Talk:Ayn Rand

Archive 1: October 2002 to August 2004
Archive 2: August 2004 to June 2005

Spinoza1111 07:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)(Edward G. Nilges) edits the Controversy section: comments are invited

I felt the Controversy section could be significantly deepened with a more thorough presentation of both sides. Part of the Rand phenomenon is that precisely because academic philosophers turn green or mauve when Rand is mentioned, writings about Rand tend, despite the best and most terribly Objective intentions of her publicists, the writings tend to blast out into the ionosphere as pure (*Reinen*) hagiography, hagiography that never encounters resistance and becomes thereby prophesying to the wind.

The result of this lack of resistance is that the aethereal hagiograph is suffused with a POV so global as to be unnoticed by Randroids, and considered moronic by all others, since it APPEARS, from the lack of a consciousness of any resistance (which, previous authors should know, stems not only from "analytic" philosophy but would also stem from most other schools were their mavens to deign to address Rand).

Therefore I have added the following to the Controversy section which in NPOV I trust presents two sides.

Rand's strengths, to Rand's supporters, are her weaknesses, to her detractors. To individuals enmeshed in lives made difficult by an undecidable combination of business and government, Rand, unlike a "professional" philosopher, provides a life-changing new narrative which has been especially empowering for some women.

For this reason, Rand fulfilled a demand made much later by the academic philosopher Martha Nussbaum who asked why we ask philosophy to improve our existence and flourishing, and why we instinctively find analytic philosophies so deficient on this basis.

Unlike most philosophers, even philosophers of society, Rand presents to her supporters a vivid picture of lives and societies damaged almost beyond repair by a soulless and Philistine socialism which Rand encountered first hand in Russia; her mother, Rand recounted, was attacked for reading a book on a train by some enthusiastic proles who accused Rand's mother of bourgeois tendencies.

To Rand's numerous detractors, including nonreaders of Rand who shrink in horror from her formidable presence in prose and in pictures, who may mentally image Rand as an Art Deco gargoyle suitable only for the Chrysler building, her stories are a massive oversimplification of what Adorno, a Frankfurt School theorist whom Rand would instinctively despise, called an "administered" world in which "government" as a puppet of private economic forces makes the rules on behalf of the sort of alpha males whom Rand thought to be first movers.

It is perhaps fortunate that during Rand's (and Adorno's) life-time, these two characters were never brought together on a talk show, DESPITE the fact that they shared a concern that industrial civilization no longer reflected our subjectivity, using "subjectivity" not to mean opinions but our objective moral seriousness and our will. This is because to Adorno, Rand fails to answer what for him was a central question, sometimes re-presented as avoiding another Holocaust of the Jews, a group that in Randian terms may have "deserved" their fate: the question of the existence and flourishing of people without sufficient grit, and sand, and bounce of the Randian flavor, and whether it is just they not survive.

Only an ironist with a bad attitude could appreciate the evolution between the way in which in Rand's heyday, Darwinian notions of "survival of the fittest" were popular and prepared the way for the reception of Atlas Shrugged, while today her natural constituency seems to have fled through some sort of Sinai to "intelligent design", perhaps on the just-in-time basis as America's Rust Belt fitness-for-survival turns out to be as out of date as the passenger trains Rand celebrated in her work. But her less than amused supporters would riposte that her man, being the measure of all things, would not make a simple reifying mistake, and would have by 1999 pulled out of the railroad business, for their Objectivism isn't confusable with objective things as such. And, the intersection set of intelligent "designers" and what are sometimes called "Randroids" is probably null or at most, unity, consisting, if unity, of a single nut bar with a Web site (one hopes).

By admitting novelistically that bad, weak men could flourish in a bad, weak society able to muddle through in the manner in which the postwar United Kingdom muddled through the 1970s, Rand, her detractors would point out, was essentially making the same mistake as her worst enemies. She was, they'd declare, asking for society to become heartless and Objective so as to better be an isomorph of the ideal mind and ideal man. She was, according to some of her detractors, merely singing from a Soviet songbook (about the New Socialist Man) in another register, and at a higher pitch (perhaps that of Tony Soprano).

However, these objections themselves indicate the depths which Rand explored and she needs to be taken seriously. Not least because Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve who is retiring next year and who is one of the most powerful men in the world, is and apparently remains influenced by Rand (he wrote a passionate defense of Atlas Shrugged as a letter to the New York Times book review on the publication of Rand's novel), it is very important to her detractors and her supporters to take Rand with the utmost seriousness. This formidable person would of course demand nothing less.

Comment: "Only an ironist with a bad attitude..." Textbook example of the Argument from Intimidation. translator 03:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Use of the word 'archetype.'

In The Art of Fiction Rand says that her heroes are not in fact archetypes because they contain more aspects than what is necessitated by their perfection, i.e. if they were simply archetypes all the Randian heroes would be exactly the same. I'm removing it. I don't believe it's necessary to reference the term archetype because dissidents of Rand may believe that that's all they are, along with explanation, but if someone would like to do so I'd support it. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by D prime (talk • contribs)

I'm laughing at this. Alienus 14:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Why? D prime 05:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Some jokes aren't funny when explained. By the way, you're supposed to indent your responses, not unindent them. If the indentation gets too deep, you can always reset (if you include a parenthetical to that effect). Alienus 06:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If that's the custom/rule, sure. Uh, then it's best not to share them? D prime 01:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Nihilism

Quote : "She also encountered the philosophical ideas of Nietzsche, and loved his exaltation of the heroic and independent individual in Thus Spake Zarathustra. However, her enthusiasm soon waned due to Nietzsche's nihilism and psychological determinism; and she condemned his attack on rationality."

Sorry im going to have to remove the sentences after "Thus Spake Zaruthustra". It is incorrect because 1) Nietzsche was not a advocator of nihilism but rather despised it and condemned Christianity as being a 'nihilist religion'. However, he was the first to encounter nihilism and explore it, his beliefs on the 'ubermensch' have often been skewed as being called 'the nihilist philosopher' when actually it was the 'life affirming philosopher' who first used a nihilistic deconstruction of values and morals and formed his own free from influence. I don't believe Ayn Rand slated Nietzsche's "Psychological Determinism" as this would be quite contradictory from her own philosophies (which was largely influenced by Nietzschean philosophy and the Crime and punishment book which isn't to far off the mark from Nietzsche). --Raddicks 00:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I have removed Nietzsche from Ayn Rand's influences because there is absolutely no evidence that he influenced her, except in perhaps a negative way. She explicitly stated that he was one of the worst philosophers in history, and claimed that her only philosophical influence was Aristotle. 68.7.212.152 01:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Cats

After seeing the Ayn Rand biography, "A Sense of Life," I think we should work into the article her love of cats.

MSTCrow 00:38, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Care when reverting, & edit summaries

Joshua27: Please be more careful when reverting. Your edit summary said that you were reverting my deletions (and the rest of your edits had no edit summaries — note that these are required); what you in fact managed to do (apart from replacing material that I hadn't in fact deleted) was to remove the link to Petrograd University, and revert another editor's correction of a category. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Featured Article

How far is this article on the road to a featured article? --Mexaguil 2 July 2005 23:17 (UTC)

My take is that the article is in pretty good shape, but needs a little brushing up before it meets my personal standards for a featured article. The material is largely accurate, nothing major is missing, and it is well wikified. However, a few spots are awkwardly written, the bibliography needs cleanup, and there is a general absence of any specific source citations in the text, even for areas of controversy. Still, barring any major controversies over fixing those defects (or edits to introduce new ones), it could be feature-ready pretty quickly. --RL0919 14:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

External Links

Two things to discuss: one specific and one more general.

First, I just deleted a duplicate link for ARI Watch. Someone else did this earlier, and it was restored with a comment that the link had been "vandalized." I don't see any vandalism -- the identical link was on the list twice, so it is entirely appropriate to remove one of the two instances.

Second and more generally, I'm not sure if "ARI Watch" should even be on the list for this particular page. That site is about the Ayn Rand Institute, which was formed years after Rand was dead and buried. There is a separate page for the Institute, as well as one for the Objectivist movement. The ARI Watch link seems appropriate for those pages rather than this one. There are some other links that would also seem more appropriate for related pages rather than this page in particular.

Any thoughts on this from other Wikipedians are appreciated. --RL0919 21:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

After some thought, I've come to the conclusion that the link ought to be deleted from THIS page, and put on the Objectivism page. I believe that a page on a specific person ought to exclusively discuss that person's life, work, and influence. Ayn Rand certainly influenced the Ayn Rand Institute, and as such, the Institute ought to be (and is) discussed on this page. But the "ARI Watch" page was influenced far more by the ARI than by Rand herself. Another example of the same principle: Peter McLaren promotes Che, but that's no reason for an article criticizing the latter to appear on the former's page. --zenohockey 03:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment dated 18 Aug 2005: I will try to argue the following point:

  If the website of the Ayn Rand Institute -- 
  call it ARI -- is listed, then "ARI Watch" 
  should be listed as well.  

The reason is that ARI is not an honest representation of Ayn Rand's thought. Far from it. To make readers aware of this, "ARI Watch" reviews ARI using Ayn Rand's ideas.

I'm not saying remove ARI. But if it is kept, "ARI Watch" provides the necessary balance.

Another reason to include "ARI Watch" is that it features many quotes of Ayn Rand that are either not on the web or hard to find there.

ARI Watch is self-described as "The ‘Ayn Rand Institute’ under review." Its primary purpose is not to promote Ayn Rand's philosophy but to criticize ARI. ARI Watch does not belong in this article. Mwickens 13:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Reply (19 Aug 2005 About noon EDT): 'ARI Watch' cogently argues that ARI undermines Ayn Rand. If Wikipedia presents ARI as promoting Ayn Rand then Wikipedia ought, I think, to include 'ARI Watch' which truly promotes Ayn Rand.

If this is controversial, that is yet another reason why both views should be given an airing on Wikipedia.

Putting ARI Watch under the "Organizations promoting Ayn Rand's philosophy" heading is simply inaccurate. Its purpose is only secondarily to promote that philosophy. If ARI Watch is there, so could most of the other links under other headings.

It sounds like the real argument of the anonymous ARI Watch advocate(s) is that the Ayn Rand Institute itself does not belong on the list. If that's the point, they should argue for it rather than for fixing the alleged problem by demanding in-line refutation of the organization they think is illegitimate. Mwickens 18:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Reply (about 4:30 pm EDT): Yes, I don't think ARI belongs on the list. But ARI is there now, an accomplished fact. While ARI is there 'ARI Watch' ought to be there. Shall we allow ARI to get away with corrupting Ayn Rand's ideas without our providing some handy corrective, a corrective that goes right to the source: Ayn Rand herself?

Take for example two pages from 'ARI Watch': "Ayn Rand on Torture" and "Ayn Rand on Past Wars." These pages mention ARI only briefly, practically all their text is about what Ayn Rand wrote on these timely subjects or how her ideas apply to them.

Even if ARI is taken down, the fact that 'ARI Watch' promotes Ayn Rand's ideas still makes it a good link. But I don't see ARI being taken down, and staying down, soon. And even if it could be taken down permanently, I'd rather see ARI corrected with argument rather than eraser. -- Mark (author of all the replies so far)

Congratulations; you've convinced me. After studying the webpage more thoroughly, it seems that ARI Watch doesn't just criticize ARI, it also (or, perhaps, even primarily) defends its own reading of Rand's thought. It should be kept, but right under the link for ARI, and tabbed, so readers are aware that ARI Watch is largely a response to ARI's reading of Rand. --zenohockey 23:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Is ARI Watch an organization or a website? If the latter, even if it belongs in the article, it doesn't belong where it is now. Mwickens 19:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Minarchism

I'm uncomfortable with the recent anonymous edit that added the following text to the introduction: "She was one of history's most vehement advocates of minarchism." First of all, referring to someone as "one of history's most vehement advocates" of anything strikes me something other than a neutral fact — it is an evalutation or opinion. Also, "minarchy" and its cognates are not terms that Rand ever used to my knowledge, certainly not for self-description. Some of her admirers disclaim the term for that reason. This strikes me as closely related to the contentous question of calling her a "libertarian," which was placed into its own article. Finally, even with a more neutral wording (to reflect this as a category others place her in), I don't see a need for this point to be in the introduction, which was already quite long enough.

I don't want to take a sudden action on a potentially touchy political topic, but what I would like to do is cut this sentence from the introduction, but place a related mention in the "Politics" section farther down the page. It would go something like this: "She is often classified as an advocate of minarchism or libertarianism, although she did not use these terms to describe herself or her views. (See the article on Libertarianism and Objectivism for further discussion.)"

Feedback, please. I don't want to stir up a hornet's nest, but the sentence as-is strikes me as inappropriate. --RL0919 22:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd edited it before noticing your message; as you'll see, I agree that the wording was unacceptable, but I didn't move or delete the basic claim because I'm in position to judge. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm doing some additional research now to see if I can find any non-internet reference applying this term to Rand. The results thus far have been entirely negative — if authors are using this word, they aren't indexing it. The word is of recent coinage as well, so I'm not sure if it was even in use when Rand was alive. I can't find the word in dictionaries of that era, nor can I find a historical etymology of it. Based on internet discussion groups, I believe the term was coined by anarchists to describe an opposing group of libertarians, which would be a hit against its neutrality. Once I finish checking sources, odds are I'll move the mention of the term as I suggested above. --RL0919 18:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

She was an advocate of complete, UNCONDITIONAL, laissez-faire capitalism. Minarchism promotes the government being 'as small as possible,' which is incredibly vague. Considering the absoluteness/objectivity she used approaching what she supported, and consdiering her recorded distaste for libertarianism, I highly doubt she would have considered her self as 'minarchist.' I'm taking it out.69.192.139.156 23:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Uh, minarchists also advocate "complete, UNCONDITIONAL, laissez-faire capitalism", so what's your point? Yes, as small as possible is vague, but, since she most definitely was not an anarchist, and she did advocate some (minimal, as small as possible) government, she was a minarchist, by definition. Minarchism is not a movement, so far as I know. It's just a term used to differentiate believers in reducing government involvement from most aspects of our lives, which Rand most clearly was, from total anarchists, which Rand most clearly was not. Rand was the quintessential minarchist, even if the term was not yet in use during her lifetime. --Serge 01:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You ignored: "Considering the absoluteness/objectivity she used approaching what she supported, and consdiering her recorded distaste for libertarianism, I highly doubt she would have considered her self as 'minarchist.'" She never said that the government should be 'as small as possible.' This gives the libertarian impression that you should be 'reasonable' and be willing to not have it be 'too extreme.' She said that the government should be one, spacific, particular way, which was lassiez-faire capitalism.69.192.139.156 22:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I see two important questions here: First, is the idea that Rand is a "minarchist" a generally accepted fact, or a specific perspective? Second, is this particular important enough to belong in the summary at the top of the page, as opposed to being part of the later discussion? On the first point, the best evidence I have is that Rand never used this term herself, and professional scholars do not typically use it to describe her. The term appears to have originated in anarchist/non-anarchist disputes among libertarians, and "orthodox" Objectivists, who reject the labelling of Rand as a libertarian, typically also reject the use of this term. So I would treat it as a perspective about her, rather than simply describing her with the term. (That doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned, just that the wording needs to be adjusted.) On the second point, I would note that her politics is just one part of her philosophy (and an even smaller part of her overall life and career). Her political views are already (without the part about minarchism) described in the intro to an extent similar to the descriptions of other aspects of her philosophy. Therefore, I would say that this particular detail belongs in the more extended discussion of her political views later in the article. Serge's new version is far superior to the version I complained about initially, but I still plan to move it unless someone has a good argument for why this particular issue needs to be in the brief introduction of the article. --RL0919 02:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

To answer your first question, whether Rand being a "minarchist" is a "generally accepted fact", I really don't know. But to me, it seems obviously to be true by definition, and not even a matter of opinion. While she distanced herself (to put it mildly) from the term "libertarian", which carried a lot of emotional baggage for her (i.e., Nathaniel Branden), in its purest sense a libertarian is simply anyone who believes the NAP should never be violated, including by the state. In that sense, Rand clearly was a libertarian.

Now, among libertarians there is disagreement about the question of whether it's even possible to have a state that is not in violation of the NAP. So, libertarians are neatly divided into two camps: the anarchists and the minarchists; all libertarians must be one or the other. The anarchists believe the existence of any state is inherently a violation of the NAP. The minarchists believe that some "minimal" state is not only possible, but required, to maximize the protection of individual liberty within a society.

Is it important to label Rand as a minarchist in the opening paragraph? Probably not, but I think it is important to convey her beliefs regarding the proper role of government, and I know of no more clear and concise way to do so than to refer to her as a minarchist.

By the way, thanks for the complement about improving the wording. I believe I also improved the definition of minarchist at the minarchism Wiki, but it still has a ways to go. At least it no longer vaguely says "as small as possible". As small as possible to accomplish what? Here's the current opening sentence:

In civics, minarchism, sometimes called minimal statism, is the view that the size, role and influence of government in a free society should be minimal - only large enough to protect the liberty of each and every individual, without violating the liberty of any individuals itself.

Let me know what you think. --Serge 17:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

See? The term libertarian CAN be used to define her, but to avoid confusion and false affiliation, she didn't want it. We should not apply terms to people, when other terms are available (lassiez-faire capitalist) and they never used it themselves. I think it's obvious that this should be taken off 69.192.139.156 00:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

But a laissez-faire capitalist could be an anarchist. So can a libertarian (which is one reason Rand gave for not liking the label). But a minarchist, by definition, cannot be an anarchist. --Serge 00:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The difference is that she choose to be called a lasseiz-faire capitalist. It is questionable whether or not she would consider herself a 'minarchist.' Wikipedia is supposed to document fact only, is it not? D prime 04:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

No laissez-faire capitalist is an anarchist. The argument that laissez-fair equals anarchy is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. For a market to be free in the first place, robbery and murder cannot be legal. It is only when there is a de-facto monopoly on the use of harmful, deadly and coercive force that a market within its jurisdiction can be free. A state of war ("competition in the forcible restraint of men") is not a free market. Nor is minarchist a legitimate word in the English language, but rather, an anti-concept to obfuscate the notion of a free industrial society. translator

Contradictory sentences

The article claims:

One notable exception to the general disregard for Rand in the analytic philosophy community is the essay "On the Randian Argument" by philosopher Robert Nozick, which appears in his collection Socratic Puzzles. While some have suggested that Nozick's own somewhat libertarian views were influenced by Rand's work, Nozick's essay is strongly critical of Rand.

These two sentences contradict each other: the first sentence says that Nozick was an "exception to the general disregard for Rand", while the second sentence states Nozick was "strongly critical of Rand." This needs to be fixed. —Lowellian (talk) 19:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

The sentences are not contradictory. "Disregard" means ignoring, not low regard. Perhaps "disregard of" rather than "disregard for" would avoid any potential confusion. Mwickens 20:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

yes — "disregard for" certainly implies a positively negative (?) view; "of" is grammatically correct if you want to describe neglect. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I see. I was considering the wrong one of the two definitions of disregard (from dictionary.com):

1. To pay no attention or heed to; ignore.
2. To treat without proper respect or attentiveness.

While, changing from "for" to "of" would improve the situation slightly, I think it is better yet to simply substitute another turn of phrase. I have rephrased to avoid the word "disregard." —Lowellian (talk) 23:19, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ayn Rand and Leo Strauss, Pavlov too

Leo Strauss

Pavlov

I have always been fascinated on the possibility that they met each other, in person or by hearsay.

Did they??

What about Freud, plus Jung??

What about Skinner and John B. Watson??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner

Not quite as erudite as the above,

But nonetheless, have corrected typo, line 4 controversy "acquaintance"

WWords

Some suggest that much antagonism toward her philosophy in the academy is due to the political stance of her philosophy; specifically, the embrace of capitalism and denunciation of altruist ethics which they annoys what they see as a traditionally leftist academia.

Who are these some, and where did they do their suggesting? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted more unattributed claims:

• "These critics argue that the real reason Rand avoided academic publications was that she knew her writing would not stand up to serious scrutiny by trained thinkers"
• "Her critics point out that the accessibility argument does not justify her wholesale refusal to write for academic journals"
• "Indeed, her work is generally held in low esteem by professional philosophers, who find her expositions to be inadequate in their treatment of seminal issues in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics."
• "These critics argue that the real reason Rand avoided academic publications was that she knew her writing would not stand up to serious scrutiny by trained thinkers"

RJII 18:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but play fair. The comments attributed to "Rand's defenders" on the subject of peer-reviewed journals are equally mysterious and unscourced, so I've removed this too. In addition, this Darryl Wright fellow hasn't published anything on Rand that I can find, and so if you cite his views, also cite a publication which can be found. --Ben golub 20:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yaron Brook

Howdy, I did a little clean up and expansion of Yaron Brook, the current director of ARI. I'm hoping that some people with more experience than myself might be able ot take a look at this page and expand it a bit. Klonimus 15:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

content dispute on coercive monopoly

There appears to be a content dispute on the coercive monopoly article. If this subject is of interest to you, please reply to the straw poll at Talk:Coercive_monopoly. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 16:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

In this dispute note Ayn Rand's, Nathaniel Branden's, and Alan Greenpsan's explicit definition of coercive monopoly. Be aware of nature of their argumentation that proposes that a coercive monopoly can only be the result of government intervention. Please note the distinction between the definition of coercive monopoly, and the alleged causes of it. These essays are responses to the mainstream position that laissez-faire is the cause of coercive monopoly, coercive monopoly being explicitly defined as a monopoly that is immune from competition. RJII 16:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Too many digressions

The major works section strays into a book report on The Fountainhead. It's not even very NPOV: "Peter Keating may be one of the most brilliantly portrayed conflicted characters of literature."

Most of the stuff about the Fountainhead's characters should just be outright cut. --Starwed 06:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right. I cut all the character descriptions to make that section more in line with the details of Rand's other novels. --zenohockey 17:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Controversy

This is mostly to Serche: I have done my best to combine the recent fighting over this section into a compromise. I object to Serche's "like all controversial philosophies" sentence because it adds no content -- controversial means critized so it adds nothing to say that "Like all criticized philosophies, Rand's has been criticized." There is also no excuse for removing the data about Leiter's survey, which substantiates the claim about Rand being ignored. If you're going to refer to anthologies, I have no problem with that, but cite some so people can gauge exactly what anthologies you're talking about. The most prestigious ones still tend to exclude Rand, and that shouldn't be hidden in some vague unattributed wording.

Most of your changes to the Nozick paragraph have been completely unobjectionable so I have worked them in where appropriate. Thank you for the improvements.

The claims attributed to "Rand's defenders" in the section about not writing in peer reviewed journals need to be sourced if they are to be used. Wikipedia is not a debate forum, so presenting your own opinions about why it was legitimate to publish this way do not count unless they have been promulgated in the literature. It should be easy to find.

The edits about one-dimensional characters have been great, so I have left them.

Please do not revert mindlessly to your pevious version -- if you have issues with my compromise, let us discuss them. --Ben golub 19:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Reply from Serche: Regarding the "Controversy" section. I edited it with two things in mind.

One was to eliminate the occasionally turgid prose. Wikipedia is a general resource so high academic phrasing is inappropriate.

The other was to make sure that both sides of the controversies are included. Rand is criticized for x, y, and z, and there are standard replies that readers should know about. So, Ben (or whoever), I do not see why your re-editing keeps eliminating the replies.

That said, there are legitimate issues about how much referencing and elaboration of arguments is appropriate without losing the flow and bogging down in details.

For example, one sign of Rand’s entering the mainstream is that she now appears in textbooks and anthologies. Here’s a very partial list: Louis Pojman’s Philosophy: The Quest for Truth; G. Bowie, Meredith Michaels, and Robert Solomon’s Twenty Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy; Joel Feinberg’s Reason & Responsibility; Judith A. Boss, Perspectives on Ethics; John Burr and Milton Goldinger’s, Philosophy & Contemporary Issues; Gail M. Presbey, Karsten J. Strul, and Richard E. Olsen’s The Philosophical Quest: A Cross-Cultural Reader; and many others. But I will not include that list in the article because it is stylistically turgid, not likely to be of interest to the general Wikipedia reader, and it detracts from the flow.

I do not understand why the mention of the Ayn Rand Society at the American Philosophical Association has been deleted repeatedly. For almost two decades there has been a professional association of philosophers in the profession’s major academic organization—that is relevant to judging Rand’s reception in the academic world.

About the Leiter survey. I’m a fan in general of Leiter’s number-crunching, and including his survey is arguable. But the important point is already in the Wiki text: there is not much engagement with Rand in analytic circles. That is not controversial, so there’s no special need to add an awkward sentence about Leiter—just as there’s no special need to list the textbooks in which Rand’s writings appear.

And about Rand’s not writing for peer-reviewed journals. That is a standard criticism—and there’s no need to reference that widely-made criticism. The same holds for the standard response to the criticism: many important philosophical writers didn’t write for peer-reviewed journals or the academic organs of their day. Both the criticism and the response should be included in the Wiki article. But here is where the judgment call comes in: either both the criticism and the response should be referenced, or—since this Wiki entry is for a general reader and these are both obvious points—neither really needs footnotes or interspersed sources. I favor the latter.

If you're going to include the Ayn Rand society, it's only fair to include Leiter's data. It would be a violation of NPOV to substantiate the claims that she is entering the mainstream, but not to substantiate the opponents' claim that she is still irrelevant. --Ben golub 02:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Straw Man argument?

"Rand has sometimes been viewed with suspicion for her practice of presenting her philosophy in fiction and non-fiction books aimed at a general audience rather than publishing in peer-reviewed journals."

Has any notable person pressed this as an objection? I view with suspicion suspiciously vague phrases like "viewed with suspicion." I think this graf superfluos. Anyone disagree? --Christofurio 00:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe replace the "viewed with suspicion" words with "criticized." --Anagnorisis 05:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

With so many things that went around her, wouldn't it add flavor to the article having a trivia section? We could add comments about miscellaneous anecdotes surrounding her life. --Anagnorisis 05:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Spinoza1111 07:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)"Hey, Harv, are you into Trivia?" "I'm talkin' to ya, ain't I?" - Harvey Pekar, AMERICAN SPLENDOR

No, Rand deserves to be taken seriously.

"Seriousness" does not exclude fun, Anonymous (if you're referring to Spinoza1111's blurb above, of course, you're probably right). Personally, I'm all for a trivia section (not because of any concerns about flavor, but because I think it could add details about her and her life that don't fit into other sections). --zenohockey 00:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Rand v. Kant -- more than meets the eye

It was interesting that the page cites Immanuel Kant as the philosopher whom Ayn singled out as "evil." Interesting, because both her epistemological and ethical projects were so similar to his, in principle.

He wanted rational basis for the inductive principle, to avoid Hume's radical separation between observation and reason.

She declared "Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival", which appears remarkably similar to Kant's account of the senses. (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro)

He wanted to find a rational basis for ethics, a Categorical Imperative that justified itself. He concluded that each man must "Always act in such a way that you treat others not merely as a means, but always also at the same time an end."

She declared "Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others."

And yet ... Kant headed into an altruistic direction with the Categorical Imperative, while Rand ended up at Rational Self-Interest.

Anyone done any research on this? Are the similarities worth mentioning in either this article or the Objectivism article?

--jrcagle 01:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not unusual for people to be hostile to positions that are generally similar to their own but differ in conclusion or flavor. Consider Rand's hostility to those who call themselves Libertarians. Her own views fully qualify as Libertarian, but she was angry at them for not accepting the rest of Objectivism along with it. Alienus 02:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Never mind. Someone already pointed this out in the Objectivism article. I suppose I should be hostile (nstead of embarrassed) ;-). --jrcagle 05:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC) (P.S. I agree with you that her views are Libertarian, but you must understand that Libertarians aren't fully *rational* because they don't accept her governing of their beliefs. :-P)

Uhm, you made a little mistake there; you forgot to capitalize the 'r' in Rational. See, lower-case rational means based on reason, while uppper-case Rational means based on Rand and worshipped by all people who do not deserve our hatred. Glad that's settled. Alienus 06:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

An ignorant loudmouth

“The American philosophy of the Rights of Man was never grasped fully by European intellectuals. Europe’s predominant idea of emancipation consisted of changing the concept of man as a slave of the absolute state embodied by a kind, to the concept of man as a slave of the absolute state embodied by ‘the people’… European thinkers did not notice that during the 19th century, the galley slaves had been replaced by the inventors of steamboats, and the village blacksmiths by the owners of blast furnaces.” (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p13)

The ‘Rights of Man’ is Tom Paine’s translation of French Droit des Hommes, definitely males, implicitly just white males. Paine was born in England. the whole ‘rights’ philosophy had been developed in Europe, carried into slave-owning America. He and Rousseau are not in Ayn Rand’s index, nor is Adam Smith.

The steamship was also invented in Europe, and replaced the sailing ships that had always been the norm outside of the Mediterranean. The very last galley slaves were replaced just as plantation slavery was blossoming in Free America.

It is also odd to hold up blast furnaces as a better expression of freedom than village blacksmiths: wage labour dependent on a rich owner as a replacement for individual small producers. You could call it necessary or more productive, but how is freedom is best served by sweeping aside local production? I suppose it comes naturally when you are full of evangelical zeal: everything capitalist must be free, even if ignorant people who used to have their own independent businesses have the delusion that market forces has made them less free and dependent on others for their lives.

Ayn Rand ‘proves’ the merit of capitalism by simply crediting it with everything good, and blaming the state for everything bad. Thus the 1914-18 war is blamed on monarchist Germany and Czarist Russia (Germany was by then an Empire), who dragged in their freer allies (page 37). Which is sheer ignorance: France was not unambiguously obliged to support Russia, and Britain made a free decision to join a war in which Britain had been expected to stay neutral.

By a similar logic, the long peace following the Napoleonic Wars is credited to capitalism (page 38). Never mind that the USA had been at war with Britain from 1812 to 1814, and that two of the powers that helped make the Napoleonic peace were Czarist Russia and the Prussian Monarchy. She counts Russia and Prussia as capitalist for making peace in 1815, but not capitalist for making war in 1914.

She says 'objective' about things she feels strongly about, regardless of whether they are objective, things that any detached observer ought to believe.

--GwydionM 19:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that she let her politics skew her view of history. This is not news. Alienus 23:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I said she was ignorant. Richard Dawkins lets his belief skew his books on evolution, but is still well-informed and interesting. Ayn Rand makes really simple errors of fact. She shows 'encyclopaedic ignorance' - not knowning things that you could get from any decent encyclopaedia, if you were not already convinced of the 'objectiveness' of your own first thoughts. --GwydionM 18:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Spinoza1111 08:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Unfortunately I have to agree with Gwydion. Ayn Rand as an American philosopher is an embarassment with her cultishness and refusal to read Kant. Nonetheless, we should do her ghost the favor she never did Kant, and that's take her Very Seriously. It is to me my American duty by so doing to show what a laugh and a half her "philosophy" is, and as a way of apologizing to the rest of the world for The Great American Disaster...constituted by us Americans voting Reagan into office in 1980.

Spinoza1111 08:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)But this is not the place. My understanding is that while POVs and new facts (such as the fact above that the Bible does retail an anti-wealth story in the parable of Dives and Lazarus) are useful here, extended flamefests are not.

Not quite. Talk pages are intented to be used for improving the article. I hardly think this is accomplished by citing an anecdote from the Bible—which, as you are surely aware, would not have convinced Rand or any of her followers. --zenohockey 20:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Spinoza1111 08:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)To get to NPOV go by the way of POV.

It's simply tragic and profoundly revealing that this cult leader and pseudo-philophers gets 40 KB written about her in Wikipedia and Gottlobe Frege

(greatest logican since Aristole) gets about 3. Thank god, the professioannly-refereed Stanford Encylcopedia of Philosophy has taken another approach which disreagrds notoriety for being a flake and ignorant wacko who knew how to manipulate peole.--Lacatosias 10:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This section is nothing but a forum for people to mouth off about Ayn Rand. Its the equivalent of a Internet BBoard of teens screaming about how Simon is a "punk" and Paula is a "hotty".

Show me one single thing that this discussion has added to this article.Billyjoekoepsel 14:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

'Feed The Rich' policies

Ayn Rand was eccentric in the Keynesian era, someone who ignored the lessons of the Great Depression and the success of the New Deal. Bizarre in her definition of big business as America’s persecuted minority (page 44)—this was back in 1961, when racial segregation was widespread and women lacked many rights that are now taken for granted. Yet Ayn Rand was gripped by a self-consistent madness: she has defined market forces as always fair.

Since markets are always free, provided there is no state role, then anything that happens through market forces is not coercion, even if ignorant people suppose that financial pressures are forcing them to do something they didn’t want. To have your way of life destroyed and an alien social pattern imposed on you through runaway market forces is to be free. To be the most privileged stratum, yet subject to some social rules, is to be persecuted. (Or it is if you are a big businessman—very few businesswomen in those days, and Ayn Rand saw nothing odd in that.)

Ayn Rand’s policy–big business not nearly privileged enough–became government policy in the 1980s, under the supervision of her one-time disciple Alan Greenspan. The economic benefits of the Keynesian semi-capitalist system were fairly shared between rich, poor and middle-income groups, the entire benefit of economic growth in the USA since the 1970s has gone to the richest 10%, especially to a dominant elite of some one million dollar-millionaires.

Those parts of the Keynesian system that benefit the rich have not been touched. The government underpins the financial markets and subsidises farmers, who then mostly vote against subsidies or protection for anyone else.

--GwydionM 19:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that she was a Libertarian. This is not news. Alienus 23:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Spinoza1111 07:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)No, he was saying that (1) Rand was a libertarian, that (2) libertarians suck, and (most important) (3) libertarianism sucks and blows because in a dynamic system, if you do not feed Dives you must feed Lazarus.

Any questions?

[Oh, all right. Dives was a poor man who was scratching his hairy ass in front of the Temple every day with his other paw out for quarters and dimes. Lazarus passed him every day and would not give Dives a penny.]

[After Judgement day, Lazarus was a burnin in that pit which is bottomless and he called upon Dives, who was walking on the blessed land, for to get a drop of water, but Dives said, I am in glory and you have what you deserve.]

[It's a harsh little old tale even if it was set to music by Ralph Vaughan Williams but like any parable it has to be read widdershins.]

[For we're not to question what happens after Glory in traditional religion of the sort from which this tale emerges, only to reflect that old Lazarus made a choice for which old Lazarus was responsible.]

[Libertarians say I need not choose, this life of mine here extends in all directions. I am no widow, and another man's death is news to me but no more. I am a rock, I am an island, and an island never cries.]

To 'Rock' (or 'Island')

You quote a load of words said by other people. A normal social process, but have you thought about (a) why you do this (b) why you are able to do this.

Libertarians are mostly conformist characters who have no idea even why they conform, or what else might be possible. They are liberated because they follow the rules without anyone coercing them to.

That is indeed the only way a libertarian or anarchic system can work, everyone obeying spontaneously so no one need by coerced. Which strikes me as a cure much worse than the disease.

--GwydionM 22:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This thread is a wonderful place to remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor is it a soapbox. Especially in light of recent events, we don't need to project the image of a bunch of Usenet rejects. --zenohockey 02:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Good news in article sited above - anonymous users will no longer be able to create new articles. The question is: why allow anonymous users at all? In my experience, a large majority of anon users are vandals. Libertarianism is all well and good, but... Camillus^{talk|contribs} 09:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Just FYI to those reading this section, especially late at night: the stuff in [ brackets ] above is *either* a bizarre parody *or* a badly misremembered version of Luke 16:19-31. — Preceding unsigned comment added by jrcagle (talk • contribs)

Spinoza1111 08:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Oh? Badly remembered?

Maybe I grow old, so I check out.

Oops.

"There was a rich man 13 who dressed in purple garments and fine linen and dined sumptuously each day. And lying at his door was a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who would gladly have eaten his fill of the scraps that fell from the rich man's table. Dogs even used to come and lick his sores. When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, and from the netherworld, where he was in torment, he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he cried out, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.' Abraham replied, 'My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented."

Now, the original may have been mistranslated. Perhaps old Dives pissed on Lazarus from a rich man's heaven like unto Dubai because Lazarus didn't have Prosperity Consciousness and wasn't Objective enuf.

But probably not. The folk memory of the tale appears to be accurate, and the Bible usually takes the poor man's side. See not only all the Gospels, see also Amos.

Nothing is meant to be parody.

This Discussion page, however, is no place for a flamefest nor a religious rant. I entered the room because I felt that for the sake of NPOV, the article should not be written exclusively by Randroids, and that it should engage other voices for the sake of NPOV.

I find that my original post improved the quality of the controversy section and although most of it was nuked (its original text is above) the point remains that Rand has villains succeed in disordered "socialist" societies to be sure. Which will raise the question in the sufficiently thoughtful reader's mind as to whether Rand's politics are circular.

The article does, IMO, a pretty good job now in giving a Fair and Balanced image of Rand so I be chilling.

Edit war on ARIWatch link

This is getting silly. I've seen this link added and deleted repeatedly, and without discussion, which goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. Let's hash it out right here and now. I'll start by saying the link should stay. Yes, it's not friendly to ARI, which considers itself the high church of Rand, but just because it's not canonical doesn't mean it's irrelevant. To list the ARI without ARIWatch is NPOV. Alienus 07:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I would also let the link stay. --Anagnorisis 07:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about it being NPOV to remove, but since there are countless other web links, leave it. Dyslexic agnostic 08:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Briefly, I consider it NPOV because it entails sharing the ARI interpretation of Rand while silencing the alternatives. In fact, I suspect that some of the people who've deleted the link are ARI loyalists. Alienus 17:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The link should stay, to give readers both sides of the debate over Rand's legacy and real positions. --zenohockey 16:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

What does a list of anti-war essays have to do with Ayn Rand? How is it an "organization promoting Ayn Rand's philosophy?" This like would be appropriate for the Ayn Rand Institute article, not this one.

Btw, the essays on that site claim that ARI misrepresents Ayn Rand’s views – yet they ignore many of her own essays and statements, such as those in the newly released “Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A,” which are far more radical than the things coming out of ARI.--GreedyCapitalist 18:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they claim ARI is not an accurate represenation of Rand's views. You clearly disagree, which is your POV. The article, however, is supposed to lack a POV, so I've restored the link that you erased. Alienus 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Update: There's been another edit attack against the ARI Watch link, this time without even bothering to pretend that some effort was being made to seek a consensus. No comment was made here and no name was associated with the IP. So far, the responses have largely supported the continued inclusion of this link, and the one stated disagreement offered only a subjective basis. As such, I feel that I have a mandaste to prevent the deletion of the link. Alienus 21:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the link should stay. --Anagnorisis 23:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

There's been a consistent pattern of vandalism by 65.115.199.90, both on Objectivist Philosophy and Ayn Rand. The vandalism is the removal of the ARI Watch link, presumably because the vandal is a supporter of ARI. Whenever this comes up for a vote, the response is strongly towards keeping the link, but the vandal doesn't much care for consensus. I'm thinking it's time to consider blocking their access to these two pages, so as allow us to stop wasting time cleaning up their vandalism. I think the pattern is quite visible if you look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=65.115.199.90&offset=0&limit=500 Alienus 20:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The vandalism is the ADDITION of the ARI Watch link which, as correctly pointed out, is a collection of subjective, one-sided and largely inaccurate essays. Note that other links that point to essays critical of Objectivism or Rand are not being questioned, as they present objective, well thought out, and ACCURATE critiques. There is definitely NOT clear consensus on including this link, and by default it must be ommitted. --Papep 14:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the essays on ARI Watch are "subjective," they reflect the views of a significant number of people, from all parts of the political and philosophical spectra. They should therefore stay. --zenohockey 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me rephrase: The quality, accuracy, and often falsely-based bias of ARI Watch is so inferior to encyclopedic standards that the link shouldn't be considered unless there's absolute consensus, which there obviously isn't. ARI Watch is basically a personal diatribe or polemic designed explicitly to smear a philosophy and its associated writings with propaganda that amounts to little more than pseudoscience. As I mentioned before, the other links to critical essays and similar writings are perfectly valid as relevant educational references critiquing the philosophy, but ARI Watch is most definitely not. --Papep 18:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That's your POV. Fortunately, the article doesn't reflect any one POV, including your own. You don't have to like ARIWatch, but the consensus is that it belongs here. For NPOV reasons alone, we should have it so long as we link to ARIWatch. Moreover, despite the consensus for keeping, the link has been vandalized repeatedly by people who don't leave edit comments. This in itself is reason enough to keep it! Alienus 20:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the POV is being pushed by the ARIWatch-icsts, and I'm simply pointing out that the link doesn't meet Wikipedia's Reliable Sources requirements, as the other links do. If I created a blog or personal anti-this or anti-that web page, that doesn't automatically qualify it. The site contains red flags, lacks cohesive editorial oversight, lacks any apparent reliability, and includes "claims which strongly support one or another party in an ongoing dispute".

As I've said elsewhere, people can make up their own minds about whether or not the site "lacks any apparent reliabilty"—a claim for which you have offered no evidence. People aren't stupid; they know that websites, especially those ending in .com, can have quite a bit of chaff. It's not your decision to make, Papep, nor is it mine -- it's the reader's. --zenohockey 01:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it's the reader's decision to THINK about what they're reading. However, that's not a license to link to any propagandist website. It seems that the ARIWatch cultists will have it their way, regardless of Wikipedia's high standards, so I will stop wasting my words. --Papep 13:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Birthdate

The article lists Ayn Rand's birthdate as Feb. 2, 1905. Is this the Julian or Gregorian calendar? (Russia was on the Julian calendar at the time, but most of the world had already switched to the Gregorian.) Whatever it is, the article should clarify this point. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Different calendars. --דוד ♣ D Monack 20:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Feb 2 is the Gregorian calendar date. The date on her birth certificate is Jan 20 (Old Style), but other than the picture of her birth certificate in one of her biographies, I've never seen the date presented using anything other than the Gregorian date. --RL0919 00:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

positively evil?

I'm new here, so please forgive my ignorance of any niceties of form. I added the picture of Rand's grave marker, and I am gratified that no one has seen fit to change it (yet). Now, I'd like to suggest a change to the text -- the phrase "positively evil" seems awkward to me -- how about "downright evil" instead? 69.243.232.38 00:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. --zenohockey 01:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"nearly censored"?

In the section "Major works", two Italian film adaptations of We the Living are said to have been "nearly censored", which I found confusing. When a film is said to be censored, this usually implies that parts were changed or removed by the authorities -- although it can also be said that the authorities merely looked at it but made no changes (which is the case with most letters soldiers send home). From the context, it seems to me that someone was trying to say that the films were almost kept from distribution by the Italian government, but in the end were released because Mussolini thought they were "anti-Soviet". Could someone who knows the details of this incident confirm my reading from the context is correct & make the necessary changes? -- llywrch 18:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

external links

These were cut down without comment and with bias, so I mostly reverted the changes. I did trim down duplicate entries, though, such as the multiple links to different parts of the same NobelSoul page. I also noticed that, as usual, the ARI Watch link was removed, so I'm wondering if the vandal is an orthodox ARI loyalist. Alienus 16:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Not likely. ARI enthusiasts don't like NobleSoul, as it links to TOC. --zenohockey 22:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, then maybe it's general vandalism. Alienus 22:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

One of the only philosophers

Hi, Zenohockey. I reverted your edit calling Aristotle "one of the only" philosophers to influence AR. "One of the few" would make sense, but what is the citation? If she said Aristotle was the only one to influence her, that's what she said, even if Spinoza did also influence her. Seeing as the quote isn't referenced, however, it's hard to check. --Slashme 06:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There may well be a gap between who she says influenced her and who is generally understood to have been an influence. For example, I seem to remember that she at one point admitted to influence from Nietzsche but repudiated him later. Alienus 18:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I found a quote referencing Aquinas:

[Q:] Besides Aristotle and Ayn Rand, have any other philosophers identified important philosophic truth?

[A:] Yes, Thomas Aquinas. ... He was valuable in clarifying and developing many Aristotelian ideas.

Ayn Rand Answers (New York: NAL, 2005) 148.

J. Raibley of The Objectivist Center lists Rand's influences as: "Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, Spinoza, Locke, Nietzsche."

And a passage from We the Living that was later cut is frighteningly Nietzchean: "What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?" [1]

If there are no objections after a while, I'll list the above influences. --zenohockey 22:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy Portal

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Portal#Use_of_portal_links_on_websites for a discussion on whether to include a link to the Philosophy Portal. --Slashme 11:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ayn Rand Did NOT oppose gay rights

I am removing Ayn Rand from the LGBT rights opposition category because she specifically stated that anti-homosexual laws violated individual rights and should repealed. True, she did state that homosexuality "is immoral and disgusting," (though she seems to have changed her views of homosexuality's morality later in life). In any case, she did NOT oppose gay rights.

She said it was "immoral and disgusting", and she opposed laws that guaranteed equal rights or recognized hate crimes. In other words, she would support the right of a business owner to fire an employee purely on the basis of sexual orientation. I think that's more than sufficient reason to leave her on the LGBT rights opposition category, don't you? Alienus 01:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No. She opposed hate crime laws because she viewed them as government regulation of ideas, not because of anti-homosexual antipathy. Similarly, she believed that business owners had the right to fire an employee for ANY reason (likewise an employee had the right to quit for any reason). You could, with equal logic, call her a racist, an anti-semite, anti-tall, anti-fat, anti-Christian, anti-atheist,... ad infinitum because she opposed those laws. The fact remains that in her statements on homosexuality, she supported repealing laws that targeted homosexuals, and Objectivists today support gay marriage (for example, see http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=3513). If I support the right of say, a neo-Nazi's right to free speech does that make me a Nazi, or anti-Jewish rights?(unsigned)

Speech is not action. I support the right of Klansmen to march, but not to lynch. I even support the right of Rand to say homosexuality is "immoral and disgusting", but unlike her, I don't see why we should allow companies to hire and fire on the basis of irrelevancies such as sexual orientation, ethnicity or religion. As for same-sex marriage, since when do Libertarians (including Objectivists) support the notion of the government sanctioning marriage as anything more than a contract between two people? Anyhow, the only problem with the category (other than your dislike of it) is that it wasn't cited. I fixed that now. Alienus 05:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a distinct difference between lynching someone (using force) and banning people (for whatever reason) from using your property. Ayn Rand did not argue that it was moral to discriminate on this kind of basis in the hiring and firing of people (actually, she argued the opposite), but no one's rights are being violated because someone else refuses to work with him. It is a violation of property rights to make companies institute (whether rational or irrational) hiring practices they do not agree with. Ayn Rand upheld the sanctity of property rights; she did not propose anti-homosexual legislation.(unsigned)

Uhm, you're not actually disagreeing with me. You've admitted than Rand consider homosexuality immoral and disgusting, and that she supports the right of businesses to fire people for being gay. That's enough. Any interpretation you add past this point is purely POV and irrelevant. Unless you can come up with a consensus of editors or some citations strong enough to overturn my own, I consider this matter settled. Alienus 05:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am disagreeing with you. Just because someone thinks that homosexuality is immoral does not mean that he wants to discriminate against it legally. Also, upholding the right of people to act by their own judgment (however irrationally, as in the case of discrimination based on race or sexual orientation, for example) does not mean that someone is somehow opposing the rights of people who belong to the discriminated group. Again, Ayn Rand would have supported the right of businessmen to hire or fire people for ANY reason. If I follow your logic then Ayn Rand is against every single group of people and people like Milton Friedman, Adam Smith, Friedrich von Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Justin Raimondo, etc. all belong in the LGBT rights opposition category. No one has a RIGHT to use someone else's property without his consent, whether or not the owner's lack of consent is rational or not. (unsigned; when will you learn to sign?)

You're free to disagree, but I'm obligated to disregard. Unless you have something stronger than your POV, I see no reason to allow you to censor the page. If someone calls homosexuality immoral and disgusting, and wants to allow companies to fire gays, this is more than sufficient to put her in the "LGBT rights opposition" category. Your POV is noted, but irrelevant. I realize you're very new to Wiki, since you don't even know to sign your name and you're about to hit the 3RR. If you revert again, I will be forced to report you. Alienus 06:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine, put her in the category as long as you also put anyone else who upholds the rights to total use and disposal of one's own property as well. Again, by your definition of "rights," you would have to put Friedman, Smith, von Hayek, Rothbard, Raimondo, and everyone who claims to uphold capitalism or libertarianism. Your interpretation of rights seems rather subjective, especially in light of the fact that Rand believed that homosexuals had the right to marry and to engage in any consensual sexual behavior they chose. Finally, by your logic, Rand (along with the other names I've mentioned) belongs simultaneously in any "anti-semite," "White supremacist," "Black supremacist," "Feminist," or "anti-Feminist" categories, because she upheld the political right to refuse to associate with anyone for ANY reason, whether that reason was rational or not (she did not hold that it was moral to do so). If you feel the need to report me, then do so, although I believe that in adding her into the LGBT rights opposition category, you are asserting your own POV regarding the nature of rights. (unsigned still)

Your point seems to be that she opposed all human rights whenever they conflicted with property rights, hence she was neutral. Perhaps this is the case, but the argument fails on two counts.

1) She called it immoral and disgusting. This is not neutrality.

2) She opposed such mainstays of the LGBT rights movement as protection from being fired on the sole basis of sexual orientation/identity.

In short, at best your argument demonstrates that she belongs in some other anti-rights categories. If so, let others add her. I'm just preserving a reasonable addition that someone else made, and I will continue to do so unless and until there is good reason to stop. Good reason would include a strong consensus or clear counterevidence. Alienus 04:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, nameless IP from San Diego, you broke the 3RR. For a minute, you confused me by switching from 68.7.212.152 to 66.27.122.84, but then you revealed yourself by replying above, still without signature. You're not fooling anyone. If you don't quit this edit war, I will report you for rule violation and get you blocked on both of these IP's. Alienus 04:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, sorry, but I don't know how to sign. Anyway here's a quotation from the Objectivist Center's summation of Ayn Rand's views on homosexuality and rights: "However, this moral fact has no political implications. While many conservatives believe that homosexuality should be outlawed and many liberals believe that homosexuals should be given special rights, Objectivism holds that as long as no force is involved, people have the right to do as they please in sexual matters, whether or not their behavior is considered by others to be or is in fact moral. And since individual rights are grounded in the nature of human beings as human beings, homosexuals do not deserve any more or less rights than heterosexuals." By implication, you would hold that everyone who upholds property rights is anti- LGBT rights; at most, one could say that such people (including Rand) are against many aspects of the LGBT movement, but not against LGBT rights. If there is a category for "anti-LGBT movement," I would support Rand's placement in it. But it is absurd to say she belongs in any category opposing LGBT rights. Lastly, I was not trying to "fool" anyone by using a different computer; I was away from my own at the time. Report me if you like. (forever unsigned)

Ok, I will. In fact, I just did [2]. As I suggested in my report, you seem to be a newbie with neither an understanding of nor a respect for the way things work here. If the admins are paying attention, you will be given a harsh reminder that may even teach you not to launch edit wars.

In any case, thank you for proving my point for me. The quote sided with the conservative notion that the LGBT community is demanding special rights, and uses this as the basis for opposing these rights. The problem, of course, is that there's nothing "special" about equality.

Just today, I revealed my sexual orientation at work, effectively "outing" myself by admitting I was in a long-term sexual relationship with a woman. Luckily for me, I'm male, so I wasn't at any risk. If I were female and the world was as Rand would like it, I could have been fired summarily and without legal recourse. Without the law mandating equality, the majority wins, so ostensible neutrality is itself partisan. Alienus 08:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree totall with placement of Ayn Rand in category, as you know; I also believe it involves POV. I would like to suggest a more neutral position, namely, renaming the LGBT rights opposition category LGBT movement opposition. This I think is more neutral, and I would support placing Rand in that category, just as she was against the feminist movement, but supported women's having careers (which was atypical in her time) and abortion rights. (LaszloWalrus)

The parallel problem affects her stance on feminism, in that she may have supported a subset of the rights that feminists demanded for women, but only an insufficient subset. For example, I expect that she was against the ERA, as it would have been an example of guaranteeing a positive right to be protected by the government from being underpaid and otherwise discriminated against.

Essentially, Rand's libertarian view of rights made her incapable of supporting anything but negative and contractual rights, which permanently puts her at odds with fundamentally non-libertarian movements, including these two. In fact, my OR suggests that many followers of Rand are quite hostile to feminism because it's seen as collectivist and, uhm, reality-evading or somesuch. (I just report what I see, so please don't ask me to explain, much less justify, what these people say.)

Saying Rand only opposed the LGBT and feminist movements while not opposing those two sets of rights would be misleading, because her opposition to these movements stems precisely from opposition to the demand for positive government-enforced rights, which are part and parcel of the movements. Moreover, these movements are largely defined in terms of the rights they demand. What would the LGBT or feminsit movements be if they didn't demand legal protection from discriminatory hiring practices?!

Now, I'm not the one who created the "LGBT rights opposition" category, nor did I first place her in it. I merely supported leaving it alone because it really does fit. What's odd about this whole event is that, in support of leaving a category, I wound up writing a section of criticism, which was something I've done my best to avoid doing all along. My goal in participating here is to avoid getting involved in Rand-bashing and Rand-worshipping alike, instead keeping things fair (such as repeatedly restoring the much-hated ARIWatch link).

Anyhow, because I didn't create the category, I wouldn't want to modify it. Moreover, a unilateral change would render it a category with only one member, which seems silly. For this reason, I support leaving things pretty much as is. Alienus 01:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it would only leave one member in the category; there is a clear difference between someone who believes that only "negative" rights are valid and someone who believes that homosexuals should have fewer governmental rights (i.e. Fred Phelps, Fidel Castro, the KKK). Further, there could still be an LGBT or feminist movement without the demand for employment protection; such movements could demand simply equal government rights (like gay marriage, for example) and work to end social discrimination without government help. In any case, I think placing Rand in the category is highly misleading, and the category should be modified, or she should be removed from it. LaszloWalrus 02:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

For all the reasons stated above, I must disagree with you. Of course Rand isn't ideologically equivalent to, say, Phelps, but she's clearly an opponent of LGBT rights. Any claim that she opposed them solely on the basis of her libertarianism is refuted by her public statements against the morality of homosexuality. Alienus 02:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; she specifically stated that homosexuality should be decriminalized, and that homosexuals were being unfairly discriminated against by the government. Just because she thought that homosexuality was immoral does not mean she endorsed discrimination. Rand believed that drug use was immoral, but argued for its legalization. LaszloWalrus 04:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

As a libertarian, she supported decriminalizing all sorts of things, including firing people for being gay, so this doesn't help your case. She was anti-drugs and anti-homosexuality, on the same basis, even if she didn't want laws against them. No dice. Alienus 04:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Being against something on moral grounds does not mean that one opposes it legally, and rights are a legal concept. If you extend the LGBT rights opposition logic, then she was ant-rights for every conceivable grouping of people. LaszloWalrus 04:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

She did oppose it legally. She just didn't oppose it quite so much as Phelps. Saying she opposed other things is an argument for adding her to other categories, not a defense against keeping her in this one. I think we've gone round and round a few times on this and you're not saying anything I haven't already rejected, so I see no point further repeating myself. If it comes down to it, I will simply seek a consensus on this issue. Alienus 04:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No, she didn't oppose it legally. She thought the government should not be involved in the issue at all; Phelps thinks there should be government-enforced discrimination. It's not an issue of not "oppos[ing] it quite so much as Phelps"; they're in totally different universes. Again, carrying your logic throughout, she's also "anti-heterosexual rights," since she believed that business owners should be able to set whatever policies they wanted, no matter how irrational. LaszloWalrus 03:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've refuted this argument before, so why do you want me to repeat myself? She did say homosexuality was immoral and disgusting, and she did oppose laws to protect gays from discriminatory employment practices. Everything else you say is entirely irrelevant to these basic, undeniable facts. Because of these facts, she deserves to be categorized as an opponent of LGBT rights. Unless you can dispute these facts -- as opposed to muddle the issue with irrelevancies, such as who else's rights she opposed -- you are wasting my time. Alienus 23:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, you are asserting your POV about the nature of rights. Please stop putting Rand in the LGBT rights opposition category, or I will be forced to revert it. Unless you can point out specfically where she opposed equal governmental rights for homosexuals, you have no basis for your claims. 64.167.172.163 23:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm asserting that, if you look at the list of rights demanded by the LGBT community, some of the key items are opposed by Rand. No matter how you slice it, this puts her in the opposition-to-LGBT-rights camp, just as the original categorizer recognized. This is an incontrovertible fact, no matter what ideological excuses are given to explain her opposition away.

In specific, claiming she supported equal rights is a sham. I'm reminded of a quote by Anatole France that says, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to beg in the streets, steal bread, or sleep under a bridge." In case the irony is lost on you, this "equal" law has, by no small coincidence, an unequal impact.

In the same way, if Rand would allow the minority, as well as the majority, to discriminate against each other in matters such as employment practices, this fake neutrality amounts to tacit support for those in power: it would be gays who are disproportionately harmed by Rand's policies. Moreover, any claim that this unfortunate consequence does not mean she opposed homosexuals smacks right into her "immoral" and "disgusting" quotes.

You are doing Rand a disservice by whitewashing her stance. If she were alive today, she'd admit that she opposes homosexuals and that she would not lift a finger to stop an employer from firing on the basis of sexual orientation. She's probably also berate you for making excuses where none are needed.

This is reality. Deal with it. Any attempt to remove the category amounts to nothing more than vandalism, and I will treat it as such. Alienus 00:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of Rand in the "LGBT rights opposition category" seems to me a bit POV. Rejection of the morality of homosexuality does not translate into opposition to equal rights; there seems to be an anti-minarchist bias here. JRobbins 00:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As it turns out, Rand opposed key elements of LGBT rights, such as the right not to be fired for being gay. For this, and her statements about homosexuality being immoral, disgusting and nuts, she earned her categorization, so I'm restoring it once again. Alienus 07:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, the consensus seems to be with me. I'm removing the "LGBT Rights Opposition" categorization once more. LaszloWalrus 00:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, it's not. Alienus 02:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the consensus does seem to be with me. I've counted several people on my side in favor of eliminating Ayn Rand's name from the LGBT rights opposition category (I think it's a bad category in general and should be reserved for people who support governmental discrimination against homosexuality like Castro, Santorum, and Phelps, but that's a different story). As I've said before, I believe that you are asserting your POV regarding the nature of rights. Several others seem to agree with me. I'm removing her from the category. LaszloWalrus 08:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The LGBT rights movement is neither Libertarian nor Objectivist, so we have to understand it on its own terms, not filtered through negative-rights-colored sunglasses. The LGBT rights movement includes many positive rights in its list of what it fights for. Anyone who opposes these positive rights, for whatever reason, is opposing the LGBT rights movement. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that Rand opposed the core belief of this movement, which is that homosexuality is moral; she said it was sick and wrong. These are facts, not opinions. You need to address these facts, not merely point out that a few people dislike them and would like to whitewash Rand's gay-bashing. I am going to restore the category unless and until you stop evading reality and start addressing the facts. Alienus 16:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent)

Note how Laslow was unable or unwilling to respond at this point. Nonetheless, he was quite willing to vandalize the article by removing the category. Just for the record. Alienus 08:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Facts, please

The discussion above about Rand and LGBT rights seems to have turned into a debate about Rand's views. I would like to move the discussion back to what is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, if that is possible. I would like to ask whether anyone has an actual quote from Rand herself stating opposition to "LGBT rights" (or some less anachronistic equivalent, such as "gay rights") or some specific position that is directly dispositive of the question. I have studied Rand's life and works for over 20 years, and I am not aware of such a statement. Rand definitely disapproved of homosexuality. I can provide quotes for that. She also opposed laws criminalizing it. I can provide those quotes as well. However, I do not know of any quotes where she states a position on "LGBT rights." (Let me note that some materials referred to during this discussion, such as the article in Capitalism Magazine and the quote from The Objectivist Center, are materials written by others decades after Rand's death, and do not claim to be representations of Rand's personal views.)

Now, I could very easily infer what her position was, based on other comments she made about laws against racial discrimination, etc. But an encyclopedia entry about Rand is not the place for me (or others) to engage in such inference. If there is factual information that places Rand explicitly into the category of opposing LGBT rights, then please document it. Otherwise, she doesn't belong in the category on Wikipedia, regardless of what you might infer from her statements on other subjects. -- RL0919 19:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's your document: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/homosexuality.htm Alienus 21:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have that book. It does not contain any discussion of Rand as an "LGBT rights opponent," and does not document any statements beyond those I already alluded to above (disapproving of homosexuality and opposing its criminalization). It does discuss her negative views of homosexuality, and the impacts thereof. Referring to a work only counts as evidence for a claim if the work actually supports that claim. -- RL0919 04:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I get the impression that, unless the book says in exactly these words that she opposed LGBT rights, you're not going to draw any obvious inferences. Alienus 16:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am entirely willing to make inferences. What I am not willing to do is make those inferences the basis for assigning entries to Wikipedia categories. Let me repeat what I wrote above: "I could very easily infer what her position was, based on other comments she made about laws against racial discrimination, etc. But an encyclopedia entry about Rand is not the place for me (or others) to engage in such inference. If there is factual information that places Rand explicitly into the category of opposing LGBT rights, then please document it. Otherwise, she doesn't belong in the category on Wikipedia, regardless of what you might infer from her statements on other subjects."

Consider this from another angle: Wikipedia is not supposed to be a source of original research. What reputable outside source characterizes Rand as an opponent of LGBT rights? Sciabarra's book that you referred to above doesn't. I don't know offhand of a source that does. If your answer is that your "source" is inference from Rand's related statements -- which appears to be your argument throughout this discussion -- then you should publish this unsourced argument elsewhere, not on Wikipedia. -- RL0919 00:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that Ayn Rands primary concern was with "Individual Rights" as opposed to "Collective Rights." If you where to ask Rand if she were against "Gay Rights" she just might say you are right. Her antagonism towards Collectivism in every form is well documented. She would never support an argument that had this at its core.

She would support a businessman's right to hire and dismiss employees as they wished without fear of government intervention. And yes, That means she would support a Heterosexual's right to fire a Gay person for no other reason than the fact that he doesn't like Gay people. She would likewise support the Gay owner when he fires a Heterosexual. Or a Black owners right to fire Whites. A Muslim firing a Jew wouldn't make her blink. She couldn't care a straw what group any of them where in.

All of this is a fact. Rand would never support ANY rights that derive from nothing but an affiliation with some group. That includes LGBT rights.

On the other hand Rand would vehemently oppose any law that restricted the rights of individuals to choose their own sexual orientation. She would see the restrictions as wrong on principle and still think that homosexuality "is immoral and disgusting."

All in all I would say that the her inclusion in the LGBT rights opposition category has a basis in fact if you focus on nothing but the sources that support your conclusions and ignore her thoughts on Individual Rights as a whole, which are the foundation of her arguments on this issue. Billyjoekoepsel 23:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

1) Rand is on record saying homosexuality is immoral. This means that she opposed the core belief underlying the entire LGBT rights movement; that homosexuality is a variation that is entirely moral.

2) Rand is on record saying that she opposes laws that prevent discrimination by businesses against gays. The right not to be discriminated against is key to the LGBT rights movement.

NEITHER of these two statements has been questioned, much less refuted. All I've heard is that Rand shouldn't be listed because she was against all sorts of other stuff as well. This is not a rational argument, it's evasion of reality. Alienus 00:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Your second claim has been challenged -- there has been no evidence presented that Rand is "on record" saying anything about laws against discrimination against gays. She is on record opposing similar laws involving race, and it is a reasonable inference that she opposed such laws in regard to sexual orientation. But reasonable inference is not the same as "on record." If it isn't in the public record, then placing her in the category is inappropriate. I could go through Wikipedia and find dozens of historical figures who didn't discuss LGBT rights and infer that they opposed them, but absent an actual record of such opposition, I don't think that is appropriate either. -- RL0919 14:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Burden tennis is fun, but you need to find someone stupid enough to be your partner. The fact is that Rand is on record against all government intervention in employment policies. It is now up to you to demonstrate that she made an unprincipled exception in order to support the right of gays to require that companies follow a law that restricts their ability to hire and fire on the basis of homosexuality. Failure to do so constitutes an admission that no such exception has ever been made.

Moreover, as I pointed out, Rand has explicitly spoken out against homosexuality. What's funny is that, now that her ideas have gained some popularity among gays, there is a desperate attempt to whitewash her hatred and disgust for homosexuality. Who are you trying to fool? Do you love her so much that you'd hide the truth of what she was? Alienus 21:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, I think you should tone down the accusations and insults. I am holding out a simple and consistent standard: to place someone in the category, there should be on record an explicit statement or action by that person on the subject in question -- not statements on related issues, or inferences about what her principles imply. Other subjects in the category, such as Jerry Fallwell or Fidel Castro, meet this criterion quite easily. Rand does not. -- RL0919 04:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Take all the offense you like, though none was intended, but at least answer the question.

I asked whether you disputed that Rand is on record against all government intervention in employment policies (including laws to protect gay rights). You didn't answer. I asked whether there is any reason at all to think she made an unprincipled exception for gays. You didn't answer. I asked whether Rand has indicated that homosexuality is sick and wrong. You didn't answer. Why don't you answer?

Do I need to exhume Rand, reanimate her corpse and have her utter the words herself in order for you to accept what the above questions make obvious? How high a bar will you set to prevent the potentially embarassing admission that Rand opposed gay rights? This is about the truth, not arbitrary standards of evidence which are apparently designed to prevent the truth from getting out. 16:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In the first place, why would I need to respond to points that I already addressed earlier in the discussion? To quote myself from above: "She is on record opposing similar laws involving race, and it is a reasonable inference that she opposed such laws in regard to sexual orientation." And from farther up: "Rand definitely disapproved of homosexuality. I can provide quotes for that." Second, focusing on these questions is to entirely miss the point of my argument, which is that what you or I might infer about Rand's beliefs is not something that belongs on Wikipedia. What I might "admit" in (for example) a Usenet discussion board is not the standard for an encyclopedia. So if you can exhume Rand's corpse and have her utter the words herself, I'll say that remarkable event should be recorded in the Wikipedia article about her. In the meantime, I see no place on Wikipedia for speculation about what she probably thought about subjects she did not speak about during life. -- RL0919 00:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is Rand on record for saying that she opposes laws that prevent discrimination by businesses against gays? I have read almost everything she's ever written and I have never come across this. Again Alienus, you seem to have trouble understanding that opposition to something on moral grounds does not translate into opposition to its legality. What little Rand had to say on the matter of gay rights is unequivocally against government discrimination. The consensus is with me. LaszloWalrus 00:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think whether or not there is a consensus with anyone's opinion is the point. Its all about factuality and that alone. The two facts that Alienus basis his whole argument on are in essence the truth.

The categorizing of her as an "LGBT Rights Opponent" is absolutely correct if you first accept the argument that those two facts alone are enough to warrant the need for this categorization.

I would question that this is the true acid test myself. But this issue is covered by Wiki policy. Go to "Category: LGBT rights opposition." It does insinuate that more than one type of opposition is covered by this category.

One group is people that want to criminalize homosexual activities. The other group is people that object to special rights being given to homosexuals over and above individual rights. It says that "The individuals and groups listed below therefore are not identical in their attitudes."

Its my opinion that her inclusion in this category is misleading but not significant enough to get postal about. Its much more offensive to see people constantly referring to Ayn as a Libertarian. Billyjoekoepsel 05:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

If you agree that she belongs in this category, I encourage you to revert Laszlow's changes so I can avoid 3RR. If you're concerned about it being misleading, there's a block of text that discusses her views of homosexuality; perhaps you could edit it to make sure it's accurate. Alienus 05:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree that she belongs in this category. I simply disagree with the criteria for inclusion into this category. ANY reasoning that has the end result of placing Ayn Rand in a list with Pope Benedict XVI, Pat Buchanan, Fidel Castro, Christian Identity, David Copeland, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Jesse Helms, Tim LaHaye, the Moral Majority, Mahmoud al-Zahar, Pat Robertson, Eric Robert Rudolph, Laura Schlessinger, Jimmy Swaggart, the Northern Alliance (White supremacist organization) and the Ku Klux Klan is absolutely flawed.

I take it my opinion is of no use to any of you is it? Billyjoekoepsel 05:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Opinions are of little use. My interest is in the truth.

The truth is that Ayn Rand is already in one category with Fidel Castro, another with Vladamir Putin, and yet another with Klaus Barbie. And each of these categorizations is completely correct.

If we were to exclude people from categories simply because it groups them with those we despise, we'd have very few categories left. Sticking her in a category that includes Fred Phelps might not please you, but it's accurate.

Unfortunately, the only rebuttals I've gotten have been just like yours. They amount to special pleading by those who are offended by the simple and incontrovertible fact that she belongs in the "LGBT rights opposition" category. I'm sorry it offends you, but the truth does that sometimes. It's no excuse for hiding the truth.

If you have any actual argument for why it in factually wrong to categorize her this way, share it. Otherwise, I'll file you in my own private category of whim-worshipping subjectivists who care more about Rand's image than the truth. Alienus 06:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, I would appreciate it if you would address the argument I have made above twice, which is that there is no actual record of Rand making any statements about LGBT rights. Talking about "hiding the truth" and "incontrovertable fact" is a bit unjustified if you are going to ignore the facts that don't support your position. -- RL0919 14:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, you're asserting your POV. It seems to be you against everyone else discussing this topic. Maybe you have some grudge; I don't know. Please stop vandalizing the article. LaszloWalrus 06:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Laslow and welcome to remedial logic for whim-worshippers. How can I be a vandal if you're the one who keeps erasing text without even leaving an Edit Summary and can't explain in Talk just why you feel the urge to remove the work of others? For extra credit, explain why you keep erasing the category. Alienus 08:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The monograph "Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation" is a smear job with no basis in fact that was written by a person that just made up all of part 5 of this work to include some of the most outrageous and ludicrous lies imaginable.

You need to actualy read Rand for an opinion on what Rand said in the Q&A at her Ford Hall lecture "Memorandum on Brains."

Have you read this? Have you read anything she wrote?

If this is your argument its sad and as biased as basing all of your opinions of Jewish people on the writings of Hitler.

You should have more knowledge of something you edit than just uninformed hatred. Billyjoekoepsel 21:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your POV. It is duly noted. Now, getting back to the facts, where can you dispute that Rand opposed LGBT rights? Alienus 22:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Humor

I have read The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, We the Living and Anthem and I went to the Fountainhead movie (with Gary Cooper, Patricia Neal, Raymond Massey,...) in 1949. I have seen no sense of humor in Ms. Rand, her books, or the characters in them - not that I can recall. Now, if you are writing a philosophical tract - that's OK (though Will Durant did better) but if you are writing fiction as a way to present a "philosophy" it makes it more one-dimensional. Read Cervantes, George Bernard Shaw or George Orwell (who, like Rand, despised Communism). Anyone know the "lighter side" of Ms. Rand? Carrionluggage 06:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that's an interesting point. Maybe I'm just blanking on this, but I don't remember any humor coming from her. I have seen quite a bit of humor at her expense though, some of it quite good. Alienus 06:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You can only laugh at the "metaphysically insignificant," Rand said. I still have no idea what that means. --zenohockey 02:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine what she might have meant. I wonder if anything at all qualified for that category, given the dirth of laughter on her part. Alienus 04:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What Ayn Rand meant by "metaphysically insignificant" were things like pretentiousness or vice; she believed that it was immoral to laugh at heores or at tragic events (like, say, the Holocaust). There is not much humor in her novels, but there is some; I recall two humourous lines from The Fountainhead, and two from Atlas Shrugged. Also, judging from transcripts of her public speaking, she seemed to have had a very dry sense of humor, and occasionly made very funny comments. (By the way, I'm the "unsigned" user from San Diego who was involved in the "edit war" over Ayn Rand's inclusion in the LGBT rights opposition category. "Ostensible" neutrality is not partisan. (LaszloWalrus)

Call me a whim-worshipping subjectivist for saying this, but perhaps humor is a personal matter where people genuinely differ. It may well be that she had a sense of humor after all, but it's so different from my own that I was unable to recognize, much less appreciate, it. I also find myself unable to laugh at Carrot Top, so perhaps the fault is mine.

Anyhow, welcome to the land of the signed and logged in. Please avoid the land of edit wars; it is an ugly place.

I've left most of your changes to this section intact, with only one minor POV adjustment. I considered restoring a part you cut, but while it's true, it doesn't really belong where it wound up, so I'm letting it die. Alienus 01:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

LGBT opposition

I removed the Category:LGBT-rights opposition, since Ayn Rand (or Objectivist philosophy) was not in opposition of LGBT-rights. Since she advocated that the government should do nothing but protect its citizens from force, obviously it wouldn't deal with LGBT's at all, so they would be free to have relations with anyone they wish. (unsigned)

For an explanation of why this in an error, see the "Ayn Rand Did NOT oppose gay rights" section above. Alienus 07:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ayn Rand and Nietzsche

Ayn Rand did NOT get her anti-altruism from Nietzche. Leonard Peikoff specifically talks about how she derived her opposition to altruism in "Objectivism Through Induction." Harry Binswanger (an associate of Rand's) confirmed this in a conversation with me. I am removing Nietzche from the "influences" section. 68.7.212.152 07:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, while you were whitewashing the article, you missed the following section:

'She also encountered the philosophical ideas of Nietzsche, and loved his exaltation of the heroic and independent individual in Thus Spoke Zarathustra and his embrace of egoism and rejection of altruism. Though an early fan of Nietzsche, she eventually became critical, seeing his philosophy as emphasizing emotion over reason. However, she still retained an admiration for some of his ideas, and quoted Nietzsche in the introduction of of the 25th aniversary edition of The Fountainhead: "The noble soul has reverence for itself." '

Oops, you left in text that demonstrates that Nietzsche was a significant influence on Rand. I know you thought you could trick us by shifting the focus to the very specific issue of whether he led her to reject altruism, but it didn't work.

So, I've shown that you're biased, dishonest and out of touch with reality. What am I going to do now? Nothing. Let your error remain a while longer; I'm sure someone else will remove it. I'm bored with reverting your censorship, and sometimes I like to pretend to follow the 3RR. You should try it sometime; I'm told it works wonders. Alienus 07:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, look, someone reverted your deletion. Fancy that. Alienus 18:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

From On Ayn Rand by Allan Gotthelf: "She was introduced to Nietzsche by a cousin, who informed her that "he beat you to all your ideas," and reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra, she had found a kindred spirit. Nietzsche revered the heroic in man, he urged men to great purposes for their own happiness, he defended egoism, he condemned altruism, and he opposed the glorification of mediocrity. On the other hand, there was too much emphasis on feeling over reason, she thought, Neitzsche was too preoccupied with condemning the negative, and his praise of power made her uncomfortable...her sense of difference intensified. But, Nietzsche was still for her a poet and philosopher of individualism, and it is possible to trace in her earlier works up though Anthem (1938) occasional literary echoes of his writings, and some Nietzschean elements...Nietzsche articulated and expanded upon ideas she had already formulated and had been presenting to others...Nonetheless, the influence was real." (On Ayn Rand pp. 14, 18). RJII 18:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Good job researching. I think this makes a pretty strong case for listing him as an influence. Alienus 22:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

See also my webpage references here. And, needless to say, there can be a difference between who inspired Rand to oppose altruism and who/what ultimately provided her formal reasoning. --zenohockey

Some ladders are thrown away after they're climbed. Alienus 06:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the link should be there, but that it should have the 'disputed' addition as well, because there is (not only on Wikipedia, but in the academia) controversy over how signifigant the influence was. I cite the intro to The Fountainhead. Oh, and you're correct about Alan Greenspan. I was thinking of his economics writing, but that doesn't warrant it. D prime 01:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

All the box says is that Nietzsche was an influence. Debate over how much influence there is, is not relevant. Everybody agrees she was influenced by him. RJII 02:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not disputed whether or not she once had an interest in him. However, whether or not he was a notable ideological influence is extremely controversial. I should have explained what I meant more clearly in my last arguement. D prime 17:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well find a source that says the influence was not notable and we can talk. Let's keep everything verifiable. RJII 17:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The influence appears to be primarily literary. She has consistently stated that philosophers should be judged for their metaphysics and epistemology, and in the introduction to the 35th ann edition of The Fountainhead, she seems to dismiss is intellectual value, and speaks highly of his esthetic value. Based on this, we can say that the notability of his ideological influence on her is controversial. Because it is such a mixed case, and because he is of relevance to those studying Rand, he should be referenced under influence with the 'dispute' note added on. D prime 00:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There may be dispute, however unwarranted, about what aspects of Nietzche's writings influenced Rand, but I don't see any genuine dispute about WHETHER he was an influence. He very clearly was. Alienus 04:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It seems like D-prime's reasoning is something akin to "original research." There needs to be a source that says he wasn't an influence. Rand never said he wasn't an influence, did she? RJII 04:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Rand did say he wasn't an influence, twice that I have found. The first time was in the question and answer period of her lecture "Philosophy: Who Needs It," in which she says that, although Nietzsche was a "great mind", she emphatically disagrees with his philosophy, and that the only philosopher she owns an "intellectual debt" to is Aristotle. In "Ayn Rand Answers," she says her only influences were Aristotle and Aquinas (because he "clarified some Aristotelian ideas"). LaszloWalrus 07:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Got a citation or quote from Rand claiming that her "only" influences were Aristotle and Aquinas? RJII 20:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's really hard to claim a consensus when you can't find anyone who agrees with you, yet you try. I'm not impressed, and I will not allow you to damage this article with your POV. Alienus 10:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent)

Let me help out with a few cites:

• 'The ruthless, self-assertive "objectivism" of Ayn Rand (1905-1982) is difficult to imagine without the influence of Nietzsche.' - http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/hum_303/nietzsche.html

• 'It may be easy to face the three affirmatives when one keeps in mind that Rand was not the only Jewish writer who was influenced by Nietzsche in the early years of the 20th Century - when nobody could foresee what Nietzshce's writings would lead to during World War II.' http://www.objectivistcenter.org/obj-studies/cyber/MCpt4.asp

• 'There are also direct statements from Rand herself that she was strongly impressed by Nietzsche at one time.' http://www.libertysoft.com/liberty/reviews/hunt52.html

• '[...] Rand read much Nietzsche on her own, and was also enraptured by the writings of the Nietzschean Russian Symbolist, Aleksandr Blok, whom she characterized as her favorite poet. [...]In addition, one cannot discount the intellectual ties between Rand, Dostoyevsky (one of her favorite literary stylists), and Nietzsche. Nietzsche, in fact, wrote abstracts of many of Dostoyevsky’s works." http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/randt2.htm

• 'Rand had liberally appropriated Nietzschean principles, methods, symbols, language... almost entirely, everything about Objectivism which had spoken to me was not originally Objectivist but Nietzschean: individualism over collectivism and altruism, human strength over weakness, self-interest, a prominence of mythic symbols, the similar effects of Christianity and socialism, the essential underground influence of ideas, the affirmation of life, the value of what is life-advancing, and on, and on. But she was a dilettante and he was a master, at both philosophy and its expression. It was Nietzsche who had intended his work much as I had interpreted Objectivism based on limited exposure.' http://www.promethea.org/Misc_Compositions/Objectivism.html

• 'The influence of Nietzsche is comparable to the influence of Plato,

Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Hegel, or Kant. People don't directly state their indebtedness to him any more than you or I credit water for the wonderful state of our health. Nietzsche is one of those great philosophers--like Napoleon's a great general--who is in the water we drink and the air we breath, and that is as true for liberals as it is for conservatives.' http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_11_27_corner-archive.asp

• 'However obvious it has been to generations of readers, the notion that Rand had been influenced by Nietzsche violated Objectivist protocols. (Her few authoritative statements identify the German philosopher as a whim-worshiping subjectivist.)' http://www.mclemee.com/id39.html

I could toss out a dozen more without breaking a sweat. I'm so very sorry that the simple fact of Nietzche's influence offends your image of Rand, but the truth is more important than your feelings. If you repeat your vandalism, I will revert it without blinking. Alienus 11:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No matter how many people assume it and/or say it, you can't consider it undisputed that someone was influenced by someone else when they have explicitly denied it. Accounting for this is not 'vandalism,' nor should you be making assumptions about your opposition's 'feelings.' D prime 01:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope you realize that there's no contradiction between Rand eventually panning Nietzsche and being influenced by him. Hell, even if his primary influence is in giving something for Rand to rail against, that's still influence. The fact that she read his works and there are certain aspects, but not others, in her philosophy that match his is sufficient, no matter what she might say after the fact. Alienus 02:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I should add that ten or so miscellaneous opinions from the Internet on something that's controversial is pretty much meaningless.

I'm going to assume that "rail against" means "argue against or dispute." I'm not up-to-date with slang.

Despite the fact that you "hope that I realize" that it isn't impossible that Rand was truly influenced by him but later refuted him anyway (which it isn't,) this isn't a matter of making an estimation of whether or not we should believe that she was. What we are arguing is whether or not this encyclopedia article should consider it certain that she was directly in a way worth listing, which it definitely isn't.

You cite that she read his works and that 'certain aspects of her philosophy' match his. If you look at each part of her, or anyone's, philosophy independent of reasons or context, which is the basis on which one (after reading into her fully) would compare her ethics to his, you could compare Objectivism, or any philosophy, to most others and assume that the earlier one was a notable influence on the latter. She's also read tons of philosophers, including say Kant and Plato, so that's pretty much irrelevant.

Whether or not you believe that the evidence towards his influence outweighs the evidence against, his influence 'is' disputed, with reason, and that it is should be added to the article.

Tell me on what basis you believe that - despite the fact that she explicitly denied it and that their philosophies are completely opposed on what she consider the most important aspect -it is acceptable for an objective encyclopedia article to hold him as a direct influence without any reference to the controversy over the fact. D prime 23:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, I have a suggestion. Leave Nietzche alone, adding a small, linked footnote to a section in the article where it goes into this issue. What do you think? Alienus 04:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I do believe that there should be a section about her relationship to him, including arguements from both sides (though it won't be necessary to go that much into it.) However, there needs to be some sort of indication of the dispute where it lists him as an influence. Do you know of a less obtrusive way to do this? D prime 05:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. A little asterisk that links to the section might not be that obtrusive. It would certainly be less distracting than a "(disputed)" at the end. We can deal with this issue after there's a section on Nietzsche and his (possible) influence on Rand. Who's going to write it? Alienus 06:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good. I'll write it soon, unless someone else decides to do so first. D prime 16:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I doubt anyone is going to beat you to it. The only movementon this has been the insertion of "(disuputed)" or the equivalent, which is not very productive. Alienus 16:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll write the section and figure out how to make asterisk-type links. D prime 01:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've yet to see anyone here cite any sources that claim Rand was not influenced by Nietzsche. What's the asterisk going to link to? If Wikipedia editors dispute the influences, that's irrelevant; you need credible sources that dispute an influence. RJII 01:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let D prime write that section. If it's uncited or otherwise problematic, we can fix it. If it can't be fixed, out it goes. Alienus 02:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Do I need to provide a direct citation of her introduction to The Fountainhead and of her naming of Aristotle and Aquanis as her only influences? Also, the fact that there's little direct evidence of her being influence by him is enough for a dispute on its own. Anyway, does anyone know how to put little links to different parts of articles? I'd rather not go on a search for how to do that. D prime 17:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Marquis de Sade

Has anyone noticed similarities with the philosophy of the Marquis de Sade? I haven't been able to find anything about it. Has she read Sade? It would appear that way. Some of his writings seem really similar. For example:

"reason is nothing other than the scales we weigh objects in, and, balancing those of these objects that are external to ourselves, the reasoning mechanism tells us what conclusions we are to come to...As you observe, this rational choice..is but the effect of the grossest and most material mechanical operation. But as reason is the only touchstone we posses, it must be the test whereunto we submit the faith knaves imperiously insist that we exhibit for objects which either lack reality or are so prodigiously vile in themselves to aspire our loathing...Well now, Juliette, the very first thing this rational faculty essays is, as you sense, to assign an essential difference that distinguishes the thing which presents its appearance to the perceiver from the thing which the perceiver perceives...If these perceptions propose object to us, but do not advise us of their real abscence, that is what we call imagination, and this imagination is the true cause of all our errors. Now, the most abundant source of errors lies in our ascribing an independent existence to the objects of these inner perceptions and, more, in our supposing they that exist outside of ourselves and separately just as we conceive of them as separate from one another. To make myself clear to you, upon this separate idea, upon this idea born of the object which makes its appearance before the perceiver, I'll bestow the term objective idea in order to distinguish it from the impression the object generates to the perceiver, which I shall call the real idea. It is of utmost importance that these two varieties of existence not to be confused; merely neglect to characterize these distinctions, and the way is open to boundless error...Before going farther, let us here observe that nothing is commoner than to make the grave mistake of indentifying the real existence of bodies that are external to us with the objective existence of the perceptions that are inside our minds..." (Marquis de Sade, Juliette - Madame Delbene speaking to Juliette)

Also, he speaks a lot about the irrationality of sacrificing self-interest for others. (though of course Rand tones it down and respects the liberty of others), and he's adamant about atheism. I noticed some of the style is similar as well, such as characters in the stories going off on long philosophical diatribes. RJII 18:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

And let's not forget that Rand is a BDSM favorite. Alienus 10:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

LaszloWalrus' edit war

While the regular editors debate the inclusion of Rand in the LGBT rights opposition category, LazsloWalrus has taken it upon himself to launch an edit war. He keeps erasing the line, without participating in this discussion or even leaving an Edit Summary. Recently, I was sucked into a 3RR violation by a vandal, so I'm wary of falling for that trick again. Therefore, I'm asking that others who believe in due process and consensus jump in and revert his vandalism, restoring the line he keeps deleting. If we share the duty, none of us will be in violation of 3RR. Alienus 00:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, we have debated this ad nauseum and the consensus is with me. Find a quotation showing Rand's opposition to equal rights for LGBT people. Your psychologizing ad hominem and charges of vandalism are silly. LaszloWalrus 00:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The consensus of facts goes against you. Perhaps the consensus of bias supports you. Alienus 05:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The "consensus" in question is that among Wikipedia editors working on this entry. In the discussion above, it appears to be you (in favor of having Rand in the category) against three others (opposed to having her in the category). Based on that small sample, you are outnumbered thus far in the debate. Also, you aren't doing your position favors with the tone of your remarks ("vandalism," "bias," "Who are you trying to fool?" etc.). -- RL0919 04:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is a means of getting at the truth. The value of each opinion contributing to a consensus is dependent not on its popularity but its individual merit in terms of accuracy. So far, none of the people who oppose Rand's categorization as an LGBT rights opponent have demonstrated such merit, so I'm not sure how valuable their opinions are. Truth is more important than opinion. You're not doing your position favors with your apparent eagerness to evade reality. Alienus 16:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Disagreeing with your opinions is not the same thing as evading reality. What Rand's views were is not the point of controversy in this discussion. The controversy is over what is the appropriate standard for designating someone as an "LGBT rights opponent." There are two issues that you have been challenged on: 1) Is it appropriate to assign someone to that category in Wikipedia when they did not make an explicit statement on the subject during their own life? I say no, and have stated my arguments the discussion above. 2) More generally, should a person be considred an "LGBT rights opponent" because they oppose a particular subset of rights being demanded by some activists, while supporting other rights for LGBT people? In the discussion above, Billyjoekoepsel essentially argued that they should not. I agree with him on that, although I haven't been pursuing that particular line of argument myself.

Either of these two arguments is sufficient to exclude Rand from the category. Both are arguments about abstract issues, questions of interpretation or opinion. Taking one position vs. another on such questions is not a matter of "eagerness to evade reality." So why do you show such an unseemly eagerness to sling insults at those who disagree with you? -- RL0919 00:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

White Russian?

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that Rand was pro-Tsarist. Certainly, she was anti-Communist, but she expresses great hostility towards the "slavophiles" who support the Tsars and was deeply against the mysticism they represented (see Ayn Rand Answers and her essay "The Lessons of Vietnam") I'm removing her name from the category "White Russians." LaszloWalrus 00:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I have a GREAT idea. How about you fight to have her removed from each and every category she's in?! Alienus 03:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I never thought about that, but it's fun to see you complain. LaszloWalrus 03:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

And fun is more important than truth! Right? Alienus 03:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I was being facetious. You're pretty flippant for someone who has neither facts nor consensus. LaszloWalrus 03:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I come from a strange land where we first prove our conclusions, and only then reference them as proven. Alienus 03:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

(indent reset)

Based on the "pro-Tsarist" description, Rand seems inappropriate for the category. There are also some other still-listed categories that are dubious for her based on the descriptions (where provided) or her dissimilarity to other included entries (where no description is given for the category). Examples: Women's rights activists is for "activists whose primary issue is the extension of or the restriction of women's rights" -- that was not Rand's primary issue; Russian novelists appears to consist of authoris who wrote novels in the Russian language, which Rand did not. So while removing her from every category she is in isn't justified, it looks like the list could stand some culling. -- RL0919 04:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I added her to the "Women's rights activists" category, but if it's for those you described then she probably shouldn't be there. I don't really care either way, as far as that category goes. LaszloWalrus 05:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with RL0919, in that her philosophy had little to do with women's rights. She opposed legal protections, on the usual libertarian basis, but didn't show explicit bias against women (as she did against gays), so it's something of a wash.

As for the White Russian claim, I'd look for more evidence before I weigh in with an opinion. After all, an opinion is worth no more than the evidence it's based on and the reasoning grounded in that evidence. Alienus 16:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Homophobia

Homophobia is a specific issue apart from a belief that homosexuality is wrong. There is no proof whatsoever to support the idea that Ayn Rand had an irrational fear of Homosexuals.

Category Listings

I updated the category listings for the article. I alphabetized the list, which I presume is non-controversial. I also removed four categories. Since the categories for the article have been a subject of some controversy recently, I wanted to explain my reasoning for each deletion:

• Women's rights activists - This category is described as "for activists whose primary issue is the extension of or the restriction of women's rights." This was not a primary issue for Rand.
• Russian novelists - The other listings in this category appear to be authors who wrote in the Russian language. Although she grew up in Russia, Rand's novels were all written in English.
• Russian philosophers - Same basic issue as with the novelists.
• Social justice - This category is related to left-wing ideas that Rand did not support, including "redistribution of wealth, power and status for the individual, community and societal good." (As stated in the article on social justice, which is described as the "main article for this category.")

I did a quick check to see if there were any obvious categories to add, but nothing jumped out at me. However, I didn't do anything close to a comprehensive search, so there may well be other applicable categories out there. -- RL0919 04:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

External Links Update

OK, I'm on a tear tonight. While updating the categories, I noticed the external links had gotten a bit messy, so I did a cleanup. As with the category cleanup, some of the changes were non-controversial, such as adding making the punctuation more consistent and alphabetizing some of the lists. But I also made a few changes that deserve a little more explanation:

• I changed the wording of some of the items to remove POV material. The most egregious example was a link described as "Extensive list of critical essays that Objectivists must answer". Now, if that had been the title on the linked page, that would be one thing. But that wasn't the case, so I changed the link text to match what the page itself claimed to be (which was much more neutral, even though the page itself is a list of critical articles).
• There was a duplicate of Chris Wolf's "What's Wrong with Objectivism" site, so I deleted one and reworded the link slightly to match the title on the site itself. I want to be clear that did not delete the link entirely, in case anyone notices one of the two missing and doesn't notice its renamed twin.
• Similarly, the Objectivism Online wiki was linked twice, once in the description of its parent site and once as a separate listing. I kept the former.
• A few items appeared to be in inappropriate categories. For example, a critical article was listed in the regular articles list, even though there is a separate list for criticism. So I moved those items. Again, these were not deleted, just moved.

Finally, a special note: I added a link that goes to a website I operate (the Objectivism Reference Center, specifically the section on criticism of Rand). I don't typically go around adding links to my own site, but the page in question was directly relevant to one of the lists, and a similar page from another site was already listed. There are also some other links to my site, which I did not add. They were already there. -- RL0919 05:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

LGBT Rights Again

Alienus has once again added the LGBT rights opposition category to this article. I'm afraid that I can't respect his request (in his edit summary) to discuss that change on the talk page of a completely different article (Gay rights opposition) that does not even discuss Rand. I presume that he wants to connect Rand to the brief discussion in that article of libertarian opposition to "some, but not all, gay rights issues." Apparently he overlooked the next sentence, which says that "a Libertarian perspective on gay rights would endorse many gay rights positions." Since the article doesn't discuss Rand, and (accurately) represents the "mixed bag" situation for LGBT rights from a libertarian perspective (what Rand would have called a "package deal"), I am left wondering once again what the justification is for placing Rand in the LGBT rights opposition category. So I'm removing it -- my first time doing so, although not the first time it has been done.

Alienus, you have thus far been the lone supporter for this category in the discussion, which has been four-to-one against you. Unless you address the arguments against Rand's inclusion and build some support for your position, the addition of this category is going to continue being removed. -- RL0919 17:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I must be nuts, because I value honesty, consistency and objectivity. If the Gay rights opposition page mentions that libertarianism opposes the LGBT rights movement, then I see no reason to hide the fact that one of the most popular libertarian philosophers is likewise opposed the LGBT rights movement. This is not original research, nor is it actually controversial outside of Objectivist circles. There are books about this and there are Objectivists who have left the movement over the issue as a form of protest. The only controversy is whether we should whitewash this fact to make Objectivism more appealing to homosexuals and those accepting of homosexuality.

The Gays rights opposition article has a section entitled "Libertarian opponents". As the article freely admits, libertarians do support some what the LGBT rights movement demands; this was never in question. However, it also points out that libertarians oppose other rights, often more basic ones. In support of this, it gives the example of a libertarian group called Gays and Lesbians For Individual Liberty, which filed a brief in support of the BSA's overtly anti-gay policies. This demonstrates that consistent application of libertarian principles simply isn't compatible with granting the demands of the LGBT rights movement.

Now, presumably, even you would admit that this group opposes the LGBT rights movement, since they went to court to attack it. However, I'm guessing you'll claim that this has nothing to do with Rand. Such an attempt to distance her from libertarianism, while historically common, has never been very credible. After all, whether or not she endorsed the l-word by name, nobody disputes that Rand took the libertarian view on many issues, including gay rights: she supported protection from the government but endorsed the right of non-governmental entities to differentially harm gays. Worse, her opposition to homosexuality ran deeper than abstract political stances, as she explicitly called homosexuality "immoral" and "disgusting". No matter what rhetoric thrown at me by you and other die-hard Rand supporters, none of it has ever addressed these basic, incontrovertible facts and I doubt any of you are willing or able to do so.

So here we are. Someone correctly added the "LGBT rights opposition" category and then a fan of Rand removed it. I've been one of the people most consistently restoring this unwarranted deletion. Franky, I've never wanted to be involved in this mess, but it looks like I already am.

I started with the presumption of good faith, but I've begun to see a pattern of whitewashing. Just recently, there was an attempt made to remove the Libertarianism side-bar from Objectivist philosophy. What made this particularly amusing is that, just like in this case, it was inconsistent with other articles. In particular, the side-bar included a link to Objectivism, so this would have orphaned it. Likewise, she's been removed from many categories and still others have tried to hide the fact that Nietzsche was an influence.

As I said, I started with the presumption of good faith, but I'm no longer convinced that it is the most accurate description of your motives. The case for including Rand in the "LGBT rights opposition" category is so clear that I can't see room for reasonable disagreement. It follows that any disagreement must be an artifact of error or bias. There have been other cases of bias by supporters of Rand, as mentioned above, so this is not much of a stretch. I'm starting to understand why there's a book accusing her of having run a cult.

It doesn't matter whether you support gay rights or -- like Rand -- oppose them. What matters is the facts, and these cannot be altered by force of numbers. And it doesn't matter if you have a four-zealots-to-one-honest-man numerical advantage over me, the truth is unchanged.

I've looked at the entire history of this discussion and the one thing I have not found is a direct refutation of the facts outlined above. At this point, I don't need to convince you: you need to convince me. Unless you genuinely address this issue, I am going to presume that your objection to her accurate categorization as an opponent of LGBT rights is the hallmark of nothing more than bias.

I hate edit wars, but I've had to learn how to handle them. Just recently, I locked horns with a man who compared another a well-known philosopher to Hitler and vandalized their pages. The result is that I'm still standing, but he's long gone. If you edit war with me, I will take all necessary actions to defend myself. Your only hope is to build an honest case here; initiating force or fraud will not sway me.

To be clear, any response that involves removing the category without directly addressing the facts will be understood as vandalism. If you can't justify it here, you can't change it there. You have been informed. Alienus 17:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Rand never spoke of homosexuality in a legal context except to say it should be decriminalized. She never explicilty stated that business should be allowed to fire or hire people based on sexual orienation (yes, it is easy to infer that this WOULD have been her belief). Alienus, your arguments are weak at best, and your constant hostility towards everyone who disagrees with you (the great majority) in the LGBT categorization undermines your credibility. Apparently, it would seem, that calling me a vandal is a compliment in your universe. LaszloWalrus 21:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you denying that her libertarian beliefs include endorsing the right of businesses to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation? If so, you're going to need to explain why she held this belief in contradiction to the overall libertarian nature of her beliefs about the scope of law. Until you do so, you are evading reality and you are failing to meet my reasonable challenge, and I will revert your change at my convenience.

Last I checked, truth was determined by facts, not popularity. After all, isn't theism more popular than atheism, and yet you're an atheist. If all you can say in support of your view is that it's popular among a group of self-selected followers of Rand, this isn't the least bit impressive.

In any case, given the amount of effort I've put into explaining this to you and the simple fact that you have not addressed the core issue, if anyone here is a vandal, it clearly isn't me. We have a content disagreement, and I'm handling it by holding you to normal standards of evidence. In contrast, you have carefully chosen an insurmountably high burden of proof that would require me to essentially raise the dead and make Ayn Rand speak from beyond the grave. Alienus 22:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Rand barely spoke on this subject at all. She called homosexuality "immoral" and "disgusting." She said it was a manifestation of psychological "flaws, corruptions, errors, and unfortunate premises."

Is this really all you have? Is this the entire width and depth of your argument? Is this your foundation for insinuating that anyone who disagrees with you is acting in bad faith and is trying to "whitewash" the facts? Are you honestly pointing a finger at me, RL0919, LaszloWalrus, JRobbins, 64.167.172.163 and "Unsigned" to damn us for the sin of daring to think you are wrong? Do you honestly see this as a conspiracy to attract more homosexuals to Objectivism?

"You have been informed." What on earth does this mean? Do I need to inform Homeland Security?

Are you honestly saying that we have to change the mind of ALIENUS THE GREAT AND TERRIBLE before we may edit while in constant fear and trembling of Your Holiness?

Please inform me if all the above is true. I will put your user id in the "Want-a-Be Cult Leader" category. Billyjoekoepsel 22:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The evidence you quoted, but did not refute, suffices to put Rand soundly into the "LGBT rights opposition" category. The fact that you oppose such characterization without ever addressing this evidence is itself suspect. If my inference about your motivation is wrong, then explain it to me. Why exactly do you oppose categorizing Rand this way when the evidence says we must?

Lacking any evidential basis for disagreement, I can only note the hostile and dismissive tone of your comments, which amount to highly counter-productive posturing. These comments were not consistent with an honest attempt at determining and reporting the truth. Unfortunately, they are quite consistent with my conclusion of bias. In short, your complaint has only supported my case.

Regardless, like the other Rand-booster, you have failed to address the factual issue. Only the facts will sway me; swagger and threat will not. Alienus 22:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The only threat here is yours. You failed to answer any of the questions that I asked so you must be avoiding them.

You have demonized me on the basis of one disagreement. It wasn't even a real disagreement. As I remember it I agreed with you that Rand being labeled "LGBT Rights Opponent" was appropriate with the caveat that the criteria for inclusion into this category was itself flawed. Inclusion into this category should be based on any person proposing the infringement of the individual rights of the homosexual for being homosexuals.

I have not once edited the "LGBT Rights Opponent" label because of this. When I turned you down on helping you in the revert war you called me a "whim-worshipping subjectivists."

It is now completely visible for all to see that you have lost all prospective on this issue with the paranoid ranting in your last two posts. You should leave this article to people of unbiased and honestly critical minds. If not you need to be barred from editing it till you calm down. Billyjoekoepsel 23:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The only issue I'm really interested in discussing within the context of this LGBT rights section is LGBT rights. I'd love to see you address these issues. I don't see much point to getting caught up in unrelated issues. Alienus 23:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, you have called me a vandal for doing EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING, yet somehow, when the same standards you apply to others are applied to you, you reject them. The fact is that the ONLY time Rand spoke of homosexuality in a legal context, she called for its decriminalization. You are subjectively asserting your POV regarding the nature of rights, inferring Rand's position rather than citing her own statements on the matter, and going against the consensus. You said you'd stop placing Rand in the category if there were a strong consensus against it. There is. LaszloWalrus 00:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the part where you actually address my claim. Oh, wait, you can't do that. A "consensus" contrary to the facts is invalid and I will not honor it. Alienus 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is an interesting tidbit about the Alienus view of what consensus means.

"The vandalism is the removal of the ARI Watch link, presumably because the vandal is a supporter of ARI. Whenever this comes up for a vote, the response is strongly towards keeping the link, but the vandal doesn't much care for consensus. I'm thinking it's time to consider blocking their access to these two pages, so as allow us to stop wasting time cleaning up their vandalism." Alienus

I think your response there was very interesting. It seems that your thoughts on consensus are, "If it agrees with me its ok." Billyjoekoepsel 01:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The situation is in some ways parallel to the ATI Watch vandalism, but not in the way you might think. In both cases, there was some text that offended orthodox Objectivists. In one, there was mention of the fact that not everyone agrees with ARI as the official home of Objectivism. In the other, there was mention of the fact that Rand opposed LGBT rights. In both cases, the true-but-offensive text was removed and restored repeatedly.

Where the two cases differ is that, in one, there was a fact-driven consensus to include the text on the basis of its truth and relevance, while in the other, there was an agenda-driven false consensus to hide Rand's views, presumably because they are embarassingly homophobic and might offend gay potential Objectivists.

The way to get past this is to stick to the facts. And, despite my repeated requests, nobody who opposes the categorization is willing to do so, which means I must restore the text whenever it's convenient to do so.

One more time: Did Rand oppose LGBT rights? Yes or no? Support your answer with evidence that addresses both her libertarian opposition to legal constraints on "property rights" and her explicitly anti-gay statements. Alienus 01:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the part where you actually address my claim. Oh, wait, you can't do that. A "consensus" contrary to the facts is invalid and I will not honor it. Alienus 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This is in response to the earlier request by Alienus for a "response [...] directly addressing the facts" in his comments from 12 February 2006 that start "I must be nuts ...". (Note: Since I started preparing this reply, he has repeated this type of request a couple of times.) I apologize to other readers for the length of my response, but I'm tired of these bogus claims that relevant facts are being avoided or suppressed.

The facts about Rand's views on homosexuality are not disputed, but let me review them just so you don't have any further excuse for claiming that I am ignoring them. In print, she made a few disparaging (but not very direct) references to lesbianism, most notably in her article "The Age of Envy." Her most explicit comments on the subject were made during Q&A sessions after two different Ford Hall Forum speeches. First, in 1968, she was asked about laws prohibiting homosexuality, and said: "All laws against homosexual acts should be repealed. I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults." (quoted in Ayn Rand Answers, p. 18). In 1971, she was questioned again, this time about the moral status of homosexuality. She replied with the remarks already quoted in this discussion, about how it involved "psychological flaws" and was "disgusting." She also referred to the legal issue again, saying, "I regard it as immoral, but I do not believe that the government has the right to prohibit it." Beyond this, the historical record does not show any statements by Rand addressing either homosexuality or LGBT rights. Those are the facts.

Of course, not every fact is relevant to every dispute, and not everything that is called a fact really is such. In support of your position, you cite facts that are not relevant to classifying Rand as an opponent of LGBT rights. You have also repeatedly claimed as "fact" things that are not true or are actually matters of opinion or argument, rather than fact. To address these:

• You note the non-controversial fact that Rand thought homosexuality was immoral, and said so in public when questioned about the subject. As a bare fact, this is not disputed by anyone in the discussion. But it is not relevant to classifying her as an opponent of LGBT rights. Moral disapproval of doing X and a political position opposing the rights of people who do X simply are not the same thing. Not only does Rand make this distinction herself in the comments quoted above, the distinction can be widely demonstrated using examples not related to Rand or homosexuality. So your repeated reference to Rand's position on the moral question does nothing to support your claims in the disputed question.
• You write, "There are books about this" -- books about what? There are two books about the subject of Objectivism and homosexuality, but neither discusses any opposition by Rand to LGBT rights. You referred to one of them previously, Chris Matthew Sciabarra's Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation. I have this book, and it is mostly about how Objectivists (not Rand personally) treat the issue of homosexuality on a moral and personal level. The only discussion about what rights Rand thought homosexuals should have is to say that "she opposed any legal prohibitions of sodomy, prostitution, or pornography" (p. 8, emphasis in original). That is hardly a position against LGBT rights. In response to Sciabarra, Reginald Firehammer wrote a book called The Hijacking of a Philosophy: Homosexuals vs. Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Firehammer thinks homosexuality is immoral and believes Objectivists should share this view. He considers gay rights activists "a coercive threat." So, if Rand had made statements against LGBT rights, you might expect Firehammer to quote those statements quite prominently. But he offers no such quotes. Instead, he says, "Ayn Rand actually said very little about homosexuality," and then offers the same Rand quotes I mentioned above. (I have Firehammer's text as an e-book, so I can't give a page number. The passage is in the third chapter.) In summary, neither of these books supports your characterization of Rand as an LGBT rights opponent. If you are referring to some other books, please specify what books, and quote/cite the passages that discuss Rand's views on LGBT rights.
• You also write, "there are Objectivists who have left the movement over the issue as a form of protest" -- Really? Who has left "the movement" in protest over Rand's stance on gay rights issues? I'd like to see names and documentation. Please note that I'm not talking about people who left due to her moral disapproval of homosexuality, or who felt stifled or persecuted by other Objectivists. Those are not relevant to the question of whether Rand opposed LGBT rights. This appears to be another made-up "fact" that isn't supported by reality.
• You cite the Gay rights opposition article, which discusses libertarian opposition to some gay rights claims, as if it thereby justifies classifying any libertarian as an opponent of LGBT rights. But calls for "LGBT rights" involve multiple issues, such as: repealing laws that make homosexual acts illegal; ending discrimination against LGBT people by the government (such as in government hiring); outlawing private discrimination in hiring, housing, etc.; allowing gay people to serve openly in the military; allowing same-sex couples to marry, or have access to something similar, such as civil unions. Not everyone who opposes/supports one of these, supports/opposes all the others. This creates a significant interpretational issue when attempting to classify someone as an LGBT rights opponent. The Gay rights opposition article doesn't classify people this way -- rather, it discusses the specific positions and reasoning. So it is only supportive of your position in this dispute if you add an additional presumption that opposition to any "LGBT rights" issue makes one an LGBT rights opponent. This is not a non-controversial interpretation of that phrase. People who oppose all of the rights claims mentioned above can be non-controversially classified as LGBT rights opponents. People who oppose only one of them are not readily classified that way.

The rest of your comments are about people's supposed motives and about how successful you are in edit wars. If this was an attempt to intimidate me or others into not challenging you further, it failed. I won't address those comments further, because this discussion isn't about you, it is about what is appropriate for this Wikipedia article. In that regard, placing Rand into the "LGBT rights opponents" category involves at least two significant problems:

• It is not supported by specific historical documentation. Rand simply did not comment on the subject of LGBT rights beyond two statements opposing the criminalization of homosexuality (which, as far as they go, are in favor of LGBT rights). The idea that she would oppose certain LGBT rights claims (specifically, prohibitions against private discrimination) is an inference based on her views on related topics.
• It involves an interpretation of the phrase "LGBT rights opponents" that is controversial and reflects a specific POV. Even by the inference discussed in the previous bullet, Rand can only be taken to have opposed one "LGBT rights" issue. She explicitly supported another (the elimination of sodomy laws). On others (same-sex marriage, etc.), she was silent and there is no obvious inference from her other views.
• In addition to the interpretational issue just mentioned, there is another interpretational problem, which is that the category assignment could be considered a-historical. Not only was the phrase "LGBT rights" not used when Rand spoke about homosexuality (it would have been "gay rights" or even "homosexual rights"), many of the issues now considered important to LGBT rights activitists were simply not contemplated by most people in the 1960 and early 1970s. At the time Rand spoke on the issue, banning private discrimination against homosexuals was not a widely discussed issue. Gay rights activitists were mostly seeking to repeal laws that made homosexual acts illegal, and to stop overt government discrimination, such as banning homosexuals from government jobs. Rand actually supported the repeal of the laws against gay sex, in two explicit statements. So to the extent that she made explicit statements about gay rights issues that were actually important in the public discourse of her day, she was a supporter, not an opponent.

Based on these three serious problems, I (and others) strongly oppose including Rand in this category on Wikipedia.

That's my response. Unless you have some compelling rebuttal, the category will continue to be removed when you add it. You have been informed. -- RL0919 01:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You kept me waiting a long time for this, and yet your response is full of flaws. Before I pick them apart, you need to tell me whether you support LaszloWalrus's unilaterial declaration of victory and his call for an edit jihad against me.

If you do, then there's nothing more for me to say. If you don't, then you need to put LaszloWalrus back in his place before I say anything. There's no point going to court when the matter's been settled. If we're going to have a discussion, I'll discuss. If you're going to revert regardless, I might as well restore the category now and save myself some wasted typing. Alienus 07:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You have wrote what I should have and did it better than I could have. You have also convinced me that AR doesn't belong in this category under the stated criteria. Billyjoekoepsel 01:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"Rah, rah, rah". Alienus 07:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Cult leaders?

To put Rand in this Category there will need to be YOTTABYTES of discussion and citations that have yet to be even addressed.

Rand is an Epistemologist. Whether people agree her epistemology is valid doesn't remover her from that category.

Rand is a Philosopher of the Mind and a Moral Philosopher. Whether people agree her ideas are valid doesn't remover her from those categories.

She is in these categories because of the multiple volumes she has written on these subjects. She should not be removed from them for the sin of not conforming to your beliefs.Billyjoekoepsel 14:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me state my strong agreement with Billyjoekoepsel on this. There has been too much manipulation of the categories for this article for POV pushing, and the edit by Lacatosias was just another example. -- RL0919 16:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If we removed people from categories based on our whims or personal judgements, then there'd be few people left in the philosophy category. But, of course, you're quite familiar with removing people from categories based on whims, eh? I say leave Rand in these various philosophy categories, but exclude her from the cult leader category, as that has been unsubstantiated. There is, however, sufficient citation for her to be categorized as an accused cult leader, as per the Shermer book. There is, after all, a much lower burden for mere accusation. Alienus 17:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, Alienus's criterion for "whim" is simply anything he doesn't agree with. His criterion for "personal judment" is a judment that is not his judgment. Debate is impossible with someone who subjectively invents facts and fallacious interpretatons thereof in order to force an article to conform to his POV. I recommend that those of us who oppose Rand's categoriztion in "LGBT Rights opposition" stop trying to convince Alienus and simply revert his vandalism. If we all work together on this, none of us will be in violation of the revert rules, and we can keep the article objective. LaszloWalrus 07:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want a category for "Accused Cult Leaders" how about some other ideas for arbitrary categories.

10. "Dogs that like to sniff stuff."

9. "Factual people that agree with Alienus"

8. "Evil people that disagree with Alienus and are POV"

7. "People that like The Last Starfighter"

6. "People that hate The Last Starfighter"

5. "Gray haired people under 40 years old"

4. "Organizations with greater than 2 associates"

3. "Printers that take 8.5 by 11 paper.

2. "People accused by Alienus of LGBT Rights opposition"

1. "People Accused of being a pinto-bean flavored doughnut"

Billyjoekoepsel 18:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The LGBT rights movement exists. Some people support it, others oppose it. It's well within the bounds of Wikipedia to categorize people on this basis. If you consider this arbitrary, then I guess it means you don't much care one way or the other about the LGBT rights movement. That's fine, of course, but if you don't care, why are you getting involved?

Frankly, I was confused when you earlier said that you agreed about Rand belonging in that "LGBT rights opposition", then said you wouldn't get involved, and now speak of opposing it. I'm really not interested in trying to figure out where you stand. My only interest is in whether you are contributing to a facts-based discussion of this issue. Alienus 23:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)