There is one main reason why I have never been tempted to read any book by Ayn Rand.? Her disciples are monomaniacs that if they were anything more than a tiny minority of society, would make life miserable for most people.? I have never met one that I would want to have as a neighbor.? They have the zeal of a religious cult, and twice the negative wisdom.
I write this as one who is a libertarian, but with a sense of ethical values, and a belief in regulating financial promises.? Selfishness is never a virtue.? Anyone who has raised children would know that.? Anyone familiar with what it is like to work in an office with one who is selfish would know that.? Anyone who is the child of a selfish person would know that.? And, surprise, most political scandals involve someone who has been selfish in the use of their office.
Selfishness makes life hard on those nearby, who have to live with the backwash of the actions of the selfish one.? We have seen in corporate America the actions of selfish people who run corporations, and goose their own pay to the detriment of shareholders and employees.? It leads to losses for all, when leaders more farsighted might earn more in the long run than asset-strippers and body-cutters.
Business is a cooperative game, and those that can motivate people to work efficiently and creatively can create a lot of value for many.? But that means sharing the value, not being selfish.
Recently, I have reviewed two books: Secrets of the Moneylab, and Priceless.? One major conclusion of the books indicates that people are not rational profit maximizers.? They care for status and their own sense of ethics.? They don’t want to promote greedy people, and they want to see their own relative status in society preserved.? They care what others think about them.
In one sense, followers of Ayn Rand are no better than Communists because they have the wrong model of man.? Instead of trying to create The New Communist Man, they try to create the New Selfish (Randian) Man.? Both are unrealistic for anyone caring about treating people fairly.
To the man who only has a hammer, everything looks like a nail.? In my own life, I have found that the more I act honestly, and look out for the good of others, the more I get rewarded.? I have known people who try to be tight in every transaction, and they don’t get done what I could, because they aren’t trusted like me.
Trust.? We trust those who are altruistic far more than those who are selfish.? I earned a lot more for my clients by being altruistic to Wall Street than being combative.? I got Wall Street to trust? me, and it yielded dividends for my clients.? Cooperation leads to more benefits than competition.
I have little respect for a woman who wrote a bunch of boring books, partially to justify her immoral life.? I don’t care if she favors free markets or not.? It is far better to consider whether ethical behaviour is present in the markets.
Ayn Rand was an intellectual lightweight, and a moral failure.? Following her is akin to intellectual suicide.
You write “There is one main reason why I have never been tempted to read any book by Ayn Rand.” And you conclude by writing “Following her is akin to intellectual suicide”.
I agree with you that she is an intellectual lightweight, Nietzsche for the shallow and superficial, but unlike you I have read at least two books of hers (many years ago when I was a juvenile and, unlike Alan Greenspan, I quickly grew out of that phase). Intellectual suicide is when you comment without having read and judge by association (see what the followers act like). A reasoned judgment carries more weight than a shoot-from-the-hip assessment.
Human beings are complex primates: pure altruism is as unbalanced and as senseless as pure selfishness. If you are not for yourself, who will be for you? But if you are solely for yourself, who will be for you?
Complex, eh?
David,
Well said. I have had a hard time articulating my distaste for Rand. I have read a little from her here & there, but never much cared for the rigidity (& unrealism) of her system. Even though I am libertarian as well (and have been called an anarchist by some), I am “non-religious”, single, & a city dweller; you would think that I was the perfect candidate to be a Randian, but I find them (and Rand) insufferable. I would prefer that libertarians were more associated w/ Rothbard (flaws and all), Friedman, & Hayek than Rand, Friedman, and Hayek.
Regards,
TDL
Rand’s novels are fiction – heavy-handed fiction, but fiction nonetheless. And what each reader gets out of the novels depends a lot on what baggage they bring when reading.
When I read “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged” many years ago, the lesson I took away was the importance of the reliance on self (and the lack of blame on others) for one’s happiness. That was a lesson I needed at the time.
It’s been 20+ years, so maybe I need to re-read them again – just for entertainment!
I have not read Rand, but after reading your statement “the lesson I took away was the importance of the reliance on self (and the lack of blame on others) for one?s happiness”, therein lies the problem with Rand’s philosophy. Reliance on self for happiness is a concept that is doomed for failure because we are “the created” and not The Creator and therefore we will always screw things up in some way or another. Always. True happiness and joy is only found in the person and redemptive work of Jesus Christ and in a realization of and abiding in His sovereignty over all aspects of this world. It’s only then that we can have true hope and peace, which is what leads to “happiness” (even though I don’t like that word!) and true joy. There is no place for Rand’s ethical egoism in this context and it is fatal from the start because of the mere premise that you stated.
(I realize that blogs aren’t the most conducive place for debates of this sort, but it still needed to be said!)
I find it a bit weird to have someone who has not read any of Rand’s books give an opinion about them. I have read Atlas Shrugged a couple of times over the last 25 years. It is a slog. My take away is the focus on the belief non-producers in society, i.e. the government, have to take what they want from those who produces goods, services and wealth. I read the book as a warning against the loss of individual freedoms as more control of society is turned over to the bureaucrats.
Mr. Merkel,
I have never commented on a website before, but I needed to this time.
This blog entry seems out of left field and inconsistent with your themes and the thoughtful analysis you provide on each.
I do not see thoughtful analysis on this entry. Did someone get under your skin?
I am by no means a Randian disciple; I have read Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged one time each and enjoyed both immensely. I felt for a woman who wrote 700 page books, she barely wasted a word. Each word had impact and meaning.
You mention selfishness several times in your entry, but with no direct reference to Rand, but I assume that is your intent. After reading her books, one realizes the selfish are not the entrepreneurs/creators/?ideal men? of society, but the weak collective who believe they are entitled to the societal benefits of the entrepreneur but then seek to control and dominate that individual?s output because it is for the ?Common Good? of society. Anyone seen as not working to that end is worthy of rebuke and being stripped of their place in society. Specifically, in Atlas Shrugged the industry leaders revolt and choose not to be controlled in this way and they decide to let society go its own direction without their services. This is a sizable concept not one for an intellectual lightweight.
I do not think America treats its entrepreneurs this way and there are more likely millions of entrepreneurs versus a dozen or so in her novels, but Rand?s purpose is to narrow it down so that one can understand her beliefs about government and society which are very much aligned with your Libertarian beliefs. In fact, this statement is from an Ayn Rand website discussing her points on Objectivism and its view of politics:
?Objectivism holds that capitalism is the only moral social system and that the only proper purpose of government is the protection of an individual?s right to this life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness.?
Which is extremely similar to the Libertarian view:
??That each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others and defends each person?s right to life, liberty, and property?rights that people have naturally, before governments are created.?
You claim there are wing nuts out there who are disciples of Rand and I am sure you are correct. You also claim they are a tiny minority of society, which stands to reason they are also a small part of the larger group that has read her books. You lose credibility when you make incomplete judgments on the purpose of her writing without having come to that conclusion by reading the books yourself. You then claim the books are boring, but you would hardly know that. You then also seem to pass judgment about her immoral life, which I doubt you know anything about. It is akin to disregarding a company?s bonds for your client?s portfolio because you met an ardent supporter of that company and you loathed everything about that person and what he stood for, although it could have been a perfectly good investment for your client. It just does not seem like the insightful analysis I have come to expect when I read your blog.
Thank you for all you do.
So you don’t like a bunch of people that are somehow associated with her ‘philosophy’.
What does that have to do with her books?
This is a bit aggressive for you, David.
David,
The “selfishness” you describe is not what Ayn Rand meant by the term. She advocated selfishness in the sense where one pursues one’s own life for one’s own sake, not sacrificing others (ala Bernie Madoff) or accepting sacrifices. A “sacrifice” is when one gives away something of higher value for something of lower value. The morality of *rational* selfishness demands that any value you hold in your life has to be earned by exchanging a commensurate value with another. It also demands that one think *long range*, unlike the situations you describe in your post (or the aforementioned Bernie Madoff). Only when there is an exchange of value for value in this way, do you get to the heart of what rational selfishness means.
Have a listen to Yaron Brook, the President of the Ayn Rand Institute on Fox News recently. He appears around the 6 minute mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5EfpH65sks
Brook doesn’t make much of a case. His philosophy is premised on the fact that there is nothing that isn’t internal to a person that should drive their values.
And while I don’t share the philosophy of Rand, and find some of the things she says to be completely wrongheaded, or even distasteful, I can appreciate that there were things that she articulated better than anyone else ever has. The virtue of self-reliance is one of those things. Similarly, she addresses corrupting nature of being a receiver instead of a producer in a way that compares to the proverb; “The hater of gifts shall live.”
There are some truly worthwhile things she has written, even if some of her philosophy is wrong. David, as you said, people “will always screw things up in some way or another,” but that doesn’t mean there is no value in anything done. You just have to take the good and reject the bad.
IMO, if Rand’s books are read and analyzed within the context of the times when they were written, they provide fascinating insights into the mid-20th century rabid ani-communist mindset. They are actually quite quaint, though slogging through ten or twenty page speeches can get tiresome.
I don’t like the mind set of evangelicals and militant muslims who violate the live-and-let-live dictum that must be the bedrock of any secular capitalist society, but I would not use that as an excuse to not read the Bible or Koran. I think Rand’s books have some useful insights as well.
I recently picked up Atlas Shrugged at a used book store for 2 bucks. Market forces at work. A real *premium* on this tome, for reals.
Prior to starting into it, I was familiar with the Randian ethos but had never read her work. David, I’ll save you the trouble.
Not without some relative merit around the whole “work hard and achieve on your own power” line of thought, Ayn is clearly in love with the sound of her own pen. I had to search for the term that most accurately describes her writing style. Here it is: Pleonastic. To a friggin’ tee, my friend.
… to say nothing of her willful ignorance of the dangers of both unchecked self-interest and the externalities relating all of the heavy industry lauded in the book.
That said, there’s also some lessons worth repeating around political interference and punditry. Bertram Scudder = Paul Krugman? I’m just sayin’.
I’m about halfway through. The thing’s a PHONEBOOK. And her writing is the equivalent of being bludgeoned by one. It’s as heavy-handed as her philosophy and use of adjectives. But I think the worst bit is the non-stop use of “had had” and “that that” doubled up in sentences. Where was the freaking editor???
At any rate, I find most Randian’s pretty overbearing too. Here’s to hoping I don’t become one.
Who is John Galt? Who cares!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleonastic
First, the word you should have found is probably prolix, or possibly just wordy. Pleonastic refers to repetitive words, not an excess of them.
And I’m not sure how to take your constant switching between linguistic and substantive criticism of her book; if you approach it as a book, no one I am aware of is really claiming an excess of literary brilliance on Rand’s part. On the other hand, I’m not sure that you have saved anyone any trouble; even if the “lessons worth repeating” are limited to the ones concerning political interference and punditry, then you haven’t pointed out what the book actually says.
I think that there may be only 50 pages of the 500 or so that are worth reading, but I would say that for a book, that is much better than average, even if her writing style is worse than most.