• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Ayn Rand Institute --- Hypocrites?

Dr Adequate

Banned
D
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Messages
17,766
For those of you who have wondered why there's only one Monopolies Commission ...

I was looking at the website of the Ayn Rand Institute

In tiny letters, at the bottom of the page :

Copyright © 1995-2006 Ayn Rand® Institute (ARI). All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited. ARI is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions to ARI in the United States are tax-exempt to the extent provided by law. Objectivist Conferences and the Ayn Rand Bookstore are owned by Second Renaissance, Inc., which is operated by the Ayn Rand Institute. Payments made to Objectivist Conferences or to the Ayn Rand Bookstore do not qualify as tax-deductible contributions to the Ayn Rand Institute.

They're a WHAT?

A "nonprofit organization"?

Ayn Rand must be spinning in her grave.
 
Last edited:
Well, the definition of non-profit in this country for some reason doesn't mean you can't make a profit. It does mean you get a bunch of tax breaks though, and Objectivists sure don't like paying taxes.
 
Not only are they non-profit, but they also offer students financial support. Although it's possible that it's a subtle double-bluff; applying for a grant may get you kicked out...
 
The organization is non-profit. All it means is it doesn't pay out profits to stockholders; it uses them for the purposes of the organization. And I'm sure its employees are suitably compensated.
 
Matabiri said:
Not only are they non-profit, but they also offer students financial support. Although it's possible that it's a subtle double-bluff; applying for a grant may get you kicked out...
Click to expand...

And offering financial support in no way collides with Randian objectivism, as long as they expect some kind of return on that investment.
 
BPSCG said:
The organization is non-profit. All it means is it doesn't pay out profits to stockholders; it uses them for the purposes of the organization. And I'm sure its employees are suitably compensated.
Click to expand...

Non-profits are also virtually tax-exempt, so I find that very much within the Rand paradigm.
 
I'm not an objectivist. FWIW, I don't have a problem with it.
 
This has been discussed time and time again at the relevant Objectivist newsgroup (H.P.O.). So-called "ethical egoists" are capable of rationalizing just about anything. "I donated 50 dollars to ARI because I'm getting a value from it." The people who affiliate with ARI (sometimes called ARIans) tend to be the less creative and less intelligent of the "Objectivists." They're known as the "fundamentalists."
 
My primary beef with Rand and her followers is the blatent hypocricy of a woman who preaches "indivdualism" and "freedom" (both laudable pursuits to be sure) demands strict philosophical conformity among her followers.

Indeed I would say that an "individualist" should not want "followers." But hey, I'm just a "whim-worshipping, anti-Man, moocher/looter with no Sense of Life."

For someone who really does believe in free markets and individual rights, Ayn is bit of an embarassment.
 
Dr Adequate said:
They're a WHAT?

A "nonprofit organization"?
Click to expand...

One "out" is that they are nonetheless selfish.

But either way- although their mantra is that no contract honestly transacted between willing parties can be judged wrong in itself, objectivists equally respect one's refusal to compromise on principle. Apparently the foundation so enjoys their work that that reward alone exceeds or transcends their personal desire for profit.
 
Mark A. Siefert said:
My primary beef with Rand and her followers is the blatent hypocricy of a woman who preaches "indivdualism" and "freedom" (both laudable pursuits to be sure) demands strict philosophical conformity among her followers.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It seems that trying to be an individual means not being what someone naturally is, which isn't being an individual at all.

Like Bruce Lee put it with regards to his six sicknesses of martial arts -- "the seventh sickness is the desire to be rid of the other six."
 
rocketdodger said:
Indeed. It seems that trying to be an individual means not being what someone naturally is, which isn't being an individual at all.
Click to expand...

To me, being an individualist means that the rights of individual should come first and the choices of a person need to be respected--even if we disagree with them--provided they do no direct harm to the rights of another.

Which means, I would have no problem with a group of people who wanted to set up their own socialist or theocratic society so long as they didn't expect me to join them. The second they come to collectivize my property for the people or save my immortal soul (usually at gun-point), they've crossed the line. However, I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt, err on the side of freedom, and let them make their own mistakes.

That wouldn't fly in Ayn's world. Rand's thought that since her interpretation of freedom was based on "reason" then it would be irrational, and therefore "evil," to act or think any other way or allow others to do the same. Her views on philosophy, politics, and economics were the ONLY views one could have and still be counted as a "moral" person. While I appreciate the defense she makes for capitalism and recognizing innovative individuals in her novels, the way she cultivated her personality cult (e.g. Nathaniel Brandon, Leonard Peikoff--who's been riding Rand's corpse for decades) was disturbing and taints her reputation. That, and while I'm not a fan of state-coerced charity, her railing against even voluntary altruism makes her come off as... well... a cast-iron bitch.
 
CFLarsen said:
Why are you a fan of Ayn Rand?
Click to expand...
She was an intelligent and independent woman. She formulated a philosophy that I, to a large extent, identify with. I like her writing. I like that she introduced her philosophy through fiction. I think she presents a counter balance to Marx, Engels and Dostoevsky. I don't think that there is simply a single truth to be found for human behavior, economics and or politics. Ayn significantly added to the tapestry of the understanding of the human condition.

She also makes a great boogey man for the left just as Marx makes for the right.
 
Mark A. Siefert said:
That, and while I'm not a fan of state-coerced charity, her railing against even voluntary altruism makes her come off as... well... a cast-iron bitch.
Click to expand...
I don't claim to be a Rand expert. Just a fan. However Rand was against the notion that man must be a sacrifical animal. Now some have argued that this is but a strawman. I disagree. You'll have to decide for yourself.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: 'No.' Altruism says: 'Yes.'" (from Faith and Force: the Destroyers of the Modern World as quoted in The Ayn Rand Lexicon; Objectivism from A to Z.)
Click to expand...
 
For what it's worth, I'm also a fan of Dickens, Dostoevsky and Upton Sinclair.
 
RandFan said:
She was an intelligent and independent woman. She formulated a philosophy that I, to a large extent, identify with. I like her writing. I like that she introduced her philosophy through fiction. I think she presents a counter balance to Marx, Engels and Dostoevsky. I don't think that there is simply a single truth to be found for human behavior, economics and or politics. Ayn significantly added to the tapestry of the understanding of the human condition.

She also makes a great boogey man for the left just as Marx makes for the right.
Click to expand...
What parts don't you identify with?
 
Dostoevsky?!? In what ways does Rand counter him?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom