Did Ayn Rand become the god of the Republican Party?

It would be helpful, bob, if you understood what Ayn Rand's 'Objectivism' is. Essentially, it's her philosophy on Natural Law and Natural Rights. You should also read Hobbes, Locke, Aquinas and Montesquieu. Much better reading than Marx, Engels and Mao.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/P...

The following is a short description of Objectivism given by Ayn Rand in 1962.
by Ayn Rand

At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:

Metaphysics Objective Reality
Epistemology Reason
Ethics Self-interest
Politics Capitalism

If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

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.

Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

Copyright © 1962 by Times-Mirror Co.

Where was my comment not in regards to Rand??

Take a look at this piece from the Atlas Society. I'm afraid you're mistaken when you say she didn't believe in private charities.

http://www.atlassociety.org/c...

You make quite a leap of assumptions there in your string of several sentences. The ideals of her 'objectivism' movement hold some true merit in that we can't keep supporting those that just won't do a damned thing for themselves.

From the above link:

Objectivism sees benevolent generosity as the complement of justice, not its antithesis. One reason we don't have blanket obligations to support “the poor,” for example, is because many poor people are poor because of their own choices and congenital vices. You mention poor children, on the other hand, and here at least we may see opportunities to invest in people and see results, since children can be taught better ways of living. But mere charity is not necessarily helpful even in the case of children, as generations of government welfare programs and decades of ever-rising public school spending have proved.


The above paragraph touches on what ticks many of we conservatives off about the government forced, obligatory support of a sector of society that often takes advantage. Worse yet, those that would like to be 'off the teat' and independent wind up in a cycle of dependence the way the programs are structured.

What she believed is now being exposed? As if it wasn't there for seeking prior?

Ayn Rand came from Russia, and her family was very much affected by the Bolshevik revolution. Her father built a family mini dynasty as a pharmacist, and in one fell swoop the government took it all from them. This left a lasting, heavily negative impression on her in regards to this collectivist movement and many of us can relate.

As to her romantic endeavors and her own personal ethics in regards to relationships, can't say I agree in the least. Like with most things, moderation and balance is the key. Rand took self serving ideals too far in some aspects and as a result, she lost many of those close associates later in life. I don't disagree that she at the very least had some narcissist tendencies. But then, we can see those tendencies in many famous and accomplished people.