism or Rand are not being questioned, as they present objective, well thought out, and ACCURATE critiques. There is definitely NOT clear consensus on including this link, and by default it must be ommitted. --Papep 14:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the essays on ARI Watch are "subjective," they reflect the views of a significant number of people, from all parts of the political and philosophical spectra. They should therefore stay. --zenohockey 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me rephrase: The quality, accuracy, and often falsely-based bias of ARI Watch is so inferior to encyclopedic standards that the link shouldn't be considered unless there's absolute consensus, which there obviously isn't. ARI Watch is basically a personal diatribe or polemic designed explicitly to smear a philosophy and its associated writings with propaganda that amounts to little more than pseudoscience. As I mentioned before, the other links to critical essays and similar writings are perfectly valid as relevant educational references critiquing the philosophy, but ARI Watch is most definitely not. --Papep 18:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That's your POV. Fortunately, the article doesn't reflect any one POV, including your own. You don't have to like ARIWatch, but the consensus is that it belongs here. For NPOV reasons alone, we should have it so long as we link to ARIWatch. Moreover, despite the consensus for keeping, the link has been vandalized repeatedly by people who don't leave edit comments. This in itself is reason enough to keep it! Alienus 20:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the POV is being pushed by the ARIWatch-icsts, and I'm simply pointing out that the link doesn't meet Wikipedia's Reliable Sources requirements, as the other links do. If I created a blog or personal anti-this or anti-that web page, that doesn't automatically qualify it. The site contains red flags, lacks cohesive editorial oversight, lacks any apparent reliability, and includes "claims which strongly support one or another party in an ongoing dispute".

As I've said elsewhere, people can make up their own minds about whether or not the site "lacks any apparent reliabilty"—a claim for which you have offered no evidence. People aren't stupid; they know that websites, especially those ending in .com, can have quite a bit of chaff. It's not your decision to make, Papep, nor is it mine -- it's the reader's. --zenohockey 01:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it's the reader's decision to THINK about what they're reading. However, that's not a license to link to any propagandist website. It seems that the ARIWatch cultists will have it their way, regardless of Wikipedia's high standards, so I will stop wasting my words. --Papep 13:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Birthdate

The article lists Ayn Rand's birthdate as Feb. 2, 1905. Is this the Julian or Gregorian calendar? (Russia was on the Julian calendar at the time, but most of the world had already switched to the Gregorian.) Whatever it is, the article should clarify this point. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Different calendars. --דוד ♣ D Monack 20:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Feb 2 is the Gregorian calendar date. The date on her birth certificate is Jan 20 (Old Style), but other than the picture of her birth certificate in one of her biographies, I've never seen the date presented using anything other than the Gregorian date. --RL0919 00:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

positively evil?

I'm new here, so please forgive my ignorance of any niceties of form. I added the picture of Rand's grave marker, and I am gratified that no one has seen fit to change it (yet). Now, I'd like to suggest a change to the text -- the phrase "positively evil" seems awkward to me -- how about "downright evil" instead? 69.243.232.38 00:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. --zenohockey 01:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"nearly censored"?

In the section "Major works", two Italian film adaptations of We the Living are said to have been "nearly censored", which I found confusing. When a film is said to be censored, this usually implies that parts were changed or removed by the authorities -- although it can also be said that the authorities merely looked at it but made no changes (which is the case with most letters soldiers send home). From the context, it seems to me that someone was trying to say that the films were almost kept from distribution by the Italian government, but in the end were released because Mussolini thought they were "anti-Soviet". Could someone who knows the details of this incident confirm my reading from the context is correct & make the necessary changes? -- llywrch 18:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

external links

These were cut down without comment and with bias, so I mostly reverted the changes. I did trim down duplicate entries, though, such as the multiple links to different parts of the same NobelSoul page. I also noticed that, as usual, the ARI Watch link was removed, so I'm wondering if the vandal is an orthodox ARI loyalist. Alienus 16:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Not likely. ARI enthusiasts don't like NobleSoul, as it links to TOC. --zenohockey 22:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, then maybe it's general vandalism. Alienus 22:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

One of the only philosophers

Hi, Zenohockey. I reverted your edit calling Aristotle "one of the only" philosophers to influence AR. "One of the few" would make sense, but what is the citation? If she said Aristotle was the only one to influence her, that's what she said, even if Spinoza did also influence her. Seeing as the quote isn't referenced, however, it's hard to check. --Slashme 06:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There may well be a gap between who she says influenced her and who is generally understood to have been an influence. For example, I seem to remember that she at one point admitted to influence from Nietzsche but repudiated him later. Alienus 18:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I found a quote referencing Aquinas:

[Q:] Besides Aristotle and Ayn Rand, have any other philosophers identified important philosophic truth?

[A:] Yes, Thomas Aquinas. ... He was valuable in clarifying and developing many Aristotelian ideas.

Ayn Rand Answers (New York: NAL, 2005) 148.

J. Raibley of The Objectivist Center lists Rand's influences as: "Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, Spinoza, Locke, Nietzsche."

And a passage from We the Living that was later cut is frighteningly Nietzchean: "What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?" [1]

If there are no objections after a while, I'll list the above influences. --zenohockey 22:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy Portal

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Portal#Use_of_portal_links_on_websites for a discussion on whether to include a link to the Philosophy Portal. --Slashme 11:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ayn Rand Did NOT oppose gay rights

I am removing Ayn Rand from the LGBT rights opposition category because she specifically stated that anti-homosexual laws violated individual rights and should repealed. True, she did state that homosexuality "is immoral and disgusting," (though she seems to have changed her views of homosexuality's morality later in life). In any case, she did NOT oppose gay rights.

She said it was "immoral and disgusting", and she opposed laws that guaranteed equal rights or recognized hate crimes. In other words, she would support the right of a business owner to fire an employee purely on the basis of sexual orientation. I think that's more than sufficient reason to leave her on the LGBT rights opposition category, don't you? Alienus 01:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No. She opposed hate crime laws because she viewed them as government regulation of ideas, not because of anti-homosexual antipathy. Similarly, she believed that business owners had the right to fire an employee for ANY reason (likewise an employee had the right to quit for any reason). You could, with equal logic, call her a racist, an anti-semite, anti-tall, anti-fat, anti-Christian, anti-atheist,... ad infinitum because she opposed those laws. The fact remains that in her statements on homosexuality, she supported repealing laws that targeted homosexuals, and Objectivists today support gay marriage (for example, see http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=3513). If I support the right of say, a neo-Nazi's right to free speech does that make me a Nazi, or anti-Jewish rights?(unsigned)

Speech is not action. I support the right of Klansmen to march, but not to lynch. I even support the right of Rand to say homosexuality is "immoral and disgusting", but unlike her, I don't see why we should allow companies to hire and fire on the basis of irrelevancies such as sexual orientation, ethnicity or religion. As for same-sex marriage, since when do Libertarians (including Objectivists) support the notion of the government sanctioning marriage as anything more than a contract between two people? Anyhow, the only problem with the category (other than your dislike of it) is that it wasn't cited. I fixed that now. Alienus 05:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a distinct difference between lynching someone (using force) and banning people (for whatever reason) from using your property. Ayn Rand did not argue that it was moral to discriminate on this kind of basis in the hiring and firing of people (actually, she argued the opposite), but no one's rights are being violated because someone else refuses to work with him. It is a violation of property rights to make companies institute (whether rational or irrational) hiring practices they do not agree with. Ayn Rand upheld the sanctity of property rights; she did not propose anti-homosexual legislation.(unsigned)

Uhm, you're not actually disagreeing with me. You've admitted than Rand consider homosexuality immoral and disgusting, and that she supports the right of businesses to fire people for being gay. That's enough. Any interpretation you add past this point is purely POV and irrelevant. Unless you can come up with a consensus of editors or some citations strong enough to overturn my own, I consider this matter settled. Alienus 05:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am disagreeing with you. Just because someone thinks that homosexuality is immoral does not mean that he wants to discriminate against it legally. Also, upholding the right of people to act by their own judgment (however irrationally, as in the case of discrimination based on race or sexual orientation, for example) does not mean that someone is somehow opposing the rights of people who belong to the discriminated group. Again, Ayn Rand would have supported the right of businessmen to hire or fire people for ANY reason. If I follow your logic then Ayn Rand is against every single group of people and people like Milton Friedman, Adam Smith, Friedrich von Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Justin Raimondo, etc. all belong in the LGBT rights opposition category. No one has a RIGHT to use someone else's property without his consent, whether or not the owner's lack of consent is rational or not. (unsigned; when will you learn to sign?)

You're free to disagree, but I'm obligated to disregard. Unless you have something stronger than your POV, I see no reason to allow you to censor the page. If someone calls homosexuality immoral and disgusting, and wants to allow companies to fire gays, this is more than sufficient to put her in the "LGBT rights opposition" category. Your POV is noted, but irrelevant. I realize you're very new to Wiki, since you don't even know to sign your name and you're about to hit the 3RR. If you revert again, I will be forced to report you. Alienus 06:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine, put her in the category as long as you also put anyone else who upholds the rights to total use and disposal of one's own property as well. Again, by your definition of "rights," you would have to put Friedman, Smith, von Hayek, Rothbard, Raimondo, and everyone who claims to uphold capitalism or libertarianism. Your interpretation of rights seems rather subjective, especially in light of the fact that Rand believed that homosexuals had the right to marry and to engage in any consensual sexual behavior they chose. Finally, by your logic, Rand (along with the other names I've mentioned) belongs simultaneously in any "anti-semite," "White supremacist," "Black supremacist," "Feminist," or "anti-Feminist" categories, because she upheld the political right to refuse to associate with anyone for ANY reason, whether that reason was rational or not (she did not hold that it was moral to do so). If you feel the need to report me, then do so, although I believe that in adding her into the LGBT rights opposition category, you are asserting your own POV regarding the nature of rights. (unsigned still)

Your point seems to be that she opposed all human rights whenever they conflicted with property rights, hence she was neutral. Perhaps this is the case, but the argument fails on two counts.

1) She called it immoral and disgusting. This is not neutrality.

2) She opposed such mainstays of the LGBT rights movement as protection from being fired on the sole basis of sexual orientation/identity.

In short, at best your argument demonstrates that she belongs in some other anti-rights categories. If so, let others add her. I'm just preserving a reasonable addition that someone else made, and I will continue to do so unless and until there is good reason to stop. Good reason would include a strong consensus or clear counterevidence. Alienus 04:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, nameless IP from San Diego, you broke the 3RR. For a minute, you confused me by switching from 68.7.212.152 to 66.27.122.84, but then you revealed yourself by replying above, still without signature. You're not fooling anyone. If you don't quit this edit war, I will report you for rule violation and get you blocked on both of these IP's. Alienus 04:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, sorry, but I don't know how to sign. Anyway here's a quotation from the Objectivist Center's summation of Ayn Rand's views on homosexuality and rights: "However, this moral fact has no political implications. While many conservatives believe that homosexuality should be outlawed and many liberals believe that homosexuals should be given special rights, Objectivism holds that as long as no force is involved, people have the right to do as they please in sexual matters, whether or not their behavior is considered by others to be or is in fact moral. And since individual rights are grounded in the nature of human beings as human beings, homosexuals do not deserve any more or less rights than heterosexuals." By implication, you would hold that everyone who upholds property rights is anti- LGBT rights; at most, one could say that such people (including Rand) are against many aspects of the LGBT movement, but not against LGBT rights. If there is a category for "anti-LGBT movement," I would support Rand's placement in it. But it is absurd to say she belongs in any category opposing LGBT rights. Lastly, I was not trying to "fool" anyone by using a different computer; I was away from my own at the time. Report me if you like. (forever unsigned)

Ok, I will. In fact, I just did [2]. As I suggested in my report, you seem to be a newbie with neither an understanding of nor a respect for the way things work here. If the admins are paying attention, you will be given a harsh reminder that may even teach you not to launch edit wars.

In any case, thank you for proving my point for me. The quote sided with the conservative notion that the LGBT community is demanding special rights, and uses this as the basis for opposing these rights. The problem, of course, is that there's nothing "special" about equality.

Just today, I revealed my sexual orientation at work, effectively "outing" myself by admitting I was in a long-term sexual relationship with a woman. Luckily for me, I'm male, so I wasn't at any risk. If I were female and the world was as Rand would like it, I could have been fired summarily and without legal recourse. Without the law mandating equality, the majority wins, so ostensible neutrality is itself partisan. Alienus 08:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree totall with placement of Ayn Rand in category, as you know; I also believe it involves POV. I would like to suggest a more neutral position, namely, renaming the LGBT rights opposition category LGBT movement opposition. This I think is more neutral, and I would support placing Rand in that category, just as she was against the feminist movement, but supported women's having careers (which was atypical in her time) and abortion rights. (LaszloWalrus)

The parallel problem affects her stance on feminism, in that she may have supported a subset of the rights that feminists demanded for women, but only an insufficient subset. For example, I expect that she was against the ERA, as it would have been an example of guaranteeing a positive right to be protected by the government from being underpaid and otherwise discriminated against.

Essentially, Rand's libertarian view of rights made her incapable of supporting anything but negative and contractual rights, which permanently puts her at odds with fundamentally non-libertarian movements, including these two. In fact, my OR suggests that many followers of Rand are quite hostile to feminism because it's seen as collectivist and, uhm, reality-evading or somesuch. (I just report what I see, so please don't ask me to explain, much less justify, what these people say.)

Saying Rand only opposed the LGBT and feminist movements while not opposing those two sets of rights would be misleading, because her opposition to these movements stems precisely from opposition to the demand for positive government-enforced rights, which are part and parcel of the movements. Moreover, these movements are largely defined in terms of the rights they demand. What would the LGBT or feminsit movements be if they didn't demand legal protection from discriminatory hiring practices?!

Now, I'm not the one who created the "LGBT rights opposition" category, nor did I first place her in it. I merely supported leaving it alone because it really does fit. What's odd about this whole event is that, in support of leaving a category, I wound up writing a section of criticism, which was something I've done my best to avoid doing all along. My goal in participating here is to avoid getting involved in Rand-bashing and Rand-worshipping alike, instead keeping things fair (such as repeatedly restoring the much-hated ARIWatch link).

Anyhow, because I didn't create the category, I wouldn't want to modify it. Moreover, a unilateral change would render it a category with only one member, which seems silly. For this reason, I support leaving things pretty much as is. Alienus 01:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it would only leave one member in the category; there is a clear difference between someone who believes that only "negative" rights are valid and someone who believes that homosexuals should have fewer governmental rights (i.e. Fred Phelps, Fidel Castro, the KKK). Further, there could still be an LGBT or feminist movement without the demand for employment protection; such movements could demand simply equal government rights (like gay marriage, for example) and work to end social discrimination without government help. In any case, I think placing Rand in the category is highly misleading, and the category should be modified, or she should be removed from it. LaszloWalrus 02:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

For all the reasons stated above, I must disagree with you. Of course Rand isn't ideologically equivalent to, say, Phelps, but she's clearly an opponent of LGBT rights. Any claim that she opposed them solely on the basis of her libertarianism is refuted by her public statements against the morality of homosexuality. Alienus 02:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; she specifically stated that homosexuality should be decriminalized, and that homosexuals were being unfairly discriminated against by the government. Just because she thought that homosexuality was immoral does not mean she endorsed discrimination. Rand believed that drug use was immoral, but argued for its legalization. LaszloWalrus 04:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

As a libertarian, she supported decriminalizing all sorts of things, including firing people for being gay, so this doesn't help your case. She was anti-drugs and anti-homosexuality, on the same basis, even if she didn't want laws against them. No dice. Alienus 04:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Being against something on moral grounds does not mean that one opposes it legally, and rights are a legal concept. If you extend the LGBT rights opposition logic, then she was ant-rights for every conceivable grouping of people. LaszloWalrus 04:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

She did oppose it legally. She just didn't oppose it quite so much as Phelps. Saying she opposed other things is an argument for adding her to other categories, not a defense against keeping her in this one. I think we've gone round and round a few times on this and you're not saying anything I haven't already rejected, so I see no point further repeating myself. If it comes down to it, I will simply seek a consensus on this issue. Alienus 04:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No, she didn't oppose it legally. She thought the government should not be involved in the issue at all; Phelps thinks there should be government-enforced discrimination. It's not an issue of not "oppos[ing] it quite so much as Phelps"; they're in totally different universes. Again, carrying your logic throughout, she's also "anti-heterosexual rights," since she believed that business owners should be able to set whatever policies they wanted, no matter how irrational. LaszloWalrus 03:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've refuted this argument before, so why do you want me to repeat myself? She did say homosexuality was immoral and disgusting, and she did oppose laws to protect gays from discriminatory employment practices. Everything else you say is entirely irrelevant to these basic, undeniable facts. Because of these facts, she deserves to be categorized as an opponent of LGBT rights. Unless you can dispute these facts -- as opposed to muddle the issue with irrelevancies, such as who else's rights she opposed -- you are wasting my time. Alienus 23:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, you are asserting your POV about the nature of rights. Please stop putting Rand in the LGBT rights opposition category, or I will be forced to revert it. Unless you can point out specfically where she opposed equal governmental rights for homosexuals, you have no basis for your claims. 64.167.172.163 23:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm asserting that, if you look at the list of rights demanded by the LGBT community, some of the key items are opposed by Rand. No matter how you slice it, this puts her in the opposition-to-LGBT-rights camp, just as the original categorizer recognized. This is an incontrovertible fact, no matter what ideological excuses are given to explain her opposition away.

In specific, claiming she supported equal rights is a sham. I'm reminded of a quote by Anatole France that says, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to beg in the streets, steal bread, or sleep under a bridge." The irony is that such as "equal" law has, by no small coincidence, an unequal impact.

In the same way, if Rand would allow the minority, as well as the majority, to discriminate against each other in matters such as employment practices, this fake neutrality amounts to tacit support for those in power: it would be gays who are disproportionately harmed by Rand's policies. Moreover, any claim that this unfortunate consequence does not mean she opposed homosexuals smacks right into her "immoral" and "disgusting" quotes.

You are doing Rand a disservice by whitewashing her stance. If she were alive today, she'd admit that she opposes homosexuals and would not lift a finger to stop an employer from firing on the basis of sexual orientation. She's probably also berate you for making excuses where none are needed.

This is reality. Deal with it. Any attempt to remove the category amounts to nothing more than vandalism, and I will treat it as such. Alienus 00:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Humor

I have read The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, We the Living and Anthem and I went to the Fountainhead movie (with Gary Cooper, Patricia Neal, Raymond Massey,...) in 1949. I have seen no sense of humor in Ms. Rand, her books, or the characters in them - not that I can recall. Now, if you are writing a philosophical tract - that's OK (though Will Durant did better) but if you are writing fiction as a way to present a "philosophy" it makes it more one-dimensional. Read Cervantes, George Bernard Shaw or George Orwell (who, like Rand, despised Communism). Anyone know the "lighter side" of Ms. Rand? Carrionluggage 06:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that's an interesting point. Maybe I'm just blanking on this, but I don't remember any humor coming from her. I have seen quite a bit of humor at her expense though, some of it quite good. Alienus 06:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You can only laugh at the "metaphysically insignificant," Rand said. I still have no idea what that means. --zenohockey 02:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine what she might have meant. I wonder if anything at all qualified for that category, given the dirth of laughter on her part. Alienus 04:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What Ayn Rand meant by "metaphysically insignificant" were things like pretentiousness or vice; she believed that it was immoral to laugh at heores or at tragic events (like, say, the Holocaust). There is not much humor in her novels, but there is some; I recall two humourous lines from The Fountainhead, and two from Atlas Shrugged. Also, judging from transcripts of her public speaking, she seemed to have had a very dry sense of humor, and occasionly made very funny comments. (By the way, I'm the "unsigned" user from San Diego who was involved in the "edit war" over Ayn Rand's inclusion in the LGBT rights opposition category. "Ostensible" neutrality is not partisan. (LaszloWalrus)

Call me a whim-worshipping subjectivist for saying this, but perhaps humor is a personal matter where people genuinely differ. It may well be that she had a sense of humor after all, but it's so different from my own that I was unable to recognize, much less appreciate, it. I also find myself unable to laugh at Carrot Top, so perhaps the fault is mine.

Anyhow, welcome to the land of the signed and logged in. Please avoid the land of edit wars; it is an ugly place.

I've left most of your changes to this section intact, with only one minor POV adjustment. I considered restoring a part you cut, but while it's true, it doesn't really belong where it wound up, so I'm letting it die. Alienus 01:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

LGBT opposition

I removed the Category:LGBT-rights opposition, since Ayn Rand (or Objectivist philosophy) was not in opposition of LGBT-rights. Since she advocated that the government should do nothing but protect its citizens from force, obviously it wouldn't deal with LGBT's at all, so they would be free to have relations with anyone they wish. (unsigned)

For an explanation of why this in an error, see the "Ayn Rand Did NOT oppose gay rights" section above.