Someone asked me to comment on this USAToday article which basically chides Republicans for appreciating Ayn Rand I am copying my comments below which address the issues in the article, but I would like you to read as much of USAToday article as you can. It is a perfect example of how to build the classic Strawman argument. If you are unfamiliar with the term here it is in a nutshell (quoted from that link):
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position
If you read the article you will find one of the final arguments of the article is about a so-called Robin-Hood budget:
If you are going to propose a Robin Hood budget, you have to decide whether you are robbing from the poor to give to the rich, or robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Because you cannot do both.
What I find truly problematic about this final zinger by the article’s author (who purports to have read Rand’s novels) is that the two positions he posits (rob from rich for poor, or from poor for rich) are not ideals that anyone who adheres to Randian principles would advocate. In fact Rand would argue that robbing from anyone for the sake of anyone was wrong. Needless to say the rest of the article is as well thought out and researched as the above line.
Here is the post I originally gave to the person who asked me to reply to the article:
In some areas yes, but as in many other areas of thought, there are some valuable and Christian ideals that can be taken from her philosophy. Her condemnation of Altruism and Charity were based on her belief that most people are forced into Altruism and Charity by either the church, the state, or by social standards, and that often it runs counter to a person’s self-interest. If you believe that we were granted self-will by God, then this is not much different. The core of Christianity is a personal acceptance and response to the offer of God’s salvation. Through that acceptance we should choose to be better people and be Altruistic, Charitable, Forgiving, etc. However, we should never be forced to be so by either the authorities of church or state, which was what Rand objected to. She stated in her writings that a person should be free to be Altruistic and Charitable.
The author of the article also mischaracterizes Rand’s heroes. While the heroes of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead” are “captains of industry”, every one of the heroes of her books are men (and women) who earned that position by working hard and sacrificing many things to reach the heights they achieved. It is in fact the villains of her books that are the “rich” that the author of the article so despises, the villains are the ones who are given favors and special deference by the state, not the heroes. This also ignores the fact that a number of “heroic” figures in “Atlas Shrugged” includes poets, philosophers, and even a wife and homemaker. All people who are pursuing their self-interest and not imposing their interests or values on others. Much like Christians are told to pursue Christ and live outstanding lives as examples to others.
By the way, none of Rand’s “heroes” ask for special treatment from the state and not all of them are wealthy. Which really undercuts the article writer’s straw man argument about “Robin Hood” government. Rand looked no more favorably on rich people who took from others than she did the poor. By the way Christ did not ask for the poor to look to the state to take for them what they could not achieve themselves and the early Christians did not believe nor practice forcibly taking the wealth of others to take care of the poor, widowed, sick, and children. They considered it an honor to do so themselves and of their own free will and sacrificing greatly to give of themselves. (another position that is not in opposition to Rand’s philosophy)
So yes, there are many ways in which Rand’s Objectivism is counter to Christianity (primarily in the lack of belief of a higher power and her disgust with those who did believe), but there are many ways in which it is not in opposition (which makes it no different than most earthly philosophies). Unlike the assumptions levied by the writer of the article, Rand was not a Rich v Poor advocate. She was an advocate for people living a self-interested life untouched by the forcible hand of the Government or Church. She would be appalled (and was appalled) at the Crony Capitalism that drives the policy of both political parties.
Evil Out










