Tom, as a former semi-Randian (actually, I still agree w/ the basics of her political views, other than her silly art views, ), I agree with you completely.
I think Rand made a great contribution. I devoured her novels. I think what was best about Rand was that she advocated a lot of things we libertarians now take for granted at a time when it was very unpopular and rare to say so. She was very good at criticism; and she had a backbone. Instead of us freedom lovers and individualits cowering, and being defensive, she went on offense. She said to be proud to be an individualist and an advocate of reason and liberty. She proclaimed that each man has a right to live for himself. She did not waste a lot of time to pragmatic or consequentialist or utilitarian arguments–she asserted righteously that we are in the right, and morally superior. I think this is what attracted, and converted, many peopele.Of course none of this meant she was the infallible genius her followers claimed she was. I believe she let her fandom go to her head. She felt compelled for some reason to elevate even her personal prefernces into moral absolutes, like her views on music, art, cigarrette smoking, capes, etc. Any grownup can disregard that silly stuff and appreciate what she was good for.
She was of course stubborn and wrong on some issues. Anarchy and libertarians, for one. Galt’s Gulch was state-less; I believe she realized her philosophy implied anarchy but she disliked it for some reason so reacted crazily against it. Here’s the problem Objectivists never answer. Logically, they have to favor one-world government, as there is currently anarchy between nations. But they never do. So somehow, they believe order is possible between international actors, despite the presence of a global superstate. But it’s not possible for poeple. As if states are better than people. Bah. Silly.
Rand herself had Galt say that no man may start the use of force. This is quite simple, and quite good. A state necessarily initiates force, and thus commits aggression, as I have elaborated in this article: What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist. If an Objectivist endorses any state, he either thinks some aggression is okay, or that states don’t necessarily employ aggression. One or the other. Which is it?
As Rand would say: blank-out.
12:43 pm on February 1, 2005
