Ayn Rand’s legacy: Should we consider her a ‘great libertarian’?

By David McElroy · December 19, 2011

If Ayn Rand knew how closely she has become identified with libertarians, she would be spinning in her grave. She loathed libertarians, calling them “hippies” of the New Right.

If you read her comments about libertarians — at the website of the Ayn Rand Institute — you quickly see that Rand didn’t understand any system that could do away with the coercive state. You also suspect that she was a bit jealous that libertarians were getting too much publicity, as she sniffed that they were “stealing” and “plagiarizing” some of her ideas.

I read several of Rand’s books before I ever heard the word “libertarian.” When I was about 14 or 15 years old, my father’s boss gave me a copy of “Anthem.” When I liked that, he recommended “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged.” Her books introduced me to many new ideas, some of which I accepted and some of which I rejected. I consider reading those books important in my later political development, even though I reject the core of her philosophy.

And that’s one of the most interesting and complicated things about Rand. Almost everybody I know who has read her books has rejected her philosophy — which she called objectivism — but most of the readers of those books who went on to become libertarians or anarchists consider her work to have been an important step along the way, even though they did reject what was most important to her. How do we reconcile this seeming contradiction?

I think it’s simply that Rand is about the only well-known writer who wrote passionately and clearly about the value of individuals who stand up against the collective. She recognized the same problems in society that I do (and that other libertarians and anarcho-capitalists do), but her analysis and conclusions differ radically from ours.

Rand believed that a strong central government was necessary to guarantee capitalism. She argued — as her ardent followers today will argue — that there’s no such thing as anarcho-capitalism, because she claimed that the two were completely at odds. (Roy Childs wrote an open letter to Rand in 1969 in which he explained the errors that she was making which led her to this wrong conclusion, but as far as I can tell, she never bothered to respond.)

I’m not even going to try to cover the core of obectivism here, partly because it’s not terribly relevant to this discussion and partly because there are so few people who take it seriously today. I have friends who consider themselves objectivists, but I find that most people eventually discard the label (and much of her core ideas) as they get older. Rand saw the world in black and white. There’s a lot of gray in the world, and her thinking doesn’t allow for that. It also didn’t allow for taking the time to understand an opponent’s ideas before rejecting them. And in the personal life of the group she surrounded herself with, she was a dictator who terrorized weaker people into obeying her. There’s little or nothing to admire about her personally, as far as I can tell.

Murray Rothbard rightly characterized the circle of people around Rand as being like a religious cult when he wrote “The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult” in 1972. It’s a devastating critique. If you look at many (though not all) of her remaining objectivist followers today, you find them quoting her words as though they’re scripture — something to be accepted as the final authority on all subjects. And if you want to see something really entertaining, watch two objectivists argue. Neither can conceive of someone else who’s honest and rational coming to any other conclusion but the one he’s come to. If you judge her ideas by the results they ultimately bring for most people, it’s not a pretty picture.

So, no, I wouldn’t consider Rand a great libertarian, because she’s not really a libertarian at all. She’s simply someone who saw (and wrote about) some of the same things that lead people to become libertarians. Her own ideas go off in entirely different directions and lead to entirely different conclusions. Those of us who want to throw off the shackles of the coercive state can be thankful for some of her insights and for her writing so passionately about things we see as problems in the world. But when it’s time to draw conclusions, those of the libertarian or anarcho-capitalist persuasion part ways with Rand.

I appreciate some of the fiction she wrote. I appreciate the influence that those novels have had in causing some people to doubt government control and eventually decide they’re in favor of individual freedom. But I ultimately reject the core of what she considered most important, so she will remain an important influence for me along the way to something else. Nothing more.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts