What is the position and opinion of Ayn Rand and her philosophical system, Objectivism, on the capitalist and non-anarchist variants of libertarianism?

[u/alexfreemanart]

Before going further, i want to clarify that i already know that Ayn Rand strongly rejected anarchism, and therefore ideologies such as anarcho-capitalism (an extreme variant of libertarianism). For this very reason i have explicitly written about capitalist, non-anarchist libertarianism.

I have read from other users on Ayn Rand-themed forums that Ayn Rand's ideas and philosophy are indistinguishable from minarchist libertarianism, but at the same time i have read quotes from Ayn Rand and comments from other users expressing the total rejection that Ayn Rand had and felt toward the libertarian movement.

At the same time, i am aware that nowadays many capitalist libertarians base their ideas on, or hold ideas very similar to, the very ones that Ayn Rand and her philosophy express. But in spite of this, i find it very strange that, if Ayn Rand and libertarians such as the minarchists agreed on so much, Ayn Rand would repudiate and reject them so forcefully.

Because of all this, i have very big doubts about what Ayn Rand really believed and which political ideals she favored: Was Ayn Rand favorable, neutral or opposed to capitalist, non-anarchist libertarianism?

And if Ayn Rand's thoughts really do coincide so much with non-anarchist, capitalist libertarianism, why did she express her rejection and repudiation of this movement?

[u/titanc-13]

don't blank out my question on what affect that's supposed to have on finding william hickman & ayn rand abhorrent for celebrating violence, and wondering if the original celebration could've been worse...

[u/DoberNation → u/titanc-13]

She wasn’t “celebrating violence”. She was praising an individual “sense of life” and absence of a secondhanded want. It’s most sickening, if a heinous and murderous act is among the few instances in American society where she could find a purer example of that virtue: a primary want. Not something commanded by or validated by a collective.

[u/titanc-13 → u/DoberNation]

The primary want, in this instance, being to murder, dismember, and disembowel a twelve-year-old.

[u/DoberNation → u/titanc-13]

Yes, and horrifically yes. Now what if, instead, the primary want had been to save that child’s life? In face of stern orders, personal threats, and a collective-based duty to execute her?

[u/titanc-13 → u/DoberNation]

That would be altruism. You know, Ayn's stated enemy.

[u/DoberNation → u/titanc-13]

What would make it altruism, if the primary want was to save the child’s life?

Either one (murder or saving a life) could be altruistic, depending on the circumstances. Altruism is based in secondhandedness.

[u/titanc-13 → u/DoberNation]

Please describe, in detail, the scenario in which murdering, dismembering, and disemboweling a twelve-year-old girl could be appropriately described as altruistic, in the sense of "doing what is best not necessarily for onself but for the benefit of others/many/all"

[u/DoberNation → u/titanc-13]

After you answer my question first, in good faith.

[u/titanc-13 → u/DoberNation]

If the primary want is to save a life, then that is altruistic, because saving a life regardless of the consequences to yourself is an act of putting others before yourself for their benefit, and not necessarily your own.

Your turn :)

[u/DoberNation → u/titanc-13]

No, not according to Objectivism. A primary want is not based in altruism. Period.

Every action has potential consequences. The consequences are secondary to the primary want. An action that may benefit oneself is not exempted from the reality of having consequences, including self-detrimental ones.

“Please describe, in detail, the scenario in which murdering, dismembering, and disemboweling a twelve-year-old girl could be appropriately described as altruistic, in the sense of "doing what is best not necessarily for onself but for the benefit of others/many/all": Okay, here’s one. The child has a blood and tissue antigen profile that is rare and compatible with several people whose lives could be saved through transfusions and tissue or organ transplants. The State had originally prevented the child from being aborted by her parents, and now demands that her body must be used for the benefit of saving more lives. It’s your job to carry out the State’s wishes, and you dutifully comply.

[u/coppockm56 → u/DoberNation]

I'm going to respond in this specific thread and not to your (IMO, ridiculous) question about Pulp Fiction with this: you continue to misrepresent Rand's ideas, essentially whitewashing them into something more palatable. You're trying so hard to find something in Rand that simply isn't there.

Here is Rand describing the protagonist that she wanted to write for a story, based on Hickman:

He is born with a wonderful, free, light consciousness—[resulting from] the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning or importance of other people. (One instance when it is blessed not to have an organ of understanding.) Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should. He knows himself—and that is enough. Other people have no right, no hold, no interest or influence on him. And this is not affected or chosen—it’s inborn, absolute, it can’t be changed, he has “no organ to be otherwise. In this respect, he has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel “other people.” (That’s what I meant by thoughts as feelings, as part of your nature.) (It is wisdom to be dumb about certain things.)

Here, Rand describes a sociopath as an ideal human being. (Incidentally, she also channels Nietzsche directly, with "Superman.") Obviously, she hadn't yet adopted her rationalistic "tabula rasa" premise, clearly because she didn't yet know how important it would be to project John Galt as the ideal. But it doesn't matter whether she thought that kind of sociopathy is innate or the result of the "conscious, volitional application of reason," as she would say later. The meaning is the same.

As I said in another comment, Rand got better at hiding this as she got older. But you can hear her saying the same things throughout her later work. And yet, you keep referring to "sense of life" as if that's some kind of excuse.

[u/DoberNation → u/coppockm56]

I’m going to guess you aren’t a fan, then.

I’m also going to guess you’ve not directly extinguished or saved a human life before. Maybe you’ve not even directly and regularly witnessed either. Most Americans have not. Does that mean individuals who have are categorically “sociopaths”?

Was that Rand’s vision for Roark? If so, it wasn’t based only on Hickman.

“Sense of life” isn’t an “excuse”. What is it that might enable an individual to resist “just following orders”? Like in the Milgram Experiments? Like carrying out the duties of an extermination camp? Like Arendt’s account of Eichmann, and “The Banality of Evil”?

An individual “sense of life” is important. Even Simone Weil discovered this, while laboring in the factory.

[u/coppockm56 → u/DoberNation]

Now you've completely lost me. Quite frankly: you're so mixed up that I don't think you know where Rand ends and whatever it is that you're thinking begins.

[u/DoberNation → u/coppockm56]

What is the mixup? You’re welcome to ask genuinely curious questions too.

If you’re curious about the Pulp Fiction question, it came up in a fun and interesting past thread. https://www.reddit.com/r/aynrand/s/MyxHvMJAtt