4 ms·

It isn't an incorrect caricature if "a lot of her advocates are purely self-interested idiots".

• mistermann 13y ago
  Caricature of Rand herself, not her followers.
  • saraid216 13y ago
    But there's no caricature of Rand in the quote.
    • mistermann 13y ago
      True, I was speaking generally but probably shouldn't have in this context.
  • jshen 13y ago
    "Followers of Rand, in particular, believe that ..." He was clearly talking about her followers. And you avoided his main point, that none of us are truly selfmade. We've all been very lucky if we are successful. That shakes the foundation of Rand's philosophy b
• mindcrime 13y ago
  It isn't an incorrect caricature if "a lot of her advocates are purely self-interested idiots". Does not follow... The fact that a lot of Christians are raving fundamentalists who reject science and logic, is not a reflection on Christ... likewise, that a lot of self-described Randians may be "purely self-interested idiots" is no reflection on Rand. Rand can't control what the people who come after her and claim association with her name do, any more than Jesus can. Substitute any other famous/influential character from history for Rand or Jesus in the above, and the point remains the same.
  • anigbrowl 13y ago
    I'm an atheist, but grew up Catholic and I know religious doctrine very well indeed. Jesus didn't build his reputation on telling people to ignore science and logic; for every exhortation to his followers that they needed to have some faith in God, there was another one that was very practical, such as 'God helps those who help themselves.' There's no way he expected people to pray for rain only to die of thirst, if there was a lake within walking distance. I don't want to assign the faults of Randians to Rand, but I think it's fair to say tat she disapproved of altruism and reified individualism as the acme of human achievement. I can sort of understand this given the circumstances of her birth and so on, but Rand (or at least the average Randian) seems suspicious of voluntary and specific collectivism as well as mandatory or universal collectivism. I'm a bit of a hermit, but when I am being social I like working on a team and I find the relentless insistence on individualism as the only valid kind of self-actualization rather pathetic.
• spikels 13y ago
  How can "a lot" of a group be "purely" both "self-interested" and "idiots"? I do not think this statement can be anything more than rhetoric and schoolyard name calling. I would say people have a strong interest in themselves and their personal welfare. This should be expected or we would probably not exist as a species. However the interesting thing about humans and some other intelligent animals is that they are also interested in the welfare of others, including non-relations, and even other species (some argue that this is part of a broader form of self-interest like the golden rule). However none of this should deny that people are motivated by self-interest most of the time. While libertarians talk about self-interest more than most I don't think there is any good evidence that their actions are any more selfish than non-libertarians. I would suggest they are simply making an observation about human nature that explains a huge fraction of human behavior.
  • jshen 13y ago
    that's a quote from the person I was replying to. "However none of this should deny that people are motivated by self-interest most of the time." Sure, but that doesn't mean we should build a philosophy and our institutions around the idea that it's good! This is very different than "simply making an observation about human nature". And the biggest flaw in libertarianism is the idea that humans make logical decisions, which is one of the most egregious denials of human nature I've ever seen.
    • penrod 13y ago
      And the biggest flaw in contemporary liberalism is the idea that these very obvious flaws in human nature are somehow transcended by the humans we elect to office.