Ayn Rand's Influence on the 21st Century

a reply to: TheSpanishArcher

No and anyone who listens to Rush, the band, knows they have some interesting themes in their music. For every song like "The Trees"



or the aforementioned "2112," you also have something like "Closer to the Heart"



which sounds almost Marxist at times.

imo...the conservatives that hold Rand in high esteem have never really read anything but her novels.

This quote puts Ayn in a better perspective as to who she really was....

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?

Sounds downright Progressive, eh?

and lets not forget....

“God” as traditionally defined is a systematic contradiction of every valid metaphysical principle. The point is wider than just the Judeo-Christian concept of God. No argument will get you from this world to a supernatural world. No reason will lead you to a world contradicting this one. No method of inference will enable you to leap from existence to a “super-existence.”

a reply to: ketsuko

What exactly are you saying no to? Not sure what you're point is.

a reply to: olaru12

No, I am aware of those sides of Rand. IMO people who keep throwing those sides of Rand out at us aren't very aware of the Progressive side of the Internet. After all, you all do it as though you were the very first ones to come along and do so.

originally posted by: TheSpanishArcher
a reply to: ketsuko

What exactly are you saying no to? Not sure what you're point is.

Just that Rush isn't perfectly Objectivist or Randian. Anyone who says they are isn't paying attention. I love the band, but they have a lot of different themes in their music, not just playing from one ballpark or another.

Just because someone gives credit for an inspiration where credit is due doesn't mean they either espouse the ideals of that source or believe in it. It just means they had an idea spark from it.

a reply to: ketsuko

Just that Rush isn't perfectly Objectivist or Randian.

Excuse me, but you already said you haven't read any of her material. So - how do you know if they are "Randian" or not?

a reply to: olaru12

*sigh*

I will try to explain this as best I can...

At present we have the disfavorable Ayn Rand themes already permeating the nation's politics. Abortion is here and isn't leaving. Anti-Christian mindsets are here and aren't going away. Bi_partisan support for globalism and global free trade is here and I'm not exactly sure how it will be slowed, let alone stopped. So from that angle of Ayn Rand, so what? We are already taking that horsecrap by the truckloads from the politicians running the show as it is.

That said, the other half of Ayn Rand, the fiscal conservationist and military isolation pragmatist side of her is a full 180 in the opposite direction from the failure we're currently living under. I'll take philosophically disagreeing with Washington DC about abortion's legality and the place for God while having a much higher percentage of my earnings finding their way from my work to my wallet over dealing with the same philosophical garbage only with a fraction of my earnings any day. If you're being mugged and the only person around who offers to assist you is a pro abortion atheist, do you accept the assist and get to prevent yourself from being robbed? I sure would.

a reply to: ketsuko

No, I am aware of those sides of Rand. IMO people who keep throwing those sides of Rand out at us aren't very aware of the Progressive side of the Internet. After all, you all do it as though you were the very first ones to come along and do so.

I hate to be a naysayer and stick-in-the-mud, but, it sounds to me like you aren't very aware of the Progressive side at all (whether on the internet, or in pop/rock music, or literature, or wherever).
Rand is not in any sense what a modern "Progressive" talks about.

You said you don't know her literature, and now you are admitting (by default) that you don't understand Progressivism either.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ketsuko

No, I am aware of those sides of Rand. IMO people who keep throwing those sides of Rand out at us aren't very aware of the Progressive side of the Internet. After all, you all do it as though you were the very first ones to come along and do so.

I hate to be a naysayer and stick-in-the-mud, but, it sounds to me like you aren't very aware of the Progressive side at all (whether on the internet, or in pop/rock music, or literature, or wherever).
Rand is not in any sense what a modern "Progressive" talks about.

You said you don't know her literature, and now you are admitting (by default) that you don't understand Progressivism either.

Please, by all means, explain it.

From what I've seen, it means you tax more from the middle class to give to the lower class calling it tax the rich and then you repeat it when nothing changes.

And if I object and point out that what you did before didn't work, I get called a hater.

It also seems to me that progress in the mind of progressives is to enable a so-called oligarchy or bureaucracy to make our decisions and order society for us. It shows a lack of trust in humanity in general. You have so little faith in your fellows that you would rather force the world around you to follow the forms you desire rather than trust that more people than not can learn to choose to do what they should more often than not, thus maintaining their personal liberty and individual responsibility. It seems to me that in the eyes of progressives, we must all be reduced to so many children having our hands held by the state and being instructed what to do and when to do it with no real freedom or responsibility of our own.

Sure, it offers a comforting vision of security, but there is precious little liberty to that life and society.

Not only that, but with the general dim view that my fellow progressives seem to have of humanity in general, I'm surprised that they can place their trust in an all-powerful bureaucracy to make all the decisions for them. If the large corporations are corrupt and evil, why on earth is a government which is, at its heart, no different than a large bureaucratic corp., be any less corruptible? The same fellow citizens are responsible for running it.

a reply to: ketsuko

From what I've seen, it means you tax more from the middle class to give to the lower class calling it tax the rich and then you repeat it when nothing changes.

And if I object and point out that what you did before didn't work, I get called a hater.

whoa. What?
I did not call you a "hater."
You stated that you have read none of her material, but you know that charity is not to be forced. Then you linked her to modern Progressives. And that is a huge disconnect.

Modern Progressives want to tax the uber-rich, and allow unions. They want to have a country that attends to everyone's needs.
Rand is totally against that. She's anti-government at every turn. She's anti-religious at every turn as well.


And why are you saying "You" to anyone, when you don't really understand what it is "we" believe and champion???

Again, ketsuko, perhaps you could do some research to reconcile your vague awareness of the two camps: Progressives today vs Randian Conservatives.

They are miles apart.

a reply to: ketsuko

From what I've seen, it means you tax more from the middle class to give to the lower class calling it tax the rich and then you repeat it when nothing changes.

And if I object and point out that what you did before didn't work, I get called a hater.

It's never been tried. There are always people like Rand who don't give a rat's ass about anyone else. She says that (and I quote):

"The act of giving is the least important act in life."
Quote. From her words.

She disagrees entirely with Altruism.
She does not understand putting someone else above yourself EVER (which led me to speculate that she was childless, and lo and behold, she WAS in fact, childless). She calls that weak and ignoble.

So, but - you like her style?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
...Randian Conservatives.

I think that is an oxymoron as, to me, you cannot be a Conservative and an Objectivist in the mold of Rand. He views are not compatible with true Conservatism.

(and I think you know this based on our previous U2U conversations, just wanted to put it out there for others to discuss)

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: burdman30ott6

She grew up in a Russia where an individual had no compelling reason to put forth more than the bare minimum of effort.

She was a product of the Bolshevik Revolution. Her middle-class family was a victim of the event.
She was pissed.

Don't believe everything she says about her "past".

Some theories suggest she was a Soviet agent.

Might be some merit to those ideas.

You have to dig deep into the possible conspiracies.

She was a good fiction writer and playwright and Lenin was big on controlled opposition.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I think that is an oxymoron as, to me, you cannot be a Conservative and an Objectivist in the mold of Rand. He views are not compatible with true Conservatism.

Exactly!!! Or, at least, you can't be a "religious christian fundamentalist conservative" and ALSO agree with her, without being either disingenuous or naive.
That's where I see the dissonance.

I just wanted to bring it up for everyone to learn and discuss about the influence she had.
Personally, I think I would have despised her, although I agree with SOME of what she says.

a reply to: ketsuko

Thanks for explaining that. I missed that in the other post. I agree with what you said. Funny how I never, after all these years, ever wondered when listening/reading Rush lyrics how much influence Rand had on what Peart wrote. I've always seen it, like Peart said in the documentary, that it was just what he had been influenced by at the time.

Unfortunately, that's what happens when you put yourself out there.

A social engineer/architect if you will...

a reply to: xuenchen

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Or, at least, you can't be a "religious christian fundamentalist conservative" and ALSO agree with her, without being either disingenuous or naive.

Or ignorant. Her novels are not all of her compiled thoughts on society as evidenced by this thread and the links it contains.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Her novels are not all of her compiled thoughts on society as evidenced by this thread and the links it contains.

They are not, by a long shot, all of her compiled thoughts. She also wrote several non-fiction books on philosophy, and gave lectures at very prestigious universities. The course I am taking on the site I linked has mostly quotes, excerpts, recordings, and references to her NON-FICTION. There are professors/experts who explain how it relates to morality, and what her thoughts were.

Besides all that, "literary appreciation, analysis, and study" is difficult. For real literature comprehension, one has to have a broad Liberal Arts background and exposure to "the classics". How many centuries now have people been "analyzing" what Shakespeare was talking about?
Or, "The Bible" - ????

Hate to sound like a snob, but I think there's a tragic deficit of classical education, humanities, and liberal arts in this country right now. Music, literature, and art are VITAL to our evolution as a species.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I wasn't referring to you, personally. I am talking about the Internet in general.

Every liberal on the Internet who wants to argue against Rand knows those parts of her philosophy just like every atheist who wants to argue the Bible can quote all the popular passages about God smiting this or that people in the OT.

You must not be very aware of the Internet climate in general if you missed this.

Rand uses her experiences as a former Soviet to justify the propaganda she later wrote. Ironically relying upon a tactic that the left is so often accused of - the knee jerk reaction. Oh, I stubbed my toe and didn't like it, therefore we need corners to all be eliminated NOW and laws to that effect...

Her ideals are severely flawed. In fact not too long ago a community based upon them failed horribly because, in practice, they simply do not work. Group dynamics allow for individuality - but also require individual participation and concern for the whole. An analogy - Michael Jordan may well have been the greatest basketball player of all time, but he had an entire team feeding him the ball, covering him, and helping him score. He was not an island - and yet he still managed to stand out.

Rand wants to paint a picture of a world where only Michael Jordan merits playing. Without the team, and the support they provide, he's nothing. Without him, the team is mediocre. It's symbiotic - something Rand doesn't just miss - but openly demonizes.

What bothers me is not that Rand had her ideas, nor that people choose to like them. It's that so many in the current Republican party, holding high office, list her works as an influence. Hell, the hero of the Right is freaking named after her. That is a blatant sign of the disaster playing out before us.