Economics, egalitarianism, and Ayn Rand

“… destined to govern over their social lessers (“Live as though it were the first pages of an Ayn Rand novel”)”

Is the parenthetical a quote from Piketty or a paraphrase from doctorow? No matter, it is highly revealing of this: a twisted worldview.

Ayn Rand was the arch-enemy of a) the ‘governing’ (control) of people; and b) viewing individuals as intrinsically lesser/better.

… which in turns points up the worldview in both writers: Egalitarianism (coerced political collectivism) is the default good, and individualism, freedom, and capitalism in its essential conception are non-starters.

1 Like

FTFY. You’re new here, so you should be aware that most of us view Objectivism as a deeply misanthropic ideology, something to be explored by bright and inquisitive people in their teenage years before being discarded by most when reaching emotional and intellectual maturity. John Rogers sums it up:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged . One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

Also, we understand that Objectivists are the most elite of elite HS debate club nerds, eager to win by drawing on a deep well of logical fallacies and bad-faith arguments to prove their intellectual superiority and “blow our minds” with Rand’s esoteric philosophy. We’ve seen many of them arrive here, but in the interest of saving you time you might want to note that none of them have lasted here more than a few weeks (the bog-standard Libertarians last a bit longer, but they’re just focused on lame drive-by “gotchas” every now and then).

In closing, Welcome to BoingBoing, comrade!


I find it interesting that you place Egalitarianism and Freedom as opposites, since I see them as, if not aligned, at the very least on a different axis. Mind, it may also be that I’m a believer in the first definition of egalitarianism (all people are equal and should have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights) as opposed to the second (the removal of economic inequalities between people and/or the decentralization of power).


Cute, putting my words in the cite block, but using html to snark them.

You don’t understand anything.

As to that lame orcs meme…

There are two motives that can attend the brain of those citing that lame bromide: those who hate freedom, independence and aspiration/achievement from birth, and those at first inspired by Ayn Rand’s championing of these qualities, but gave up the fire.

In follow up studies, those bookish teens did not hold to the diagnosis of this otherwise brilliant quote. Turns out the character traits cited were actually an obsession with productive role models, rejection of emotional appeals to sacrifice, selective mating with spectacularly appropriate mates and such a fantastic ability to deal with the real world they get paid half-a-million per year on average.

Studies have now turned their attention to looking for the error in the thousands of clones who have posted that failed quote. The current leading hypothosis: envy of those inspired by Ayn Rand’s championing of these qualities, and depression for having given up the fire in their souls.

The government has no business interfering with people’s property rights. If I say I own the house you’re living in - who is the government to coerce me?

Enforcement of property rights by the government is base collectivism.



How can people “have” economic equality without the loss of freedom by government removal of economic inequalities?

1 Like

If anything- those inspired by Tolkien have gone on to be the most successful and productive. Studies clearly show this.


That’s how we roll around here with zealots of all political stripes. If you don’t like snark, this probably isn’t the place for you to sealion.

I can see how an Objectivist might assume that, being privy as you are to secret knowledge denied to we liberals who are content and happy with our personal lives and our careers.

Rather than discuss Rand’s cardboard-cutout heroes, her ignorance of the fact of human life that sometimes we have no choice to make a sacrifice, the intellectual and ethical and moral bankruptcy of eugenics (hoo boy, you went there), and a view of the “real world” straight out of a bad Harlequin Romance novel (with genocidal aspects – The Tunnel!), I’ll get straight to what really matters to you: the money. Do you know who John Rogers is? Or, alternately, do you know how much money a successful Hollywood writer, showrunner and producer makes each year? (hint, probably more than a tycoon like yourself).

A “leading hypothesis” put forward by, I will assume, zealots like yourself who never outgrew her juvenile novels. Very convincing.


The “leading hypothesis,” and indeed my full counter, are sarcastic, which is one step above Rogers’ smarm and quite a few steps above anyone responding to them as if factual.

All the things you did not/did bring up are old and tired, slaughtered for half a century. But … the eugenics teaser … that’s interesting. Go ahead …

Don’t know, I said I was an equal right egalitarian, not a collectivist. Now, I’m also a firm supporter of the government being in charge of services for the public good (such as roads, education, police, fire, health, and the like), since they should not be deployed with a profit motive. That’s not to say that doctors shouldn’t be reimbursed for their work, it’s that poor sick people shouldn’t have to choose between life and debt.


“Just joking”, eh? We know that one, too. Objectivists have all the sense of humour of … well, of John Galt.

Rogers, in contrast, is pithy in his wit and leaves no room for confusion.

You wouldn’t be the first Objectivist who discussed the supposed benefits of:

For example:




This is already boring. People who do not know how to discuss or argue intellectually throwing up garbage gifs and smarm. Well, I guess that is the level of the choir here.

Second: taking my phrase “selective mating with spectacularly appropriate mates” and insinuating that I mean a) some government authority in charge of that; and/or b) ‘selective on innate traits’, is really really low on the cognitive scale. Seriously, do you actually think I (or Ayn Rand) promote that?

Come on, at least one of you acknowledge the actual meaning of it. Then trash it, if you dare.

It’s your job to explain what you mean by that dubious phrasing.



I stand by that video of Ayn Rand. Go ahead and excerpt the transcript of her words to which you object.

to quote Dorothy Parker, every single one, including “a” and “the”


No, it’s not. It should be so obvious. Those here have assumed a meaning, and they are challenging Objectivism/AynRand on the subject, therefore they ought to have a working familiarity of the clear meaning of “selective mating.”

However, in a hostile forum that does not apparently have a clue to Rand’s view on mating, here is the context and meaning:

“Appropriate” means equal in self-values, conduct, moral and practical principles. Chosen by the will and choice of the partners. It does not mean “correct genetics.”

No-one claimed that. A eugenicist can hold that belief without assuming the state has to be involved.

“selective mating with spectacularly appropriate mates” implies a specific outcome: offspring, and in the case of Rand not the “subnormal” type and preferably the superior type capable of earning $500k/annum.

I object to her characterisation of mentally and physically disabled children as “subnormal”, and her contention that they’re not deserving of society’s material support. It’s right there in the video.

Indeed. You and your superior intellect are really wasted on us poor benighted Happy Mutants. You must not waste any more of your valuable time here.


Economics threads…



I know, right?