On Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand appears to have become one of the icons for Libertarianism, and she is so often cited by (particularly American) Libertarians that a casual observer might expect all Libertarians to be clutching their copy of Atlas Shrugged at all times. Personally, I struggle with Rand in a number of ways, and I'd argue that she is at best a flawed icon for Libertarians.

Don't get me wrong - Rand can write. Atlas Shrugged is a vast novel but it remains readable throughout. However, her writing is not flawless. Realistically, Atlas Shrugged is too long, and is a book in dire need of a decent editor. By contrast, Anthem is too short, and ends up reading like a Ladybird version of Nineteen Eighty-Four (although, in fairness, it was written before Orwell's masterpiece). But, crucially, I've found I can pick up a Rand novel and want to get to the end which is a test many authors fail to pass.

And I'll say this as well in praise of Rand - her attack on the Marxist slogan "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" in Atlas Shrugged is without peer. Rand paints the picture of a dystopia created by people trying to force fairness on others. It shows just how poisonous equality can be when it is forced on others, and what damage equality of outcome can have if foisted onto a free society. Atlas Shrugged is worth reading for this critique alone - all 1368 pages of it.

But it is with other elements of Atlas Shrugged in particular that I struggle with. Rand seems to suggest that the only good, or worthwhile, life to be lead is that of the successful business entrepreneur. Even the composer - one of the few likable characters in the novel who isn't a business person - talks about how he sees his music in business terms. The whole novel reads like a love letter to the business community. Even lovers compete against each other in a cut-throat way - and the novel suggest this is a good thing. Again, don't get me wrong - I have nothing against business people, and can clearly see that they play a crucial role in our society. However, I believe that other people in other professions and other vocations also have important roles and lead worthwhile lives. Likewise, I don't think that - given freedom from an overbearing state - the pursuit of money and success (or greed, as some would probably see it) is the only way to enjoy freedom. Put simply, I believe that there are a myriad of different ways to contribute to society and lead a worthwhile life. Rand only seems to see one - through business success.

And given Rand's love of business and greed, it is perhaps unfortunate the she is so often associated with Libertarianism, since that association just furthers the notion that Libertarians want a reduced state purely to make as much money as possible. That is, of course, not true. Libertarianism is not synonymous with free-market anarchism, and many would use the freedom offered by a genuinely Libertarian government to pursue charitable goals and alternative forms of community not dictated to them by a central government - not just, in other words, to pursue profit.

It seems all political movements need to find figureheads, be it political or cultural icons. However, it seems to me a shame that many Libertarians have adopted a reverence for Ayn Rand. Because while elements of Rand's philosophy match Libertarian ideals, the clue is in Rand's own philosophy - she is an objectivist rather than just a Libertarian. If you want an icon, by all means find one. But I just don't think that Rand is a particularly good icon for the Libertarian movement.

UPDATE: Mr Civil Libertarian says much of what I wanted to say, with better research and rather more eloquently. Go have a read.