I know some people who like Ayn Rand. You may as well. Her hyper-individualist Social Darwinism serves as the ideological foundation of the Tea Party (although their hard-right social conservatism would have made the atheist Rand cringe). She was an extremist. Her views are like those of Rand Paul (who says he wasn't named for her--his name is Randal) on steroids. A lot of steroids.
Of course, the whole Rand idea is based on her complete disregard of the reality that successful individuals cannot be successful without a strong society around them. A great inventor, for example, can't make any money if there isn't an already existing educated work force for him/her to employ (both at the production and sales/development/management levels), a strong government to protect his/her patent rights and to allow--through the rule of law--for market conditions to flourish (not to mention provide defense against invasion), to protect against other "entrepeneurs" who might undercut his/her business through underhanded means, provide a health care system (again, by educating doctors, etc.) to take care of him/her & family if they get sick, and on and on.
Even her fictional hero John Galt couldn't have accomplished much without the people who taught him--educated by a society--and without the scientific developments--created by individuals who also accomplished great things with the help of a society that nurtured them--that came before him and upon which he built.
Rand is essentially delusional. Or, like most ideologues, so in love with her grand central idea that she ignores any reality with which it conflicts (sound familiar?). More after the jump.
Now for a little reality check. The weak government she desired existed in the West during feudal times. There was almost no wealth (not to mention security, freedom, or any kind of decent living standards) of any comparable scale then, compared not just to the West today but even to the previous era of the Roman Empire--i.e., an actual functioning government. The wealth that did exist was in the hands of a tiny few who could only keep it by employing enough soldiers to hold off those who wanted to take it by force. The feudal era is what Ayn Rand's vision would give us (and Rand Paul's, for that matter).
So, next time someone tries to tell you how we should transform our society into Ayn Rand's vision, or just mentions Rand or Galt, ask them how they'd like to be a serf in 7th century France. Because the chances are just about 99 out of 100 that a person in Rand's kind of world would be exactly that.
The progressive vision, on the other hand, is reality-based. We recognize that individuals do accomplish great things through hard work, but not without building upon the foundation of things that can only be accomplished through a community's cooperation, like public schools (something that Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann--both likely Republican candidates for President--vehemently criticized earlier this week).
This is the essential difference between us and the Ayn Rand-hard right. Either they can't see beyond their own ideology, or they are just whiny, selfish five year olds who don't want to share and don't care that their toys couldn't exist without the efforts of others. We have to learn to call them out and define them as exactly what they are.
UPDATE: Very excited to have this diary in Community Spotlight!
UPDATE 2: And now the rec list? Wow. Thanks Community Spotlight!
UPDATE 3: From the comments, h/t milkbone:
“Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other involves orcs.”
UPDATE 4: Thanks to Readers & Book Lovers for reposting this diary.