The Daily Servant of Power


Today’s servant of power is:

Ayn Rand

One doesn’t even have to read Ayn Rand’s work—only get a synopsis of what it’s about—to know it doesn’t make any sense.

Why did Ayn Rand write what she wrote?  She would probably say because she is advocating for ethical conduct, leading to what she regards as the best functioning society.  Her basic assumption is that people are selfish and that’s the way it should be, but with the implication that she is a well-intentioned individual who just so happens to have society’s best interests at heart.

Would Ayn Rand ever admit to being a purely self-serving human being?  I, personally, think she is.  Technically, she should be okay with me viewing her in this light.  Yet, it’s pretty obvious she would be upset if confronted with the notion that she is someone who pathologically supports the ideology of the oppressor to move up the ranks of the social ladder at the expense of others.

Her entire career is pure self-contradiction, in my opinion.

5 thoughts on “The Daily Servant of Power

  1. Please consider-

    The idea rests upon Adam Smiths- ‘the butcher does not feed the town out of his benevolence, but self interest.’ If everyone does what they do best, and trade voluntarily in a marketplace, the marketplace will consist of the best products available for society to consume. Life saving medicines, iPhones, t.v.’s, cars, railroads, access to information, etc. she claims this immense wealth never experienced by non market societies are a result of profit incentive. Therefore if profit includes seeking after personal well being, but can only be acquired by creating something another individual in society wishes to voluntarily purchase because they value it- is the realistic way the good life can be lived.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I think there’s some confusion here. Certainly, anyone who’s really interested in understanding these ideas should read the source. The entire post was just conjecture about what we could assume a dead person thought and would think about what we’re saying, without even digging into her work. Before criticizing her, I’d get a handle on her ideas, and those of similar writers.
    Her assumption isn’t that…

    “people are selfish and that’s the way it should be, but with the implication that she is a well-intentioned individual who just so happens to have society’s best interests at heart.”

    She is saying, and this addresses the one comment as well, that practicing rational self-interest is the moral and ideal. We are unique living creatures in that we have to consciously think and act to live and to prosper. It follows that to live well, to serve life in general, one must think and be rational. Without trying to explain the whole thing right here, I’ll stick to the main point addressed in the comments, the common idea that to be selfish, or to want to further ones own life, you must destroy others in the process, the dog eat dog myth, or whatever you want to call it. When you dig into her writings, or those of the philosophical libertarians/voluntaryists/anarchists you’ll understand this isn’t the case. Those are not the only two options, altruism, or destroying others. The unique alternative, which Rand and others have proposed, is essentially the philosophy of voluntaryism, and of the non-aggression principle; that we can all get along, all cooperate, without hurting others. There is a difference between the common nihilistic, destructive “selfishness”, and with rational self interest. When investment bankers, generals, cronies, politicians, trample over others to “get ahead” they aren’t being selfish. They’re being destructive. They end up with tortured souls, corrupted minds, hated, in prison, or killed. That isn’t rationally looking out for ones best interest. Its sociopathy. Rational self interest, what Rand advocated, or again, what any Voluntaryist advocates is just trading, getting along, working for mutual advantage, honoring value for value, respecting the natural rights and property of others, while working to further my life. And as a by product if everyone adopted this type of mindset, in the end there would be more wealth for all, because we’d all be rationally self responsible and would be creating value in the world. So, again, I’d just recommend doing more reading. And to the final point, I’m not sure how Ayn Rand is helping herself at the expense of others. I disagree with a lot of what she said, but she certainly did not personally get ahead at the expense of others. That was a true story of destitute poverty to great success, and she definitely didn’t support people using others. If you look at people who identify with her, you’ll see they’re hard working, productive people, who have helped bring value into the world, and as a result of their actions, have helped others bring value into their lives as well. To see people who really help themselves at the expense of others, try politicians, lobbyists, the military, government police, defense contractors, bankers, central banks, religious prognosticators, the media, and all the government connected corporations. Ayn Rand saying we should all take responsibility, not infringe upon anyone else, and rationally further our lives…is the least of your problems.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s