Search the Community

Here is my point: If you are in a conversation where someone brings put the affair, of course it is a valid argument to say that Ayn Rand's personal life is irrelevant to her philosophy and that anyone who brings it up is committing ad hominem. However, a lot of people in today's world simply won't understand what you mean by that and perceive what happened as you refusing to respond to a valid criticism. Many people will also claim "if Ayn Rand didn't live by her own philosophy, why should we believe anything she says?" Now, you can say that we don't need these people, and you might be right, but like it or not, they exist and will continue to spread falsehoods about Ayn Rand. I say that for every one that we can correct, there is one less person out there smearing Objectivism through Rand. I'm not asking anyone to have a memorized "Official Answer" or anything. I am not what tolerationists call an "ARI cultist" (though even if I was, that would be an argument ad hominem). And given that the official answer of the ARI regarding the affair amounts to "No comment," I am certainly not advocating the ARI position. In any case, what I am asking of Objectivists is to a) be knowledgeable about the basic details of the affair, so that they can correct any outright falsehoods their opponents commit, and to b ) know what their own reply is, based on Objectivist principles. Whether that be that Rand was in error or whether it is a defense of her decision based on the Objectivist ethics. It simply doesn't look good when Objectivists get blindsided by the affair and ignore it without making a studied response. My perspective is, however much you want to ignore it, it is not going away. This applies also to any of the other common smears ("Took Medicare!" "Idealized a killer!"). Look up Ayn Rand on the internet, find a recent news article about her, and look in the comments to see how many of them mention either Hickman, Medicare or the affair versus how many respond coherently to some Objectivist idea or another. These are the facts as they are, and I would prefer Objectivists be able to say "No, that's not entirely accurate and here's why, now, would you like to talk about ideas instead of engaging in smears?" That's my perspective on it as someone who has spent a rather significant amount of time in the "trenches." With regard to "and I mean it": Of course this does not mean that Ayn Rand was automatically always moral. However, this statement does mean that her personal life can either give a major boost to or detract significantly from arguments in favor of her philosophy. This doesn't mean that we should cover up Miss Rand's personal failings, but it does mean that we should take care to be absolutely sure that they are failings before we even come close to accepting the premise that they are. The former is not necessarily true. Ayn Rand was still legally married to Frank O'Connor and did not violate the contract of their marriage since she "renegotiated" that contract by obtaining his consent for the affair to occur. The people around them did not have a right to know that Ayn Rand was sleeping with Nathaniel Branden, and the idea that they did is preposterous. If she was going around telling other people that Frank was the only man she had ever loved, that would be dishonest, but there is no evidence that she did this. Again, since Ayn Rand remained married to Frank O'Connor during the affair, he still absolutely was "my husband." Also, I disagree with the implication that to be a person is to make moral errors. Errors of knowledge are all but inevitable, but I think it is entirely possible to live without ever intentionally acting dishonestly and thereby making an error of morality. Finally, I do want to register that Ayn Rand said that "we right to try in the first place" regarding the affair (this is apparently in one of the journals in The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics; unfortunately I do not have a copy of the book so I can't give you a page number, but James Valliant quotes it at about 42:35 of this interview). So she did not simply refuse to "admit" that the affair was wrong, but proclaimed that it was right, at least in theory (discounting Mr. Branden's deception of her). And I'm inclined to agree with her. I do wish that Mr. Valliant had withheld his judgement to the end. He had already reached his judgement of the Brandens' honesty by the time he wrote PARC and therefore injected that judgement into his speculation about possible motives for their untrue statements about Ayn Rand. The style of the book, therefore, reads like a prosecutor's argument (Mr. Valliant is a prosecuting attorney). However, notice that Mr. Valliant does not claim that Ms. Branden WAS implying that Rand was neurotic, only that she "may have been trying to" imply that. This simply does not amount to the fabrication of a motive, only speculation of a possible motive. It may be an abrasive style choice, one that makes PARC less accessible to those who sympathize at least in part with the Brandens, but it does not constitute a fallacy. Besides, you suggest no other possible motive for claiming that Rand never told her Russian family her new name when this was blatantly not the case. I'm sure there are other possible motives, but Mr. Valliant was not wrong to suggest this (especially considering the sum of the other observations he makes in the book) as a possible one. I want also to note that you implied something negative (you do not specify precisely what aside from making a drug reference that I, as a non-user, did not fully comprehend) regarding the length of PARC. I do want to emphasize that this is not an "article," as you called it, but a book. These are four chapters of Mr. Valliant's book, The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics. Unfortunately, this book is currently out of print, but fortunately, Mr. Valliant made parts of it available online, which is why I posted links instead. And I want to add that, while I certainly won't make any demands that you read all of PARC, I recommend you at least read some more of it. That one instance, the false claim about Rand's family never knowing her new name, is just the tip of the iceberg of fallacies in PAR that Mr. Valliant demonstrates in PARC. Perhaps his suggestion of a motive and hint of moral judgement will seem less improbable the more you read, even if you don't agree with his implied conclusions in those areas. And what was Mr. Valliant's point? As Mr. Valliant himself describes in the introduction I linked ("The Smearing of Ayn Rand"), he was fascinated with Ayn Rand, was recommended the Brandens' books, and found them to be highly dishonest. His book is intended to demonstrate this to anyone who obtains from their books what he sees as a false view of Ayn Rand.

I'm not convinced a discussion of value can be isolated from rights, at least in terms of correct and proper behavior, but I will attempt to follow the horse A vampiric premise is closer to the kind of ethical disconnect from life in general the OP presents. There is also an element of Hickman's, "I am like the state: what is good for me is right."

In the August 1920 edition of Oil and Gas News, an excited reporter wrote about a region that “is attracting much attention due to the good [oil] wells that are being brought in.” Oil had been discovered on the Bertha Hickman farm in Oklahoma, a discovery that started the industrial music of the North Burbank Oil Field. Ninety-three years and 319 million barrels of oil later, energy producers in the region are using an “enhanced oil recovery” technology that promises to extract enormous amounts of oil that are otherwise unreachable. The July 1, 2013 edition of Oil and Gas Journal reports that Chaparral Energy has begun injecting carbon dioxide through “injection wells”—with the expectation of producing an additional 88 million barrels of oil. This ingenious method of oil extraction uses carbon dioxide, which in this case is collected from a fertilizer manufacturing plant in Coffeyville, Kansas. (Prior to this development, the plant vented this carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as waste.) Sixty million cubic feet per day of this exhaust gas is now collected and pumped by a 23,500 horsepower compressor station, through 68 miles of 8 inch diameter pipe, to Oklahoma’s historic oilfield. Once there, it is injected deep into the ground where it pushes crude oil through the rock and into production wells, which transport the oil to the surface. The company estimates that this technology will extend the producing life of the field by 30 years! The independent and entrepreneurial spirit that drove the discoverers of 1920 exists today and can be seen in these heroic innovators who are pushing the boundaries of the science and technology of oil production. Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard. Related: Freedom and Fracking Fuel Investment in Texas Energy at the Speed of Thought: The Original Alternative Energy Market Creative Commons Image: Jonathan Wheeler Link to Original

Just to sum up our conversation: You suggested that the type of justice which creates an "us vs. them" dichotomy leads to conflict. I asked what kind of justice do you have in mind, that doesn't create an "us vs. them" mentality between a free country and rights violators? You replied that "there is no conflict of justice, only those who ignore contradictions". I asked, "who ignores contradictions?". You replied: "William Hickman, Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Ted Kaczynski, Eric Robert Rudolph, Lucas John Helder, Jim David Adkisson, Andrew Joseph Stack III". So, just to be clear: the reason why I am now putting you on ignore is because this exchange proves that we're not speaking the same language. You'll be the only active member on my ignore list, btw.

Some people refers to individuals; Muslims or the US refers to groups. I can't clarify the individuals I've referred to into the groups you're asking me to place them. If you want a specific someone who ignores contradictions, why have you kept asking if it's the Muslims, or the US?? OK, how about: William Hickman, Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Ted Kaczynski, Eric Robert Rudolph, Lucas John Helder, Jim David Adkisson, Andrew Joseph Stack III to name a few domestic terrorists who ignored the contradiction of taking life in order to promote their right to life.

How is it justified for her to blame society for Hickman? What does society owe to an allegedly "exceptional intelligent boy"? Danny, the "Little Street" character sounds like a sociopath. But she doesn't offer any explanation (here) as to why he is what he is, other than a "noble feeling of superiority", and a subconscious one at that. Its amazing how much her idea of the ideal man changed from this time period to the creation of Galt.

I will start to take a look at that thread. What I read so far, some of it I didn't know Rand said before, like society being the cause, and her character, Danny, being a shooter. Looking at Hickmans motive which he claims was for money for Bible College, could also be perhaps as revenge against Parker for having turned him in for forging and did time for it, and/or for notoriety, as such, like a fame motive. Also, wasn't Danny going to be a hero in her story? To bring this back around to Casey, was it her behavior during the 31days what got to people the most when they speculated on what happened to Caylee? Isn't Casey largely being villianized for people's own speculations about what they feel or think happened? Her tarot, her new life, her INDEPENDENCE? Rand mentioned independence in regards to Hickman. Couldn't that be applied to Casey? Also they sought the death penalty, and she's had death threats, people wanting to murder something they created in their own minds of what they think she did? Rand said "murder [her] for being the wreck that it itself has created." They would be doing that in one sense. Rand meant it in another though.

I came across this quote of Rand in regards to Hickman in her journals, and reading it, it reminds me of the public in regards to Casey Anthony. Do you think it's applicable in any way? "The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal... What does she mean by it?

She criticized their ideas, just as intellectualammo is doing, and just as I have done. We've been critical of Rand's idea that the people who expressed outrage at Hickman's kidnapping, murdering and mutilating a little girl had committed worse sins and crimes, by which she seems to have meant that they committed the crime of being average or the crime of resenting people who had dared to stand alone and didn't care what society thought of them. J

Over on OL, George Smith had a post which nicely summed up Rand's taking creative inspiration from Hickman's demeanor after he had been caught: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8330&p=94754 And the rest of that thread is interesting as well. Lots of good observations. J

I think the only questionable comment that Rand made was this: "It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal." What sins and crimes is she condeming them for? What does she think they are guilty of? It must be pretty bad if it's worse than murder and mutilation. Was their crime their ordinariness? Or their resenting people who were more successful than they were, or more individualistic, or what? Did she really believe that such sins and crimes were worse than the murder and mutilation of a little girl? And how did she know that masses of people held the beliefs that she claimed they held? When they expressed outrage at Hickman's crimes, how did Rand determine that they weren't really outraged about the crime, but about the criminal's heroic and individualistic demeanor? J

I don't know much about him. But I do Casey. Perhaps her mass hatred was way worse in degree than Hickman because he was convicted of murder, while Casey was not, and people call her all kinds of things, a child murderer, etc., such as Nicky just did. Btw, you did not back up or substantiate your claim Nicky.

Since you made the parallel, do you at least realize that Hickman was evil, despicable and loathsome?

Here's a couple of examples off the top of my head: 1) Ayn Rand was against government handouts, but took Medicare, what's up with that? 2) Why does Objectivism reject religion? 3) Why is 'force' bad in Objectivism? 4) Why does Objectivism advocate capitalism? 5) Isn't selfishness a bad thing? 6) If the government is the source of all problems today, why not get rid of it altogether? 7) Objectivism is a cult, isn't it? 8) Didn't Ayn Rand love capitalism because she hated Russia so much while she lived there? 9) Doesn't accepting Objectivism's ideas turn you into a mindless follower of Ayn Rand, a Randroid? 10) Why did Ayn Rand boot her best student Nathaniel Branden out of her circle? 11) Why isn't Objectivism taken seriously in academia? 12) Why is charity not a virtue in Objectivism? 13) How does Objectivism differentiate selfishness from narcissism or being self-absorbed? 14) Why does Objectivism view Immanuel Kant as a villain? 15) How did Ayn Rand conceive of love? 16) According to the morality of Objectivism, was it proper for the United States to get involved in World War II / Vietnam / Iraq ? 17) What does it mean for 'existence to exist'? 18) I have never seen a John Galt in real life, doesn't that mean Objectivism is too idealistic to be realistic? 19) I think the philosophy of Objectivism is divorced from reality, a giant castle in the clouds. Can you prove me wrong? 20) If I accepted Objectivism, I feel that my individuality would be destroyed. Why is that? 21) Doesn't Ayn Rand's fascination with William Edward Hickman mean her philosophy was deranged? etc.

Oh, well that makes better sense. A plain reading of the OP as it stands is that the book is "wonderful", and a first time poster making that claim on an Objectivist board is bound to be either a ringer or a troll. Here’s an interview clip so anyone unfamiliar can get an idea of Weiss. I’m sure I saw this when it was new, but I’m not rewatching it again now, mainly because I find Thom Hartmann so nauseating and dinner awaits. [media=] There are attacks on Ayn Rand all the time nowadays, it’s hard to get interested in any of them since they almost always contain gross inaccuracies. Here’s one I saw coming from a major London paper just a couple days ago: http://www.guardian....tivist-ayn-rand 800+ comments, who can bother with it? Though I bet there’s some good rebuttals lost in there. And at least a dozen Hickman references.

Of course! They live off you! And if you stop paying taxes on a moral basis, that would mean all their lives are immoral; you'd be on a quest to actually make them see that. That is something they don't want to see; they don't want to hear of it, and they don't want to speak of it. And the only way to silence you is brute force, and the only way to sanction brute force is to preach collectivism. You must sacrifice your selfish interests for the good of the whole! Fighting taxes on a moral basis means going so deep into the collectivist doctrine and denounce it, that you wouldn't only frighten (and thus anger) the IRS, but also the whole nation, if not the whole globe. You'd get millions of people angry at you; just like in the Hickman case I just read about in AR's journals. Only it would be much worse for you than it was for Hickman, because you'd actually be right. Or maybe not because the objectivists throughout the world would back you up; and if there's enough of us, then those brutes called collectivists might even grant you (or should I say "us", since they do not recognize an individual when they look at a group, and when they see one man they consider him an anomaly) to speak. Or maybe they'd just lock us all up (or worse), depending on how many people would say "I pay taxes and it's not fair that they don't!" Or "If they want to be Americans [or whatever they are], they have to pay taxes!" There's no telling what the parasites are prepared to do to keep their pockets full.

My apologies for going overboard on that. The only explanation I can offer is that one of my pet peeves is the alleged fan who gushes about "Ann Rand" and her characters "Taggert," "Gault," "Reardon," and "Rourke." (Oddly, I don't think I've ever seen d'Anconia's name butchered.) Of course the asshats out there who have never read the book but participate in the slime campaigns can butcher all they want and it will just make their stupidity more apparent. (You know the slime campaigns: Rand approved of Hickman, Rand used drugs, Rand collected Social Security and Medicaid.... there's a place out there somewhere telling all the mushbrains to put those comments on any comment thread they can find.) I just watched the commentary track... and looked forward to the commentary explaining why they did NOT portray Rearden's guilt-driven disgust with himself the morning after. (To me that's philosophically FAR more important than whether or not the sex was rough, since it brings up in yet another way the problem that Rearden is having, giving his sanction to his enemies.) I forgot to mention that criticism earlier, and I think if there was _exactly one_ thing I could change about the movie, that would be it. Anyhow... they claim they chose not to do it that way because it would have stopped the pacing in its tracks. (Bull! Like that long morning after on the patio scene and wilderness shots they showed instead, kept up the pace....) If there were TWO things I could change... The Mysterious Stranger With No Neck came to Wyatt's house just a bit too early; I'd have reordered things a bit to make it clear that Wyatt "gave up" after the directives that Mouch so loudly announced. If there were Three--Galt's voiceover and Ellis Wyatt's phone message at the very end gave away WAY too much to the first time viewer/reader. Four--add two flashbacks... Dagny and Francisco as lovers (with Francisco not looking and acting like a schlub), and the scene where Francisco struggles with his decision to go on strike, while lying in bed with Dagny. This is important stuff, but it wouldn't be seriously too late to do this in Part II, perhaps as Dagny is continuing to work the mystery of why everyone of any worth is disappearing, she can consider the case of Francisco.. who didn't disappear but seems to have become valueless. Again I don't consider d'Anconia and Akston's demeanor, appearance, behavior, whatever in the outside world fatal changes... this is now a visual medium and the viewer is supposed to wonder why great men are no longer carrying burdens... and the best way to suggest it _visually_ is to show them as unkempt slackers, regardless of the way it's described in the non-visual book where a lot of exposition can take place. (Would Akston have been better done in a spotless diner, cooking a hamburger for Dagny, and the conversation occurring more as in the book? Yes, I think so... but it's not a _gigantic_ flaw.) If they act/behave this way _in the valley_ in Part III, yeah, that's an irretrievable screwing of the pooch. One thing that came through in the commentary was that the producers talked a lot about Objectivism... but it was subtly off point. They discussed a lot of "why should these people produce when they are going to get punished" and "we should thank these people for what they've done to make us more productive" and even brought up the example of the inventor of the motor deserving to be a trillionaire if he can reduce energy costs to the equivalent of four cents a gallon. They then point out that the inventor would be vilified for being rich rather than thanked for cutting the cost of energy. They got a lot right. But they danced around the forthright _egoism_ that is properly the justification for capitalism.

In Sunday's Rationally Selfish Webcast, I answered questions on Ayn Rand and William Hickman, sustainable agriculture, product placements in art, teaching young people to use credit cards wisely, and more. An audio recording of the webcast is now available as a podcast: NoodleCast #100: Live Rationally Selfish Webcast As always, the full archive of past episodes are available as podcasts. You can review them and subscribe to the feed at www.NoodleCast.com. Videos from the webcast that I've posted to YouTube can be found on my YouTube channel. Watch the Rationally Selfish Webcast live and join its text chat every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. Each week, I answer questions on practical ethics and the principles of living well, drawn from a queue of questions submitted by listeners. To join us, just go to www.RationallySelfish.com at the appointed hour!

Since I used "the CD' for the quotes above, I thought I;d share a few of the other references that came up. Other than these letters, here were some notes from her Journals, the first from her infamous note on Hickman...

It was an essay. In a private journal. Imagine that. Where did I (or anyone else in this thread) claim or imply that she was perfect? What was the evaluation, and how was it wrong? Be specific. Give facts, not opinions, both about Ayn Rand's (now public) essay, and Hickman.

Don’t know what whYNOT is talking about. Nothing I wrote should be construed to mean what he’s arguing against. Tanaka is mistaken not only about Dreamspirit’s post, but about Ayn Rand ever writing about Hickman in an essay. It was in her very early private journals where she wrote about him, blown way out of proportion by her detractors. Defending Ayn Rand by saying she was perfect, never made a mistake, only helps them.

Zoid’s two arguments are fallacious. (1) One can make a mistake in private just as one can make a mistake in public. (2) The argument: “AR was an Objectivist, an Objectivist thinks X, therefore AR thinks X” neglects the fact that AR was only in her 20s. Give the lady a break. She wasn’t born fully formed and armored like Minerva out of the head of Zeus. I think Dreamspirit’s post #5 is correct. It should be noted that AR sort of retracted these Hickman journal entries at the end, telling herself to calm down – I forget the exact phrase she used.

Given that the context in which she was writing was a private journal and was talking about her personal feelings rather than about formal philosophy, it's not really appropriate to call what she wrote about Hickman a "mistake." In any case, since sociopathy is characterized by a habitual disregard for the rights of others, and since rights are central to Rand's philosophic thought, it's clear that she would never have deemed such psychological illness "a gift."

An interesting analogue to this situation is the film 300. (or the old one, perhaps) We like watching the Spartans fighting off the invading hoards because they represent great skill and courage, and most of all freedom (and for the altruists, sacrifice for the greater good). But in reality Sparta was closer to Nazi Germany than any heroic republic: allegedly Sparta subjugated a neighbouring state/city for centuries and as part of their warrior training rituals, sent their teenagers to kill one of these people, as their rite of passage. All 300 of those Spartans must have been murderers. However in reading about the true story of the battle of Thermopylae, filmmakers have obviously discarded these horrible truths, and kept the noble elements, because even though that's not what DID happen, it's what MIGHT have happened, and it makes better art. Similarly Rand saw some inspirational qualities in Hickman (and conversely, some cynical qualities in his accusers), and wondered what sort of story they would make if she left out the evil traits and deeds. If you enjoyed the film 300, or 300 Spartans, then you should be able to sympathize with Rand's perspective. Certainly, liking 300 doesn't make you a Nazi/Fascist.

The "born without the ability to consider others" line sounds like something that would have been something from Rand's journals that you didn't read the context of, exactly how you didn't read the context of the Hickman related quote you mentioned. I mean, it was probably just to get her mind directly on a first-handed thinker, seemingly without the ability to consider others because of how selfish he is. In The Fountainhead, Roark indeed did consider others that were of value to him. He certainly felt empathy about Dominique, but not about Peter Keating. As you see, even in the example you gave, it does not make sense to suggest that Rand thought it as being commendable to ignore all people in all circumstances. What is advocated by Objectivism is careful judgment of people and context in order to determine who is valuable to you. More than likely, empathy is the result of these judgments. Empathy is an emotion, not a method of thought. The only issue here is what you feel empathy about and how you proceed to act.