Ayn Rand: Perspectives on Will Hickman

A conversation: An issue that has been around for a century and needs to be discussed.

 





*****************************************************

 

(Lone Cypress Workshop) Preface: As with most of my work, there may be a problem with the length of this presentation. I find it necessary to take the time needed to speak to any number of issues, and while it could be shorter, it would still be very long, in any case.

This issue has bothered me for some time. There are many detractors of Ayn Rand and objectivism, and to me, it simply does not make sense. I don’t deny that they have every right to feel the way they do, but I see things differently than do many who oppose and actually despise her, and I have never been able to fully understand ‘why’. Many live in fear that she is correct, but most are just uncomfortable with her perspectives and want to destroy what they cannot understand.

Whatever the reason, I came upon this article in my research, and I found it to be an excellent vehicle with which to respond to the issue of Rand and her relationship with the concept of William Edward Hickman. Not particularly relevant in the larger sense of objectivism, and yet indicative of the relentless ignorance many individuals tend to place at the foot of Rand, when it is their own inability and lack of insight that prevents them from comprehending her process and her message.

If you can find a way to last through the presentation, you will forever know at least some of the truth about her relationship with one of the worst sociopaths in our already complicated history.

 

*********************************************

Ayn Rand: Sociopath Who Admired a Serial Killer?
 

Atheism and Agnosticism

Ethics
Belief Systems
Key Figures in Atheism

By
Austin Cline  

Atheism Expert
M.A., Princeton University
B.A., University of Pennsylvania

Austin Cline, a former regional director for the Council for Secular Humanism, writes and lectures extensively about atheism and agnosticism.

(LCW) You just absolutely have to love it. I appreciate someone who is a self-proclaimed ‘expert’ on atheism, Ayn Rand, and sociopathy. Does he have credentials? Who knows, does anyone care? He’s an expert. But I have many questions, and more than a few comments.

(Austin Cline) If you've ever had the feeling that there was something fundamentally sociopathic about Ayn Rand's philosophy, you may have been on to something.

(LCW) I have never thought about it in those terms, possibly because I am fairly certain that sociopathy is something that is extremely difficult to define, and does little or nothing to interest me in the least, and I would tend to believe that no effort will be made to defend or explain this perspective, which is regrettable and disappointing, and yet, not surprising.

There is a distinct bias, unfortunately, that becomes apparent with the first line that you put to paper. You talk of sociopathy and obsession relative to Ayn Rand, and it looks like you speak from first-hand experience, but you never even attempt to support or defend your positions. Your words belie a glaring prejudice and bias as a prerequisite of a pre-adolescent obsession with her work. While I always attempt to give anyone who ‘writes’ the benefit of the doubt as to credibility and legitimacy whenever I begin to read an essay, at times it tries my patience and goodwill.

I am not sure where the following meme or the quote originated. It seems to have been attributed to a poet, Carolina Smith, in 2023, but I was under the impression that it was much older than that. In any case, I believe that it is relevant in our context.

 

‘I am not who you think I am, you are who you think I am’

Not to get too mystical, but it simply suggests that you may have lost your perspective and focus, and need to put a bit more time and effort into your own interpretations of Ayn Rand, as well as objectivism. Ayn Rand is not the person you seem to believe her to be, at least from my perspective. You would be hard-pressed to supply actual evidence for any of your assertions, as opposed to the rumour, innuendo, gossip, and wishful thinking that seems to exist. I am continually perplexed, confused, and disappointed that so many individuals who come across, at least initially, as lucid and intelligent are so often anything but. This is but one more of those instances that are all too evident in our world today. Ironically, objectivism could help you, but it seems a stretch to think that you would heed my words, and to listen, to learn, and to possibly grow.

Do you actually think that she was sociopathic, or have you just heard the lies so often in whatever you read that you have come to believe this to be true? The question begs to be asked if you do not possess a certain degree of psychopathy yourself. Interesting thought.

(AC) Apparently one of Ayn Rand's early "heroes" was a serial killer named William Edward Hickman. When he was arrested Hickman became quite famous -- the talk of the town, so to speak, but for the entire country.

(LCW) If I may ask, who ever said that Hickman was a ‘hero’ for Rand, in any sense of the term? Again, I ask (sorry, matter of habit) if there is any credible or verifiable evidence that this comment was ever spoken by Rand herself? Of course not, that would give validation, and these kinds of conversations are not in the business of supplying empirical evidence, just prejudicial and subjective opinion.

It is not surprising that it became the talk of the town, or of the country, at that time. That time? Hickman was tried for the murder of a twelve-year-old little girl, Marion Parker, in 1928. It was one of the first times that a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity was attempted in a capital murder trial. See that, it really is that simple, to offer factual evidence if you so choose. Only takes a minute of effort, as opposed to 1928, when libraries and the internet were not available as they are today.

Hickman was 20 years old at the time. Ayn Rand was a very young woman of 23 who had come to America only a year previously. For those who do not know her history, it would be in their best interest, in all of our interests, to, at least for the sake of perspective, become acquainted with her timeline and her life experiences, especially if they are going to criticize her, invariably out of context. She arrived in America in February 1926. Around the time of her arrival, Russia was shutting down the borders, and visiting or moving out of Russia was outlawed. She was working as a receptionist at the time of the Hickman events, and Rand was almost a decade away from publishing her first book. If one is to be critical of personal notes in a diary from a budding writer, I believe that we should put the events in context. The interpretation presented here by Cline is a faulty and ambitious one, as well as a highly biased and prejudicial perspective.

The mention of his age is not meant as an excuse, but he was certainly not much more than a boy, and an adult nonetheless. Ayn Rand was certainly interested in Hickman, but it would behoove everyone if they actually knew to what degree and why, especially if they intend to demean and attempt to destroy the reality of who she actually was. To say things that cannot be proven is a despicable and reprehensible attribute of a somewhat disingenuous or dishonest human being, and every bit as troubling as a Hickman, who possessed these same qualities, the same challenges, and the same pure ignorance and disrespect for another human being, as did Hickman, for little Marion Parker. I believe Ayn Rand would agree.

The Idolization of a Serial Killer

 

(AC) Rand took things a bit further than most, though, and modeled at least one of her literary characters on Hickman.

(LCW) I am comforted and appreciate that there is at least a mention of the fact that she was working up a character analysis for a book she was working on. She explained many times what she was trying to accomplish. I accept her perspective, then, as now. While it is obvious that there is no wish to do so, for whatever reason, and which is not really the point, it is notable that there is a certain intractability in ignoring reasonable argument and credible evidence to the contrary, and that is something that may need some work.

(AC) The best way to get to the bottom of Ayn Rand's beliefs is to take a look at how she developed the superhero of her novel, Atlas Shrugged, John Galt. Back in the late 1920s, as Ayn Rand was working out her philosophy, she became enthralled by a real-life American serial killer, William Edward Hickman, whose gruesome, sadistic dismemberment of 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker in 1927 shocked the nation.

(LCW) A very nice attempt at misdirection and misrepresentation, but she never said that her research into Hickman was reflected in her characterization of Galt. If you have evidence, I am sure many of us would welcome the opportunity to refute and set the record straight.

Even if she did, it still does not mean that any attributes of Hickman have any direct relation to her work, but perhaps only ‘inspiration’, for whatever her reasons, and it is evident that there is no evidence of any idea of what that may have been, and no desire to learn the truth of the matter. Her research on Hickman took place a full thirty years before the publication of Atlas Shrugged. I think, without a credible citation, that the connection between Hickman and Galt is tenuous at best, and disingenuous, at least.

Even if some aspects of Hickman were considered in the character of John Galt, what is the relevance of what may have been, and why an interpretation of something sinister in her efforts to write a ‘fictional’ book, about a non-existent individual in an imaginary and fabricated reality where Hickman was not a consideration? Why is this relevant and of any import?

(AC) Rand filled her early notebooks with worshipful praise of Hickman. According to biographer Jennifer Burns, author of Goddess of the Market, Rand was so smitten with Hickman that she modeled her first literary creation -- Danny Renahan, the protagonist of her unfinished first novel, The Little Street -- on him.

(LCW) Filled her notebooks with worshipful praise? How perverse, how dishonest. There is no credible evidence to support such a position, and I have never heard of anything even resembling such an observation. If comments produced cannot be something truly relevant, anyone reading such biased opinions should at least understand that there is no actual knowledge or evidence that is presented as ‘truth’. It seems that there is a reluctance and incapability of searching for or finding anything legitimate that might actually give us insight into something little more than idle speculation.

Jennifer Burns is only peripherally relevant in the discussion. While she was granted access to the journals of Rand (after her death), and I acknowledge that she has some notoriety as a historian, it remains only her opinion that she presents in her writing. She has no personal insight when it comes to Ayn Rand, and her comments are dubious, if they are even hers. Since you do not ‘quote’ her or give any legitimate citation of anything in particular, your observations are highly questionable since they contain no context and no firsthand knowledge of Rand herself. What prevented the presentation of Ayn Rand's actual words, from her journals, and not secondhand considerations from yet another removed perspective?

I would tend to believe that this interpretation of ‘smitten’ is illegitimate, and that this small and insignificant word insinuates an unfair impression as to the reality of what Rand believed. Why is it so important to be so vile and derogatory? Is it really so hard to just write something based on facts as you know them? I would have appreciated it if there had been exhibited some semblance of credible evidence that actually possessed some factual evidence in context.

(AC) Source: AlterNet  

We shouldn't assume that Ayn Rand admired everything about Hickman. After all, it's not unreasonable to find the oddly admirable quality in even the worst human being. On the other hand, those "odd admirable qualities" can be found more easily in people who are more admirable overall. The choice of William Hickman cannot be separated from the reasons for his notoriety -- and it does appear that what she admired in him was not something innocuous, such as being good to dogs, but rather precisely the qualities which made him a sociopath:

(LCW) And yet, everything said here is nothing but speculation or an assumption. It would seem that the intent and the irresponsible, unsubstantiated characterizations of Rand make it abundantly clear that there is a bias that exists behind the comments. This piece of analysis is certainly not what one might call objective or impartial. It is a horrible rendition of ‘facts-not-in-evidence’.

Yes, she was precisely interested in the qualities that made him a sociopath, and that was by design and for specific reasons, none of which you even care to mention or seem to be aware of.

I have tried to make the point many other times, on other occasions, as I will attempt to again do so. It will not be just my opinion, or the ramblings of some other biased gadfly, or even a possibly well-intentioned author of history or biographies.

But, by her own words, Ayn Rand made some comments, which I have no reason to believe are not legitimate, especially when excerpts that have been included here, out of context, of course, seem to find their source in her journals, but with a decidedly argumentative perspective. I think it is prudent to consider her own comments, many of which contain a bit more context, with which we can discern her true intentions on the issues under discussion:

What did Rand really have to say about Hickman? Here are some relevant excerpts from her Journals:
 

«[The boy in my story is] very far from him, of course. The outside of Hickman, but not the inside.
Much deeper and much more. A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy.
It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me.»

~ ayn rand (p. 22) ~

(LCW) As we can see, context gives a somewhat different perspective. She remarks that Hickman is not a true representation of her character. Perhaps what we think we see when we read about Hickman, superficially, but her character, Danny Renahan, is so much more different, on the inside, which is not so discernible, especially when people pervert her intent.

She actually makes the distinction that her character has a purpose, but does not possess the degeneracy apparent within Hickman. She specifically notes, even at such an early age of her evolution as a writer, that the model ‘is not Hickman’, but was indeed an inspiration to the creation of Renahan.

If these words are indeed from her journals, are they not more compelling than some unsubstantiated subjective and biased opinion from someone who does not like Rand to begin with? Is she lying here, to herself, in her own personal journal, that was never intended or expected to be made public knowledge? If there was an undeniable obsession or infatuation by Rand for Hickman, would it not have been blatantly obvious in her own notes? Do her comments not refute the narrative created here, against her? I believe the answer is a resounding and incontrovertible affirmation.

«[the reaction to] this case is not a moral indignation at a terrible crime.
It is the mob’s murderous desire to revenge its hurt vanity against a man who dared to be alone.
It is a case of ‘we’ against ‘him.’»

~ ayn rand (p. 37) ~

(LCW) Is this not a credible perspective written by the author in her own words, almost one hundred years ago? Has the concept of the ‘mob’ mindset not been investigated and discussed over the last century, over the last millennia? Has there not been an inordinate amount of writing and thought invested into the ‘we’ or ‘us’ against ‘him’ or ‘them’? It has been a part of philosophy, morality, and ethical behaviour during my entire lifetime. Here, it is just another example of an insightful and thoughtful writer doing her due diligence in the development and evolution of a central character in a work of fiction. I find her words compelling and legitimate. It is irrefutable. I see no obsession or any ‘gushing’ in her notes, only rational and logical considerations.

«Yes, he is a monster – now. But the worse he is, the worst must be the cause that drove him to this.
Isn’t it significant that a society was not able to fill the life of an exceptional, intelligent boy, to give him anything
to out-balance crime in his eyes? If society is horrified at his crime, it should be horrified
at the crime’s ultimate cause: itself. The worse the crime – the greater its guilt.
What could society answer, if that boy were to say:
‘Yes, I’m a monstrous criminal, but what are you?’

~ ayn rand ~

(LCW) We see here that she admits that he is a monster, but she qualifies that with meaningful questions, as any good writer or philosopher would, as to context and motivation, as to cause and effect, as to the ‘bigger picture’, if you will.

What caused this boy, acknowledged as smart and possibly even above average, to become the degenerate individual that he is remembered to be? Does society have some responsibility in his perversion and degeneracy? Has the debate about the incompetence of society, in general, not been a subject for discussion, basically forever? What makes it so much more different in this scenario, and why is Ayn Rand being vilified for simply asking questions and trying to put together a story of significance and depth? So many say that she is incapable of doing so, and yet, here she is, a young girl in her early twenties, working at a level that few authors ever possess, irrespective of age. I believe that much of the perspective offered here is faulty and disingenuous and would need to be re-evaluated and modified to reflect the truth and reality of the circumstances in the context of this new information.

She describes him as ‘exceptional and intelligent’, but it was not only Rand that made these distinctions. Others at the time made similar remarks, which made it all the more incomprehensible that he would end up doing those things that he did. It doesn’t make much sense, but is that not what makes it so unacceptable?

Do we just pass judgment on the individual who commits the crime, or do we not wish to understand the source and the reasons that compel such atrocious behaviours? Rand was looking for those types of answers, not having an internal preoccupation with a madman.
Was society totally blameless in this instance, and the millions of others that many attempt to whitewash away blame and culpability? Is it not something that we need to answer, to make an attempt to prevent repetition and even worse events in the future? It sounds more than reasonable to me.

«This is what I think of the case. I am afraid that I idealize Hickman and that he might not be this at all.
In fact, he probably isn’t. But it does not make any difference. If he isn’t, he could be, and that’s enough.
The reaction of society would be the same, if not worse, toward the Hickman I have in mind.
The case showed me how society can wreck an exceptional being,
and then murder him for being the wreck that it itself has created.
This will be the story of the boy in my book.»

~ ayn rand (p. 38) ~

(LCW) She questions her own emotions, her own motivations. She admits that she does not actually ‘know’ this Hickman, and it is only speculation that we can bring to the table, but we call that inspiration; it is the source for not only what is, but what could be, or what should be.

Is it unreasonable or irresponsible to question these things? Does not every philosopher, every doctor, and every person impacted by criminal activity ask these same questions? She admits he might ‘not be’, but he ‘could’ be, and ‘that’s enough’ for her speculations and her story. I fail to comprehend exactly what it is that is being criticized in her thoughts and her actions. Everything she does is legitimate, credible, and reasonable.

She specifically makes the point that Hickman will not represent the character in her book, but will constitute some basis for the story, nothing else. Nothing has been presented here that supports or promotes the intent and expectations of Cline in the article.

«[The] claim that Hickman’s greatest crime is his anti-socialness confirmed my idea of the public’s attitude in this case
– and explains my involuntary, irresistible sympathy for him,
which I cannot help feeling just because of this and despite everything else.»

~ ayn rand (p. 42) ~

(LCW) Rand makes the point that his ‘antisocialism’ was the greater crime, meaning that society cared more for his disdain and dismissal of society in the larger sense than for the actual murder of this poor little girl. How could he disrespect all of society when society feels that they are a legitimate source of authority, and that the individual has no inherent right to freedom or self-determination?

It would seem that Ayn Rand is considering whether that is a legitimate question to ask in the context of the trial and the response of society in general, and especially in response to the horrendous act that was committed. As is often the case, Hickman and Marion being secondary to the argument, it is invariably the collective against the individual, and since this is the crux of the next sixty years of her life, it makes perfect sense. Remember, this is all in the context of a twenty-three-year-old immigrant, barely speaking English and with little to no experience in the field of literature, who has not even begun to think about philosophy. We should all try to put things into perspective, for it will aid in discovery and comprehension.

I can empathize with her ability and desire to grant sympathy to someone who is so damaged, probably beyond compare, and the reality that he finds himself in. Was he guilty as charged? I would think so, and he admitted to the kidnapping, but continued to blame a third party for the murder until the time of his execution. In any case, it doesn’t matter, and it is not the focus of our conversation. Are we not all supposed to forgive those who ‘trespass against us’? Aren't all individuals deserving of at least our compassion and empathy, no matter what the transgression? Are religion and philosophy just pablum for the masses? There are a lot of questions that could be added to the list. These are just some of what Ayn Rand had to consider as she made her notes. I am surprised at the lack of open-mindedness and the refusal to give Rand the benefit of the doubt, especially in light of her own words put down to paper as a young girl.

«There is a lot that is purposely, senselessly horrible about him. But that does not interest me. I want to remember his actions and characteristics that will be useful for the boy in my story. His limitless daring and his frightful sense of humor….»
 

~ ayn rand (p. 43) ~

(LCW) She makes no excuses for him. Would she not do so if she were infatuated with him, if she truly admired him? Words have meaning, and represent our innermost thoughts and desires, but how do we balance that with a woman who has only just started speaking English? I know adults who have spoken nothing except English their entire lives, who were not as astute or perceptive, or as articulate as was Rand at that time, who continue to this day to ‘not’ even question such concepts and issues. It is extremely disappointing and reprehensible when people have no understanding of the world around them and debase and vilify those they will never understand at all.

She was impeccably clear and concise as to what she was looking for with the use of Hickman, and nothing even suggests the characterizations that many have placed upon Rand, unfairly and unquestionably, with malice and bad intent.

«All the dirty stories about Hickman. In this case they are probably true,
but how easily they could have been manufactured to throw dirt
at the object of the public’s hatred (which will be the case in my book).»

~ ayn rand (p. 44) ~
 

(LCW) It doesn’t change Ayn Rand’s motivations, intent, or expectations, but our legal system has endured a never-ending litany of corruption and incompetence, not to mention bias and prejudice. Rand questions if it is possible that this could have been yet another instance of corruption and convenience. Were there personal agendas or self-interest involved here? It is certainly within the realm of possibility, is it not? Rand asked the question, one among many. How many of these questions were suggested as a part of this article? I think none.

All legitimate perspectives. I think the following comments, found on Wikipedia (I acknowledge the lack of citation for these comments, but they still remain a world apart from most of the assumptions in this same article) describe admirably and reasonably what I have heard previously, although I am unable at this time to quote Rand directly, especially since I was not granted the opportunity to peruse her journals, as have others:

Ayn Rand's The Little Street

In 1928, the writer Ayn Rand   began planning a novel called The Little Street, whose protagonist, Danny Renahan, was to be based on her impressions of Hickman. The novel was never finished, but Rand wrote notes for it, which were published after her death in the book Journals of Ayn Rand  . In these notes, she writes that the public fascination with Hickman was not due to the heinousness of his crimes, but to his defiant attitude and his refusal to accept conventional morals. She describes him as "a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy" and speculates about the society that turned him into "a purposeless monster". Rand wanted the protagonist of her novel to be, "A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me."^[ Rand scholars David Harriman, Chris Matthew Sciabarra   and Jennifer Burns   all interpret Rand's interest in Hickman as a sign of her early admiration toward the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche  , especially since she several times referred to Danny as a "Superman  " (in the Nietzschean sense).

(LCW) Is it really all that difficult to give her the benefit of the doubt? After all, she has so much more credibility than those who criticize without information or evidence of any kind. Is it possible that she was doing something more like pure research and not engaging in mere fantasy and obsession? Here we have yet another perspective, from a somewhat objective source, that says what so many others have echoed over the years, including Rand herself, with her own notes. And yet, there is still an enormous degree of ignorance and misinformation within the objectivist obstructionist camp, which may be overshadowed by those who simply dislike or even hate Ayn Rand. Those who do so willingly and knowingly should really be ashamed of themselves.

In any case, they verified and validated what I was saying, that she was working on a new character for her novel, and she wanted someone who epitomizes (only peripherally) concepts that she ends up promoting during her entire life. That of an individual who resists being controlled through coercion brought about through authority, either politically, religiously, socially, or ideologically. This would embody and symbolize an entity, a human being, that self-determines their life and their ideological moral philosophy. This does not demand that they be ruthless, destructive, and detrimental to other people, only that they resist ‘following-the-crowd’, or the collective, as it were. Could this have been her intent, her objective? Do you know, for a ‘fact’, that it was not? Then why is it that the argument attempts to say that it most certainly was? I reject the assumption wholeheartedly, without exception, and passionately claim that it was not.

She was looking for this unique and special individual, not for the terrible things that he might have done, but for the intellectual and philosophical ‘defiant’ attitude he possessed. It was his refusal to ‘accept’ conventional morals and all things that are directly related to being a true individual. The issue of morals is significant and relevant, and yet she was looking for those who were ‘outside’ the mainstream interpretation of ‘normal’. Is that a legitimate expectation? I would think that it was a credible and reasonable intention.
I believe it to be extremely relevant that she was looking for an individual who was both ‘brilliant and exceptional’, which many of the worst examples of the worst of humanity over the millennia have been shown to possess, at least initially, with some form of normal human behaviour.

As a society, do we acknowledge and accept that many of these worst examples of mankind have been molded and ‘forced’ into situations where positive results were next to impossible? I think that this is not an unreasonable point of view. Is it possible that society itself turns impressionable, immature individuals into ‘purposeless monsters’? Could it not be completely understandable that these things are not only possible, but inevitable?

I believe that Rand’s intent and expectation were to find and develop an individual character, even a protagonist, who was not ‘a’ Hickman, but what ‘Hickman suggested to me’. Not what he was, and not what he was to most people that experienced or thought about him, but what he represented to Rand herself, as a writer and the author of a work of fiction. Hopefully, the reader might agree. Is that not reasonable, believable, and acceptable? These people, including Jennifer Burns herself, who was introduced into the narrative, thought that Rand's interest was primarily a result of her interest in Nietzsche and his concept of ‘Superman’, in the Nietzschean sense of ‘Übermensch’.

What is so difficult to understand? There seems to be a real disconnect with reality when it comes to Ayn Rand and her interpretations and expectations of the world around us. To some of us, this may well be true, since she was a singularly unique individual. This would be in opposition to this horribly perverted interpretation that comes from some individuals who simply refuse to grant any benefit of the doubt as to her intent. Unfortunate and tragic? Certainly. It is sad, but true.

(AC) What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"

(LCW) From my perspective, I believe that it is more about the focus of the individual, and their singular purpose to self-determine, which is important to themselves, and how to achieve their own personal goals. I acknowledge that this can sound irrationally selfish and superficial at times, and there are individuals for whom this is the case, but it is ‘not’ what she is trying to accomplish here, and when you extensively investigate and explore her ideology, that should be crystal clear. The fact that it is not so clear is a reflection on the individual trying to interpret her narratives, their ability and level of comprehension, and whether they are predisposed to some distorted view of her work.

I don’t expect anyone to accept my own perspective on these issues, but I do propose and expect that individuals who hold an interest in understanding her philosophy will have an open mind to the possibilities. Those who do not wish to do anything other than criticize and condemn will have great difficulty with comprehension, and, in any case, they pale in significance to what she is able to present to the reader, which is thoughtful insight on the plight of the completely independent individual, in relation to and in conflict with the greater society around them.

Those who oppose Rand do not ever seem to actually ‘question’ her positions; they do little else besides criticize. They do not entertain the possibility that she is correct in her assumptions; they only judge. The judgments are passed, based on little or no information whatsoever, and the lack of reasoned argument leaves me little option but to consider their positions deeply flawed and insubstantial. This is something I would dearly love to see change, but without the intent and desire to understand, there can be no agreement, no cooperation in examination and investigation, and there can be neither collaboration nor participation between the woefully disparate camps of thought.

The connection between her interpretations of individualism versus the perpetual presence of collectivism seems so lucid and legitimate to me. And yet, so many see nothing but their own highly personal and subjective systems of belief as the only reasonable alternative, when by the very nature of reality, the truth is that there are millions of unique perspectives, and many of them will be different from any other, and there needs to be a way to address that aspect of our species. Instead of condescension and condemnation, we need to find a way where this wealth of ‘diversity’, ironically, is not, and can never be, an avenue to peace and harmony, rather than conflict and confrontation.

It is not the objectivist that is the source of this conflict, but the collectivist, who believes that ‘all’ individuals need to be in sync with this unrealistic universal concept of some ‘greater good’, even though this demands the use of coercive measures. This expectation is that this will magically result in some reality where we can all live in peace. But they do not even accept the concept of individualism, in any form, which rejects personal freedoms, in all their manifestations. Still, I question if peace is even a possibility under those oppressive circumstances. Is this not the perpetual and infinite argument that our species has been having since we first walked upon this earth? Individualism versus collectivism. If there is no comprehension of this battle between ideologies, there can never be an end to the struggle that we find ourselves forever engaged with.

(AC) This echoes almost word for word Rand's later description of her character Howard Roark, the hero of her novel The Fountainhead: "He was born without the ability to consider others" (The Fountainhead is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' favorite book -- he even requires his clerks to read it.)

(LCW) The point that is so conveniently ignored is that there is no expectation or demand that this perspective will inevitably bring anything destructive or degrading to another human being. Consideration for others comes with maturity and philosophical development. The judgment is made that his interpretation of life is ‘bad’, but there are never any specifics as to why. It seems that it just ‘sounds’ wrong for some reason, but that is not a legitimate perspective. There has to be a reason, a credible explanation as to why. The objective should be to find a comprehension of the concepts and to argue reasonably as to outcomes and possibilities. Is that not what philosophy is all about? It is certainly not just capitulating to the ignorance and limited abilities of those who simply cannot understand.

What Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas believes is arguably irrelevant. It is what you and I believe, and nothing else. It is what ‘we’ decide is legitimate and of value and substance, not what some outside influence, some detached individual, believes. We cannot question Thomas, nor his motivations, nor his life experience, so how do we make any rational conclusions? If he is conservative, he is bad, and if they are liberal, they are thoughtful and correct? What a narrow-minded and inarguably false perspective.
 

(AC) It's one thing to be heedless of people who are simply negative and are trying to dissuade you from trying something new, but quite another to simply never "feel other people" and to ignore the very existence of "other people." That describes a sociopath, not an innovator. An innovator is heedless of opinions that are negative about their goals; a sociopath is simply heedless of everyone else because they lack the ability to muster any empathy for others.
 

(LCW) That’s quite a mouthful, and once again, it is just subjective rhetoric. There is no presentation of information that may give me pause or change ‘my’ mind; there is no offer of evidence to bolster, compliment or refute anything said. There is no attempt to ‘persuade’ me. It is purely a personal opinion and could be construed as something without any real value or significance.

In an attempt at refuting these somewhat predictable assertions, let us look at some definitions of sociopathy. The central assumptions are that the individual has an antisocial personality disorder, which in and of itself is a highly subjective determination, depending on the therapist and their expertise, who gets involved. Now, a reluctance to deal with other people who are making huge mistakes, whether intellectually, philosophically, and morally, I would agree, ‘should’ be avoided and resisted.

Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) is defined as ‘involving a disregard for right and wrong and the harming of other people’. What, specifically, did Howard Roark do that fulfills these attributes? He does not have a ‘disregard’ for right and wrong, but he does have a very distinct view of what constitutes right and wrong, which means he ‘does’ understand the concept, but those who struggle with comprehension when ‘others’ hold deeply felt beliefs. Which is ironic, since there is so much protesting and demonstrating about allowing people to make their own decisions, such as drugs, abortion, sexual practices, and social policies, especially some imperatives that bolster one’s own ideological perspectives, but trample those of others.

Roark did nothing whatsoever to ‘harm’ another person, unless hurting their feelings is considered a significant infraction. He simply wanted to determine his own life and live it according to his own conclusions. Does this conflict with reality? Is this not what the freedom of religion, and all freedoms, teach us? The right to follow one’s own deeply held beliefs, determined by the individual themself, and not the state or some form of authority?

There is a meaningful and compelling difference between harming another individual and simply deciding to ignore their own personal beliefs because a determination has been made, and it ‘might’ be harmful to oneself or to others. I have no responsibility or obligation to live my life according to someone else’s judgment. There is a belief in the concept of freedom, especially those that are the bedrock of our own country, and have been for over two hundred and fifty years. Our political system supports our right to our own system of beliefs, the right to express ourselves, and the right to live our lives as we see fit, as long as we don’t harm another human being in the process. I see nothing in our Constitution that says we cannot ‘ignore’ another individual if they are incompatible with our own understanding of responsible and legitimate action. I believe that there is a need to reassess premises, as Ayn Rand has said many times, because one or more of them are wrong and deserve attention and adjustment.

The definitions go on to explain that people with APD ‘purposely’ make others angry and manipulate others harshly and with ‘cruel’ indifference. When did Roark do any of these things, and please explain the differences between indifference by choice and ‘cruel’ indifference?

It is said that they lack remorse or do not regret their behaviour, but there is yet to be an example of Roark causing any harm in any way to any other individual. Where is the infraction taken, and why would he have regret if he did nothing legally or even morally wrong? None of these inquiries is addressed, and for good reason. Roark acted only in his own interest; there is no compelling reason for him to acquiesce or capitulate to the needs or wants of others, under any circumstances, unless, of course, he ‘harms’ someone, which he irrefutably does not.

And finally, at least in this context, people with APD behave violently and impulsively, have drug and alcohol issues, and have difficulty meeting responsibilities related to family, work, and school. And once again, when does Roark do any of these things? He does not.

While he did act violently at one point, it can be argued that he was doing so for legitimate reasons, at least from his point of view. The reality is, at least in the fictional story, that he was exonerated and found not guilty, so that goes to the point of social responsibility, even if you disagree.

It would be difficult to argue that he acted impulsively at any time. It was all deeply considered, constructed, and implemented, and not just his reaction to ‘his’ mistreatment by what represents society, but at any time in the entire novel, for any reason.

He had no alcohol or drug abuse or related problems. He had no issues with meeting his responsibilities within society. He had no family, but his work was exemplary and as good, or better, than any of what we could consider his competition. He was focused and an expert in his field, even though he refused to play by the rules of the powers that be. We have millions that do exactly what he did in the book, and they are not considered to have APD.

He did not struggle in school; in fact, he was proficient and competent to the extent that he did much of the work that Peter Keating was responsible for, both in school and in the workplace. And he never received any compensation for his work. He did it, not to ‘help’ someone like Keating, but because he was solving problems, and that held importance for him, and for no other reason. I see no reason to criticize his motivations and expectations; they are for him only to decide. Again, we see the struggle between individualism and collectivism. Duty to ‘others’ or strangers, or duty to self. It is this conflict that has been perpetual since a time when mankind's first tribe was formed within our species. Compulsion and coercion, not cooperation and agreement. It will remain so until we figure out a way to live together without the need for obsession and oppression.

It is only collectivism that believes that we ‘feel others’ since they can never ‘persuade’ others to do what they want without some form of force. Emotionalism is invariably coercive in nature. Individualism allows the individual to make their own decisions and come to their own conclusions as to who we ‘feel’ for, and why, and when, and to what extent we wish to help them. What could be more reasonable or practical? What could be more legitimate than a true and real ‘choice’? Not the choice to kill but the choice to live.

The Perpetuation of Sociopathic Tendencies

(AC) What's worse is that others have come to idolize the same sociopathic tendencies precisely because Ayn Rand popularized them. Justice Clarence Thomas is just one of many...

(LCW) One of the many who what? Liked a book, a work of fiction? Sorry, but a conventional collectivist bias is showing. Comments like this need explanation more than just pontification. Some form of confirmation is required, some degree of corroboration, anything that has some modicum of value, and skip the hubris.

We can talk of ‘sociopathic tendencies’ all you want, but it would be nice to validate and legitimize positions with some form of credible information, actual evidence, or reasoned argument. From what I can see, there has been nothing of the kind produced to this point, and it is truly disappointing to think that none will be forthcoming. Is this correct?

(AC) What's really unsettling is that even former Central Bank chief Alan Greenspan, whose relationship with Rand dated back to the 1950s, did some parasite-bashing of his own. In response to a 1958 New York Times book review slamming Atlas Shrugged, Greenspan, defending his mentor, published a letter to the editor that ends: "Parasites who persistently avoid either purpose or reason perish as they should. Alan Greenspan." ..

Republican faithful like GOP Congressman Paul Ryan read Ayn Rand and declare, with pride, "Rand makes the best case for the morality of democratic capitalism."

(LCW) It is truly amusing but not surprising. I have been attempting to have this conversation for over fifty years now, and the list of valid detractors of Ayn Rand and the philosophy of objectivism is a very short one, and highly suspect. Alan Greenspan, Paul Ryan, Clarence Thomas (not so much), and various individuals who have never supported objectivism in any form and have never exhibited any attributes to have us believe that they are associated with the ideology in any respect, from Trump to Musk. None of whom are objectivists, and to the best of my knowledge, never have been. Greenspan may have had a passing interest (or personal infatuation) with Rand or objectivism at one time, but in the macro, it was really quite insignificant.

Alan Greenspan was an opportunist, as was Paul Ryan, who ultimately severed ties with Rand and objectivism when it did not result in any appreciable bump in the polls for him. He explained that it was morality that made him change his mind. A question begs to be asked, and that is, where was he over the preceding 50 years since she wrote Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged? He saw no conflict with his religious morality during that time? For heaven’s sake, let’s be realistic. His affiliation with objectivism was self-indulgent and hypocritical. Not representative of any aspect of objectivism. Is that the sum total of what we should accept as validation? Is there anything else? The philosophy speaks for itself, and the rhetoric against both Rand and objectivism is insignificant, irresponsible, and irrelevant.

(AC) Sociopathy is the opposite of morality, and promoting it as a core feature of democratic capitalism isn't a recommendation for either Ayn Rand or capitalism. I doubt we can expect people like Paul Ryan to comprehend the contradiction between sociopathy and morality because he isn't even able to comprehend the fact that Rand was less than a committed supporter of democracy...
 

(LCW) I would tend to disagree, pretty much without exception. First of all, there is nothing that even peripherally comes close to this relative equating of Rand and sociopathy. There is no reason that even a sociopath cannot have morality, albeit a perversion of what most of us might accept as an acceptable system of beliefs. Morality is not an objective concept, no matter how much some of us may wish otherwise. It is a highly, possibly completely, subjective determination, made by individuals for individuals. Every religion has a different morality. Pretty much every single individual on the planet has their own morality. Some believe, like liberals, that stealing and even violence are completely understandable and acceptable. Is this not perverse? Isn't anyone who believes thusly not a sociopath? It is irrational and ultimately anti-social.

This is just silly. No one is promoting sociopathy as a core feature of democratic capitalism. It doesn’t even deserve comment, although it does deserve derision and criticism.

So, let me summarize, if I may. A dislike for Ayn Rand is unquestioned, our democratic process in the U.S. is sociopathic by nature, capitalism is just an extension of that, and anyone who does not agree is considered just as guilty. Where did this come from? The reader has not been informed of a competing set of beliefs, just a negation of those concepts and ideas promoted and supported by Ayn Rand and objectivism. This is not a debate or a reasoned argument on these issues, not even a respectful conversation looking for information and answers. Is there a plan for the future? Are there alternatives that have not yet been released? Was the focus of this article just to demean and vilify Rand, or was there an intent to create a rational and intellectual exchange of ideas? Is there something specific, anything, that could result in being an aspect of the solution to our problems? Or will it represent the epitome of the problem, never deviating from the silliness and ignorance of saying little and knowing even less? It is disturbing and unfortunate, all at the same time.

(AC) Except that Rand also despised democracy, writing that, "Democracy, in short, is a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights: the majority can do whatever it wants with no restrictions. In principle, the democratic government is all-powerful. Democracy is a totalitarian manifestation; it is not a form of freedom."

(LCW) Unfortunately, Rand is right on this, as she so often tends to be. Which is uncomfortable for many, and yet true, nonetheless. There is something known as the tyranny of the majority. Our constitution specifically talks about protecting the rights of the minority, and as Rand has been quoted, ‘the individual is the smallest minority that exists in America’ today. How insightful, how profound. Our Forefathers knew all too well that to be successful, there exists an imperative to protect the minorities, more so than the majorities. There are millions upon millions who at least understand what she is saying, even if they do not agree. I can only presume that you reside in neither camp. Democracy is not a panacea, a Utopia of some sort; it is only the best system that we have been able to come up with to this point in time. Along with capitalism, which is very much in the same situation.

You want to know the reason that these systems struggle and fail? It is because there are many people, most of whom do not even know they are, who simply cannot do the right thing, even when they know what that is. They fear what others think, and they fear what they themselves might do. They hate both with and without passion and destroy instead of building; their criticisms are hateful instead of constructive. They are the essence of the reason why our system struggles so hard to be successful.

We need more good people, people we can trust, who are competent and confident, and not oppressive, manipulative, intimidating, and coercive. The answers are self-evident; the path to realization is so much more difficult.
 

(AC) "Collectivism" is another one of those Randian epithets popular among her followers. Here is another Republican member of Congress, Michelle Bachman, parroting the Ayn Rand ideological line, to explain her reasoning for wanting to kill social programs: "As much as the collectivist says to each according to his ability to each according to his need, that's not how mankind is wired. They want to make the best possible deal for themselves."

(LCW) Grasping at straws once again, are we? Not even talking about Rand anymore. Bachman is not even a marginal player on the field of ideas. Very few people are, by the way. Nothing is presented on her interpretations of Ayn Rand or objectivism. What are we supposed to understand?

I find it difficult to understand how someone who uses a descriptive label for one group, such as capitalists, conservatives, or religious, when it is what is known as using the broadest of brushes, to diminish the validity and credibility of an individual or a group. To conflate the likes of conservatives, Ayn Rand, and capitalism is such a tiring experience. It is the epitome of ignorance and silliness, and yet, here it is once again.

This is an obvious exhibition of bigotry at its most visible. All of the individuals in these groups are not the same. They do not believe all the same things, and they often disagree on quite a bit. It makes understanding as obscure and elusive as possible, since clarity is the greatest enemy. It exposes a bias and hatred for who and what they are, and it is not a good thing for anyone involved.

How in the world did we ever come around to social programs, although not surprisingly, some individuals cannot write about Rand or objectivism without, at some point, finding their way there. It exhibits a lack of legitimacy, an absence of credibility, a perversion of integrity.

What a curious observation to make. The quote is certainly not a valid Rand quote. Are you really against the communist credo (not collectivist) of ‘from each according to their abilities and to each according to their needs’? Did you mean to mangle the quote, or was that a fortuitous mistake? Is there a meaning that needs to be clarified? In any case, is there anything that is actually embraced that is supported and acceptable as legitimate? If so, it is not clear at the moment what that might be.

So, it is not just objectivists and communists that are rejected, but mankind in general, and as a whole. I reject the position emphatically and sadly recognize that someone is an intrinsically unhappy person. Is that yet another reason to dislike Ayn Rand? Her intent with objectivism is for the individual to realize happiness in life, here and now, and not in some vague afterlife. Is it not desirable to believe in happiness? Do we believe that it is something that we deserve to achieve at some point?
 

(AC) To be fair, Ayn Rand's   attacks on democracy are not entirely without some foundation. It's true that a majority can run roughshod over individual rights. It's true that democratic governments can behave in a totalitarian fashion. It's true that even with a democratic system, people can lack sufficient freedom -- just take a look at America's own history of slavery and voting rights, all within democratic systems. Democracy is no guarantee of liberty or freedom for all.

At the same time, though, Rand doesn't seem to be simply pointing out democracy is less than absolutely perfect and thus needs to operate within some boundaries. She isn't arguing that there are possible negative outcomes to democratic systems, but rather that those negatives are inherent in democratic systems.

(LCW) But they are, and she suggests that we need something better, and the perspective presented seems to suggest that this is not true, and the inference is that it is not possible to improve on it, otherwise you would have something relevant to say in its defense. The problem is that we have consistently bad people getting involved in every aspect of government. I have no idea why, and I can’t really say why no one in power ever does anything to stop it, but they don’t. Objectivism is not meant to just criticize democracy, or collectivism for that matter, but simply to say that objectivism can produce a better result when it comes to education and the morality, character, ethical conduct, and integrity of an individual.

Of course, there is no guarantee with her way either, but doing nothing, or being an apologist, without having any real position on what is to be done, is irrefutably less than useless. Even an argument or debate that is doomed to failure is better than nothing at all. When has anyone in government offered any rational alternatives to what exists today?

What our Founding Fathers envisioned as the future of America has already been perverted beyond expectations or intent, and this is not inherent, although it may be an attribute inherent in ‘most’ of the individuals that comprise said government. The goals haven’t changed, even with the inclusion of objectivism in the paradigm, and yet, something has to be done. I believe that better people are perhaps the ‘only’ legitimate and realistic answer to the problem.

The interpretation that is brought to the table through your narrative does nothing to change the status quo. If there is one thing that Rand has done, it is to make people think of other alternatives and suggest some options, completely non-violent in nature, to combat the wrongs that she sees that already exist in our midst. I see nothing wrong in that, and I applaud the focus and motivation she has brought to the conversation. Forty million books, perhaps upwards of a billion people have sampled her work. The incentives are beginning to be recognized, and it was never expected to change the world overnight.

She even acknowledged that objectivism, or something like it, would be essential to bring about this necessary change, and she admitted that it may well take a lifetime, or more, to accomplish such a task, or even to begin the process, but it ‘is’ a plan, it ‘is’ working, and it ‘could’ be the change necessary. But without better individuals, moral and ethical, exhibiting character and integrity, this will never come to pass. Of this, I am sure. And nothing will be accomplished by individuals who are incapable of understanding what she has said.

(AC) For example, she's not saying that people can be less than completely free in a democracy, she's denying that it's a "form of freedom" at all. She's not simply saying that democracy can have totalitarian tendencies, but rather that it is totalitarian. Rand's denunciation of democracy as a form of "collectivism" should tell us all we need to know about her opinion of democratic systems because "collectivism" in the Randian universe is the embodiment of everything that is base, evil, and wrong in any human society. It's like the label "satanic" in Christian   systems.
 

(LCW) I don’t believe that to be true at all. Her stance, her philosophy, is a position embracing freedom and recognizing, with many reservations, that what we have today, right now, is under attack by collectivism, undermined by things such as altruism, since it changes the paradigm and puts more pressure on people to do things that they don’t even agree with, through coercion, manipulation and intimidation, as opposed to reason and persuasion. We all need to comprehend that this is reality, and acknowledge that it ‘is’ happening, and has been doing so almost from the inception of the American Dream.

Where is the evidence that she believes what is being said? People who don’t like Rand have been critically vocal about everything that she has ever done. They have given no quarter and acknowledge no single positive attribute to anything she has offered to us through her work. And pass judgment on what she ‘meant’ in her writings when they don’t understand and don’t care to find out. They know less than nothing about her motivations and interpretations of life, the economy, or anything else. If they did, it would have been evident in the presentation at some point.

(AC) Democracy is a form of collectivism -- after all, the fundamental principle of democracy is that sovereign power is vested in all the people, collectively, rather than in a monarch, a god, an aristocracy, a priesthood, or anything else. Power is held by "the people," and "the people" is a collective term -- it's all of us together, making decisions together about what needs to be done. There's no "Superman" who is permitted to make decisions for us independent of our permission. There are no elite making decisions for everyone else.

(LCW) But that ‘is’ precisely the problem. And a very weak argument to the contrary is less than compelling or convincing. Having said that, democracy can be, in theory or essence, collectivist. The problem, as I see it, is that while your paraphrase inappropriately mentions only the ‘people’, it has enough truth to seem reasonable, and yet remains unacceptable.

The actual quote from Lincoln’s Gettysburg address, somewhat out of context, is “that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth”.

This concept ‘of’, ‘by’ and ‘for’ the people is misleading and incomplete. While collectivism virtually does away with voting, since the ‘greater good’, which is determined by unknown authors, is all that is needed to direct the entire ideology, without argument or discussion, and with or without their volitional agreement. I have never heard a comprehensive definition of what this ‘greater’ good actually represents.

Democracy ‘is’ a direct vote, but not by the people, only some woefully inadequate and invariably corrupt individuals that we call our representatives, when they ultimately represent only their own interests and the objectives of their parties and their ideologies. In 1790, each house representative ‘voted’ for a constituency of 37 thousand people, and each senator voted for 121 thousand people.

A hundred years later, in 1892, it was 154 thousand for each House representative and over 500 thousand for each senator. Today it is exponentially higher, with 760 thousand for each house representative and 3.3 million for each senator. It is simply not possible for one single person to represent one or three million Americans, when popular votes tell us that we have for decades been split down the middle, almost equally? So, it is completely reasonable that with every senator, there are well over a million people who do not accept or agree with whatever decision he (or she) makes, every time they vote. This is certainly not of, by, or for the people. It has long ago ceased to be reasonable or practical, if in fact it ever was, or intellectually or philosophically sound.

If we superimpose the original 37 thousand per house representative that existed in 1790, today that would translate into almost 9000 house representatives, instead of the 435 that exists today, and has been etched into the constitution since 1929, almost one hundred years ago. An arbitrary vote, never brought to a Constitutional or popular vote, was barely passed. Many believe that it should have been a Constitutional amendment to make such a drastic change. The point being that Congress usurped the ‘of, by and for the people’ intent, historically. The ability of our government to ‘represent’ the people is reduced with each passing year and is irrevocably beyond the reach of reevaluation and mitigation.

I understand the belief that a cap might be necessary, but I cannot, in good conscience, believe that someone can represent me in any reasonable fashion if they were elected by a majority that does not represent me, and are representing what could only be termed the same population as a small country. Democracy simply cannot work, whether direct or representative. Collectivism cannot work since there is no real representation in any case; it is not designed for either input or discussion.

So, bottom line. Democracy ‘is’ unquestionably a form of collectivism, which Rand and objectivism reject outright, but my skepticisms remain. to disagree, so I tend to disagree. Is that not curious, an objectivist who does not agree with Ayn Rand's position? Actually, it is not out of the ordinary, since the philosophy is built upon the concept of self-determination, which by definition would not only include, but expect disagreements and intellectual and philosophical argument, just not mindless and thoughtless opposition and vilification. Objectivism suggests conversation, discussion, debate, and ‘reasoned’ argument, in the same vein as the concept of ‘rational self-interest’. Something positive that focuses on growth and achievement.

The question is not one of collectivism, but of the context and composition of said collective, and if they are legitimate and responsible individuals, replete with a morality and ethical foundation, an impeccable character, and an integrity that is concise, consistent, and comprehensive. Then, perhaps, a collective could exist that was responsible and legitimate.
 

(AC) Perhaps it's time to start promoting the value of "collectivist" political systems against those who are trying to argue for sociopathic, dictatorial systems run by their Supermen.

(LCW) I would like to make the point, with which Ayn Rand would probably reject, that there is nothing wrong with collectivism, per se, because you can have a ‘collective’ of individuals, or of objectivists, or conservatives, and of course, liberals. That does not have to mean ignorance, but in many cases, that is exactly what it may end up illustrating. A ‘collective’ is simply a group of people of like mind, with a common cause, you might even say, concerned with some greater good. The problem is that this needs to be articulated in great detail, so others, who may be interested, can determine whether the conversation is a reasonable one or simply devoid of reason.

A collective made up of reasonable people, who are focused on issues based on ‘demonstrable’ and credible information, which does not ‘harm’ others in the prosecution of their goals, can be a positive and legitimate concept. They can be an acceptable, admirable, and even desirable objective. It is the unthinking, demanding, and oppressive examples that need to be determined, defined, and confronted. I think the fundamental distinction to be made between collectives is the presence of some form of coercion, which abounds within most of the collectivist ideologies, since their social models do not seem to be able to exist without the use of force to achieve their desired results. The irony is that it should not be necessary. Any collective with substantial value will do much better if it is based on, as objectivism would suggest, mutual agreement towards mutual benefit for all, and not just specific individuals, groups, or interests.

I think the biggest obstacle that challenges a perspective such as the one presented today in this particular narrative is the fact that it has failed to articulate any specific position whatsoever that may have resulted in an exchange of perspective, and an opportunity to learn, grow, and evolve. I simply find it incomprehensible that there exists such a deep ‘need’ to attack and demean someone who has made an exceptional attempt to understand and define the world around us, has offered alternatives to the status quo, which no one individual is under any pressure to accept or support, and has done so in a decidedly thoughtful and insightful way.
Ignorant and disrespectful dialogue is unproductive and self-destructive. Irrelevant if you will. Nothing is explained to any degree, so nothing is resolved, nothing accomplished. It is frustrating and confusing, since nothing of significance is achieved. There is some mystical and incomprehensible compulsion to continue to call Rand sociopathic, but nothing credible has been presented, not even a shred of evidence to that end.

This concept, that Rand and objectivism promote or support a ‘dictatorial’ system, comes with no validation and seems to be in conflict with the concepts and fundamental ideas of objectivism. There is no evidence whatsoever, only opinion, devoid of any reason to even consider it rational or legitimate. Rand and objectivism are so obviously against coercion in government, to the point where she wants the smallest government possible because of all the incompetence and corruption that they embody with their every breath, which we ‘see’ every single day of our lives, all around us.

There is a final plea for collectivism, which has not worked in any appreciable way during the heyday of this ideology over the last two hundred years. What does work, and only marginally, is some hybrid form of an American republic representation and capitalism, to economically support the ideology, which, surprisingly, was not mentioned in your exposition.

There is a wish to reject objectivism and Rand; that is obvious. I get that, and you have every right to do so. It is just that I am always hoping and expecting that there will be some form of an actual, reasoned argument that exists to support the perspective. I just as vehemently and passionately reject collectivism unequivocally in all its bad versions, which are literally all of them, so perhaps it is time to find something superior and acceptable. Unfortunately, liberalism and collectivism seem to have a distinct aversion to conversation, discussion, debate, and reasoned argument, so from where do we begin? Do we all just acquiesce and capitulate only to specific perspectives, such as collectivism, or even objectivism? Or is there some way that we can all join in some form of a cooperative endeavour? I would be fascinated to hear a rational and legitimate response. Actually, it would have been a welcome opportunity if there were more of a specific and detailed perspective on all of the issues that were presented in the narrative, instead of little besides derision, condescension, and unreasoned opposition. Alas, my desires are once again dashed upon the stones of ignorance, misinterpretation, and mal intent. I would say that it was yet another opportunity missed.

The attempt to ‘smear’ and vilify Ayn Rand for her totally justifiable research into the mind of such a horrible individual as Hickman has failed miserably. I believe that the facts speak loudly and are specifically clear. There was no connection between the two at any time, and what was actually offered was ultimately without value or substance, as is the case with most criticism of Ayn Rand and objectivism. Perhaps an investment of additional time and effort should be invested into the attempt. To understand what she has been trying to say would have been beneficial and of value to us all. Millions have heard what she has said, taken it to heart, and improved their lives and the lives of those around them. Who has benefited from the diatribe of derision, vilification, and an existence of such horrible dislike towards another human being? All without justification or vindication. How unfortunate. How difficult it must continually be.

I at least hope that there are those who can see through the smoke screen of ignorance and vindictiveness, and see objectivism for the positive aspects that can be experienced if only given a chance. In any case, Ayn Rand is just a messenger, even though she created the ideology. It is the philosophy of objectivism that is wronged here, and it is an invaluable tool for self-understanding and personal development, which should be recognized as such. There is so much more to discuss. We will talk again.


 

*********************************************

Objectivist Thought  [E] #2284959 An investigation of the actual concepts that illustrate the fundamentals of Objectivism. by Lone Cypress Workshop