Howard Roark in New Delhi

First of, I'd like to thank Dr. Burns for writing her biography of Rand. I must say, I was surprised at the level of scholarship Dr. Burns displayed (as well as the even handedness).

I am a "leftist" and, as I have written in my other places, I am deeply concerned about the lefts response to Ayn Rand.

Smears and thumb-nosing will work for some time. Meanwhile, the "Objectivists" are landing philosophers in the USA's top philosophy departments and the "Ayn Rand Institute" continues to grow at a rapid pace.

If you are interested in preventing the type of society Rand envisioned than it is time to engage the arguments coming from Objectivists.

Dear Dr. Burns,

Howard Roark was not a libertarian, and neither was Ayn Rand. In fact, Rand despised libertarianism for stealing her ideas and lacking principles. Libertarianism stands for nothing. It comprises of individuals who want freedom from many things, ranging from child molestation laws to the FBI.

The political party is a mixed bag of ideas with no principles on which to stand. Libertarians all want liberty, but liberty from what? They have no principles to answer this question. That is why on one hand you have Ron Paul who espouses American non-interventionism, a policy which Ayn Rand vehemently rejected, and on the other hand, you have the lunatic who wants to be able to freely fornicate in public. Both call themselves libertarian, and Ayn Rand would denounce both. Even in the Libertarian party, there are those who are for abortion and those who are against it, those who are for immigration and those who are against it, and those who respect intellectual property and those who don’t. These irreconcilable beliefs all fall under the umbrella of “libertarianism.”

Given your almost decade long research into Ayn Rand's life and ideas, I would think you would have come across her hatred of libertarianism and realized that this was not a minor issue for her.

In any case, here is a link that describes how Ayn Rand (in her own words) felt about libertarianism.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

The point is, that, regarding political, or conceptual viewpoint,
there's no such thing as "group of individuals" for the same - nomen omen - reason, for which there's no "democratic communism" - look at China.
One can actually use anything, including Rand's books, to claim
any-other-thing, but it does not make any-other-thing true. I've
read a few weeks ago an article, where author seriously
claimed that quantum physics had proved, that there's no
table and chair. Alan Greenspan can proclaim himself a Rand follower,
no matter what she would say about mortgages and government loans.
Remember this, considering "global movements", etc.

The excesses of both capitalism and socialism have a highest common factor – man’s lust for greed and power. Unbridled capitalism leads to uncontrolled greed which in turn leads to a divide between classes of populace which ultimately causes breakdown of capitalism itself. Socialism recognizes the handicap of poor masses to start with, assumes and vests power with a small oligarchy, ostensibly for the common good of the society, allows power to corrupt itself, creates hidden pockets of affluence, employs more power to quell the protests of the masses and silence dissidence, ultimately collapses under the weight of the public glare and a dysfunctional administration.
The world will continue to suffer the oscillation caused by the excesses of both the above political systems.
It would still be meaningful to attempt to find which of the two is less harmful to mankind’s progress, and to the middle classes which are generally piggybacked by the rich and the super rich.

BJP is everything and all you need to know about Ayn Rand in India.

1. As I started my own "rightward" evolution back in Junior High School in the early 1970s (my parents were moderate Democrats and Southern Baptists), I heard of a party in India called the Swatantra party. As I later came to discover, it was the Sanskrit word for FREEDOM (similar to Swoboda in Russian, etc.) Later, in grad school in the 1980s, I saw some Swatantra Party convention schedules in the University of Chicago Regenstein Library. I also met a fellow there in the Business School who had been in Students of Objectivism in Bombay. So Rand's philosophy, and the idea of FREEDOM (whether you are more into the Objectivist variant of it or some other libertarian flavor) has always been around in India, but clearly got stronger after Rajiv Gandhi (aka "Rajiv Reagan") and much later the BJP (though their own views seem more clouded with Hindu fundamentalism and of course militaristic nationalism as symbolized by the nuclear test when they came to power, just as the US Republican Party has its Christian Fundies and neocon militarists).
2. In my own case, I became a libertarian politically the summer before 11th grade, became an Objectivist (i.e., full-blown atheist) during my last three years at Princeton, eventually came to believe in non-testable hypotheses again somewhat after college, but will always admire Rand not only as a writer who gave me (and continues to give me) a call to rise, but whose non-political aspects of her philosophy left an indelible imprint on me forever.
3.. I'm not sure that I'd agree with Manoj that capitalism leads to class war in the sense of consolidating the power of the wealthy - except by the power of government. I'd instead offer that it's usually capitalism that ERODES the power of "first families" and creates new ones (goodbye Rockefellers, Mellons, etc. hello Waltons, Gates, etc.).
4.. To Piotr, I'd say that while I agree that Greenspan, especially towards the end, sort of "sold out" (i.e, went ahead with "cheap money" as a solution during W's administration) I think he deserves some credit for largely sticking to a k% growth rule a la Lucas and thus holding down price inflation to low single digits.
5.. To Ritu, I'd agree that Rand called libertarians "emotional hippies of the right" and that she accused them of "plagiarizing" "her" ideas. But, indeed, Rand was more synthetic than original as a philosopher, and the fact that she claimed to owe a large debt to Aristotle doesn't mean that she "plagiarized" Aristotle any more than libertarians "plagiarized" her political philosophy. Indeed, I seem to recall limited government predating Rand's birth by many decades, going back to Adam Smith, etc. Moreover, libertarianism - and clearly, Rand was a libertarian politically whether she would have admitted it or not - MERELY speaks to the role of government and isn't SUPPOSED to imply a view on metaphysica, epistemology, or ethics. That's one reason politics makes strange bedfellows, and should. It's also not a "failing" of libertarians that on some issues, they disagree, usually where there's a question concerning when life begins, when rationality begins, etc. Some might also argue that on her more idiotic foreign policy pronouncements, Rand was inconsistent with her own philosophy, just as she was when she "borrowed" other women's husbands.
6. Dr. Sol is right to recognize that "Objectivism is coming" and indeed, libertarianism is coming even faster and stronger. I hope he'll decide to "go with the flow" rather as Bill Clinton was forced to do on economic policy once the Contract with America took hold in 1994. To mutate (though hopefully not mutilate?) a favorite part of my favorite novel by my favorite authoress, sometimes it's like "rape by engraved invitation" - it's better to just lie back and enjoy it >:-)

A few Rand myths that should probably be dispelled:
As far as "Saint Ronnie" is concerned, he was a fan - but he certainly didn't live up to very much that Ayn Rand was all about. Ayn Rand actually held the belief that the conservatives would kill us before the liberals would, and between Reagan, The Bushes, Cheney, and McCain - she was right. Also, Reagan and the so-called conservatives that came after him are not actually true laissez-faire capitalists - they are actually corporatists, which is a form of fascism. As ardent an anti-socialist/communist as she was, she was equally an anti-fascist. Good government does not intervene on behalf of anyone - it gets out of the way, essentially.
Also, Ayn and the Libertarians: she broke with them almost from the very get go. Libertarianism, though it certainly very closely linked, in fact almost identical at times, with Objectivism, she wasn't a huge fan. The reason why is that the Libertarian Party, as it were, is more mainstream refuge for anarchists, religious fundamentalist fascist, and also a racist contingent. She saw that potential, whereas Objectivism makes no room for those factions. Objectivism rejects anarchy as being irrational and unobjective, and racism as being simply an irrational and uglier form of collectivism. As far as the religious faction of the libertarian party...well, Rand's views on religion are pretty well known at this point.

about sums up Rand. Crying against control and for personal freedom when she herself would not allow or try to at any rate allow others to have it in her own personal life. She tried to rule with an iron fist.and was distraught when she failed .

her virtues of selfishness hypocritical when she took on a lover expecting her husband to understand as well as her lover to understand she would not leave her husband. yet when her lover left her for another all hell broke loose. she could not live by her own dictum.

a mediocre writer with a philosophy that the young , gullible and unread gravitate too. That without the ignorant masses there is no elite ! There is no creative without those who are not so.

let Galt go . who cares who he is ? one thing he is ? replaceable. easily.