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?
Happy birthday to the monkeys; we’re marking two years today
I struggle to fix the imperfection in myself and world around me
Irony abounds when reader proves my point by trying to refute it
Financial ignorance from your TV: Gold may not be around next year
Memo to Republicans: Your serious contenders are hypocrites, too
‘We’re live with people standing in line. Did we mention we’re live?’
Poll shows half of Occupy Wall Street crowd favored Wall Street bailout
Sweet love story or tale of a sucker? Your bias creates narrative for you
Confessing my ego’s old desires reveals hidden fears of my past