Various questions about Objectivist opinion

[Marty McFly]

I have another question on Objectivist view: what do Objectivists think about homeschooling? and/or about a taxpayer using public school (You pay for it with the tax already, do you have to pay again for private school?)

also, I understand that I grew up in the post Reagan era, and therefore understand the threat depicted in Atlas Shrugged less than what Carter or Ford era people would, so I wonder: do Objectivists respect Reagan and other Republican polititians despite their relligion?

also, what do Randians say (I wish I would have Ayn Rand herself answer that one) about the war in Iraq. and about islamofaciest in general, and about the economy today, after WTC collapse.

also what would Ayn Rand say about today's private and public roads existing side by side (Ex: Brooklyn Bridge vs. Battery Tunnel)

[LaszloWalrus]

I have another question on Objectivist view: what do Objectivists think about homeschooling? and/or about a taxpayer using public school (You pay for it with the tax already, do you have to pay again for private school?)

also, I understand that I grew up in the post Reagan era, and therefore understand the threat depicted in Atlas Shrugged less than what Carter or Ford era people would, so I wonder: do Objectivists respect Reagan and other Republican polititians despite their relligion?

also, what do Randians say (I wish I would have Ayn Rand herself answer that one) about the war in Iraq. and about islamofaciest in general, and about the economy today, after WTC collapse.

also what would Ayn Rand say about today's private and public roads existing side by side (Ex: Brooklyn Bridge vs. Battery Tunnel)

Generally, the term "Randians" is derogatory.

As to your questions, Ayn Rand GREATLY disliked Reagan, largely due to his mixing religion and politics. She abstained from voting in the Carter/Reagan election. There is nothing wrong with using public schools, since you are forced to pay for them anyway and the government makes it so that many people cannot afford a private school; you should, of course, advocate the eventual abolition of public schools.

Here are some essays from Objectivists on the War on Terror/ Islam:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2635

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4575

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=51

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4915

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=4106

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=4665

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=4740

[DavidOdden]

what do Objectivists think about homeschooling? and/or about a taxpayer using public school (You pay for it with the tax already, do you have to pay again for private school?

There's an essay by Rand, "The Question of Scholarships" (The Objectivist, June 1966), which explains why it is morally proper to accept a grant from the government, a government job, etc. See esp. p. 92 ff.

[DavidV]

also what would Ayn Rand say about today's private and public roads existing side by side (Ex: Brooklyn Bridge vs. Battery Tunnel)

AFAIK, there are no private roads or mass-transit systems for general public use anywhere in America. You're thinking of toll-roads owned by government agencies such as the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Capitalism requires complete privatization of all property, including roads. It's a common mistake to believe that various toll-collecting entities are private - with help from politicians who use words like "corporation" in the name to make them appear more business-like and "capitalistic."

[Marty McFly]

Firstly, I am sorry, I did not know the word "Randians" is derogatory. I will not use it again.

thanks for the articals, I found them very informative - much more so than the leftists and rightists ideas. this is real information - thanks!

one line that was written in those articals hit me in the solar plexus - because this is exactly what I feel!

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

which is why I am astounded to find that Rand greatly disliked Reagan. who cares what he has to say about relligion? as long as he braught America back to capitalism...? maybe she didnt' get to really know him well, since she died before he made any difference yet.

(I wish she could have lived to see communism fall. I wish she could have at least gotten a glimpse into the future of communism - since she hated it so much and was afraid of it.)

David Odden, can you provide a link? I really want to read it! (oh, it's probably a book. I will try to find it)

and Greedy Capitalist, I didn't know that! so all those roads that we pay for are not really even private??!! that's terrible! I always thought that only the Brookly Bridge (that you don't have to pay for crossing it) is public property that was cruelly taken away from the guy (ROckerfellar?) who payed to built it because some evil jealous guy took him to court for manopoly or something... (maybe I just got the story all wrong... oh well)

[KendallJ]

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

And if this was all that the religious right was doing today, I might not have a problem with it either. However, when God tells you that:

1. Abortion is a sin, and therefore it must be illegal in the US

2. That we are all our brothers keepers and therefore welfare is a good thing

3. That obsenities must be censored by the government from our literature, and movies

But mostly when God tells you that faith, and not reason should be your guide, meaning you have no way to correct the errors of 1-3...

then I have a bit of a problem with that, dont you?

Edited February 20, 2007 by KendallJ

[DavidOdden]

David Odden, can you provide a link? I really want to read it! (oh, it's probably a book. I will try to find it)

I recommend this resource.

[aequalsa]

Generally, the term "Randians" is derogatory.

I have never understood why that is. It doesn't seem derogatory to call oneself an aristotelian. Just an associativething maybe? A Randian being a Randroid?

[Inspector]

I have never understood why that is.

Original use. It was originally used as a slur, as a way of saying "follower of the 'Rand cult,'" that tried to wipe out the fact that Objectivism is a philosophy, rather than the say-so of a person.

[khaight]

Original use. It was originally used as a slur, as a way of saying "follower of the 'Rand cult,'" that tried to wipe out the fact that Objectivism is a philosophy, rather than the say-so of a person.

I've always used "Randian" to describe the set of people/philosophies that show significant influence by Ayn Rand, without necessarily being Objectivists. People like Tibor Machan and Douglas Rasmussen, whose work shows obvious Objectivist influences but who are not and do not claim to be Objectivists, would be examples. That use is exactly parallel to the way that, for example, 'Kantian' is used by Objectivists. I see nothing disrespectful about it.