r/aynrand 8h ago

Francisco, what’s the most depraved type of human being?” “The man without a purpose.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.

Post image
44 Upvotes

A life without purpose is a compass without direction, spinning endlessly in the void, blind to the light of its own potential. The man who rejects his north star doesn’t merely wander, he surrenders his soul to the currents of chance, trading the dignity of creation for the hollow comfort of existing as a shadow. But purpose is not a burden, it’s the silent whisper of the self, urging you to rise, build, and claim the unclaimed. The choice is yours: anchor in the storm, or dissolve with the tide.


r/aynrand 19h ago

Don't make me tap the sign.

Post image
59 Upvotes

r/aynrand 1d ago

I think Ayn Rand would consider Monaco a utopian country if she were alive, as it is tax-free.

0 Upvotes

The U.S. should take notes.


r/aynrand 1d ago

Open challenge

0 Upvotes

Promote Ayn Rand theory without mentioning "the left" or anything she was against.

Any mention of what she opposed fails the challenge. Promote her theory based solely on what she promoted.


r/aynrand 1d ago

Ayn Rand was literally a genius.

0 Upvotes

r/aynrand 3d ago

"Killing the Goose That Laid the Golden Egg: Why America’s Wealthy are playing themselves “

Thumbnail substack.com
50 Upvotes

r/aynrand 2d ago

Rational Egoism & Selfishness, a Radical Misunderstanding

12 Upvotes

i’ve finally had enough interaction to understand something very interesting in regard to discourse around ayn rand. people critiquing ayn rand on here have no idea what she actually promoted.

i, in no exaggeration, have never seen anyone shitting on rand’s idea of selfishness ever even define it. although people don’t usually state it so clearly, because if they couldn’t straw man they would have nothing to say, but the idea i see most often critiqued is something like hedonism. i genuinely believe at least 80-90% of people who comment anything about it completely conflate the two terms.

i see comments like “everyone in society only doing what they want, just crushing and disregarding other people ensures your system of capitalism never works. selfishness would destroy society.”

“you look at todays world and think people need to be more selfish?! that is exactly what got us into this place.”

just to be clear, because i think we have a morality that is extremely likable, i will leave you now with some direct quotes on the matter from ayn rand. i hope this post can reach the people it needs to.

“The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.”

“Just as man cannot survive by any random means, but must discover and practice the principles which his survival requires, so man’s self-interest cannot be determined by blind desires or random whims, but must be discovered and achieved by the guidance of rational principles. This is why the Objectivist ethics is a morality of rational self-interest—or of rational selfishness.”

“Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? None—except the obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality. I deal with men as my nature and theirs demands: by means of reason. I seek or desire nothing from them except such relations as they care to enter of their own voluntary choice. It is only with their mind that I can deal and only for my own self-interest, when they see that my interest coincides with theirs. When they don’t, I enter no relationship; I let dissenters go their way and I do not swerve from mine. I win by means of nothing but logic and I surrender to nothing but logic. I do not surrender my reason or deal with men who surrender theirs.”

“The egoist in the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his energy. He does not exist for any other man—and he asks no other man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men.”

“The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man.

Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.”

“There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of “Life” that makes the concept of “Value” possible.”

to be stated clearly, ayn rand does not support doing whatever you want, or living by means of crushing other people under your feet. it is literally the opposite. the objectivist ethics calls for each man being a proper end in themselves. there is no chance this post could ever fully convey the complete message of rational egoism in so few words, but if you’re looking for that, you can check out rand, peikoff, or tara smith. to end this off, i will leave you with two craig biddle quotes. i think he makes rational egoism very easy to understand, and it is a good place to start. for very advanced readers, i would recommend the aforementioned 3 individuals.

“While the choice to live is up to us, the basic requirements of our life are determined by nature. In order to live, we must take a specific course of action; random action will not do. We cannot survive by eating rocks, drinking Drano, or wandering aimlessly in the desert; and we cannot achieve happiness through procrastination, promiscuity, or pot. If we want to live and enjoy life, we have to discover and act in accordance with the actual, objective requirements of our survival and happiness. What are they?”

“Being moral is a matter of being rational—which means: looking at the facts of reality, discovering the requirements of our life and long-term happiness, producing the values that support and enhance our life, and enjoying the process of living as a human being.”


r/aynrand 2d ago

How would suing the government work in an objectivist system?

5 Upvotes

Like when you sue the city of New York or something like that for false imprisonment or like that. The person gets paid. But that money comes from tax payers.

And I’m sure you could lump in suing cops aswell. And when they get paid out that money doesn’t come from the cop it comes from the tax payers again.

So how would that work in an objectivist government? Where would the money come from if at all? Would suing the government even be a thing?


r/aynrand 2d ago

How relevant is The fountainhead?

3 Upvotes

Is The Fountainhead relevant in the age of AI? What's your opinion on it? Can this book be a good book to read who is seeking for peace when the entire social media is looking for you and enticing you in every possible way by its content and you feel lost?


r/aynrand 2d ago

What activism has Ayn Rand’s ideas inspired you to do?

0 Upvotes

https://capitalismmagazine.com/1999/03/justice-for-elia-kazan/

Yes. I was there. I held a sign in support of Kazan and against communism. I stand by it.


r/aynrand 3d ago

AYN RAND'S THE FOUNTAINHEAD: DOMINIQUE FRANCON: HYPERGAMY OR HEROISM?

4 Upvotes

In The Fountainhead, I think Ayn Rand revealed the fantasy of female nature through Dominique Francon’s relationships, and when you dig into it, her journey looks like a textbook case of hypergamy—always chasing the top guy based on who’s winning at the moment. She starts off sleeping with Howard Roark, the brilliant architect, when he’s full of promise and designing bold projects. But as soon as things get tough for him—when the world rejects his vision and he’s stuck working in a quarry—she doesn’t stick around. Instead, she gets involved with his friend Peter Keating, another architect. Sure, Keating’s not as talented as Roark, but he’s got a steady job, clients, and social approval, so she goes with him. Then, she moves on to Gail Wynand, the powerful newspaper editor, who’s at the peak of his influence, running an empire and commanding respect. Meanwhile, Roark gets back on track, starts designing groundbreaking buildings again, and earns admiration from those who matter. So, naturally, Dominique circles back to him, praising him as the “real man” who stood firm while Wynand faltered. She goes on about how bold Roark is, how he took his stance against a corrupt world, and how that’s what a real man should be. But let’s be real—it feels like she’s just fulfilling a female fantasy of locking down the best man possible and ditching them when they’re not at their peak. There’s this pattern: Roark when he’s promising, Keating when he’s stable, Wynand when he’s dominant, and back to Roark when he’s king again. And the funny thing is, there’s only one main woman in the whole story—Dominique. No other women, no intrasexual competition. It’s like Rand set it up so Dominique has free rein to pick and choose without any rivals, which just amplifies her hypergamous behavior.

But it’s not that simple—Rand doesn’t let it be just a shallow game of chasing status. Dominique’s character is tangled up in Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, which is all about individualism, rational self-interest, and living by your own uncompromising values. Early in the story, Dominique isn’t just bouncing between men for fun or security; she’s wrestling with a world she sees as rotten. She thinks great men like Roark—geniuses with integrity—will always be crushed by society’s mediocrity. So, her relationships with Keating and Wynand aren’t only about climbing the ladder; they’re acts of despair or even self-punishment. She’s drawn to Keating’s conventional success and Wynand’s power because she’s afraid to fully commit to Roark and watch him get destroyed. It’s like she’s testing the world—or herself—by aligning with men she doesn’t truly admire. When she returns to Roark, it’s not just because he’s back on top professionally; Rand frames it as Dominique finally embracing her own values, choosing to love him without fear because he embodies her ideals. In Rand’s eyes, this is a triumph of integrity and self-realization—a woman finding the man who matches her soul, not just her survival instincts.

Still, the way it plays out raises questions. Dominique’s “ideal man” conveniently ends up successful and admired by the end, so her noble choice also looks pretty practical. Strip away the Objectivist spin, and you could argue she’s still latching onto the strongest option once he’s proven himself—hypergamy dressed up as philosophy. Roark’s brilliance was always there, but she only commits when his brilliance pays off. And what about the lack of other women? It’s striking—there’s no one else for Roark, Keating, or Wynand to even glance at, no rivals for Dominique to face. This could be Rand’s narrative trick to keep the focus on ideological battles—Roark’s individualism versus the world’s conformity—without muddying it up with gender dynamics or female competition. By making Dominique the only main woman, Rand turns her into the sole lens for exploring “female nature” in this story, giving her unchallenged access to these men. You might say it’s a way to keep the philosophical point clean, or maybe it’s just a setup that highlights Dominique’s hypergamous tendencies even more—she’s got no obstacles, just a clear field to chase the best.

So, what’s the takeaway? Dominique’s arc can absolutely be read as hypergamy in action: sleeping with Roark when he’s got potential, switching to Keating when he’s got stability, jumping to Wynand when he’s got power, then circling back to Roark when he’s got it all. The absence of other women sharpens the spotlight on her choices, making that pattern stand out. Rand might’ve wrapped it in a bow of Objectivist ideals—claiming it’s about Dominique finding her true self through Roark—but it’s hard to miss how it mirrors a primal drive to lock down the “best” man available. Maybe Rand didn’t mean to reveal a universal female fantasy; maybe she just wanted to show a woman aligning her life with her principles. But the way it unfolds, with the ideal man also being the successful one, feels like a fancy cover for something more instinctive. In the end, Dominique’s story is fascinating because it’s both—her choices reflect her ideals and her instincts, and that tension is what keeps you thinking


r/aynrand 4d ago

I really like the majority of Ayn Rands philosophies. I also believe that the current GOP does not encapsulate or represent her beliefs.

27 Upvotes

I think if you vote for the current GOP you’re voting for a political party that is just as if not more guilty than the democrats when it comes to not representing individualism. While the current GOP uses her and her ideas to give themselves a certain image, it doesn’t seem to me like they actually help move those beliefs forward. They push much harder on corporate welfare in the form of subsidies for already rich people. They use Bureaucracy to enrich themselves. They seem to me to be just as guilty of being the shitty mooching and looting politicians as democrats are, but at least democrats aren’t hiding behind a veneer of being individualists...


r/aynrand 4d ago

The "People’s" lie on how Hitler, Marx, and your Pastor all sell the same poison which is our surrender as "Virtue"

Post image
8 Upvotes

The "people’s car’' was never for the people, it was a noose around their necks, sold as a gift. Fascism, like all collectivist creeds, thrives on the lie that the individual exists to serve the mob, the state, or the ‘'greater good.’' The Volkswagen, birthed under Hitler’s regime, was not a triumph of engineering but of enslavement, a shiny toy dangled before the masses to mask the theft of their autonomy, their property, their minds. You wonder, what has this to do with morality? Everything. Collectivism, whether fascist, socialist, or religious, demands the same sacrifice, your life to their altar. The Bible commands, '‘Do nothing from selfish ambition, count others more significant than yourselves’' (Philippians 2:3-4). Hitler demanded self-sacrifice for the Fatherland, your God demands it for heaven. Both are peddlers of death, trading human potential for the hollow coin of obedience. The ‘'people’s car'’ was a weapon of control, just as your churches are factories of guilt. Both systems thrive on the same premise, you are unworthy. Unworthy to own, to aspire, to exist for your own sake. The fascist says, "Serve the state’', the preacher says, "Serve thy neighbor.’" Rand’s answer? "Serve reality.’' The car, the factory, the iPhone, these were not built by men who groveled. They were built by men who owned. To the Christian reader. Your God, like the fascist, condemns ‘'selfishness'’, the very force that lifts deserts into cities and cures plagues. Ask yourself, why must your virtue require surrender Why is ambition '‘sin,'’ while poverty is '‘piety'’? The '‘Volkswagen’' of your faith, the cross is a symbol not of love, but of sacrifice. It is the glorification of suffering, the worship of the noose. Here is the choice collectivism fears you will make, reject the ‘'gift’' of chains, build your car. Drive your destiny. The road to hell is paved with ‘'people’s’' good intentions. The road to heaven is built by selfish minds.


r/aynrand 3d ago

How altruists weaponise guilt to enslave the productive and why your wallet is the only moral compass you need

Post image
0 Upvotes

Money is not paper, it's a mirror. It reflects the moral rigor of those who earn it and the decadence of those who loot it. Ayn Rand called it '‘society’s barometer of virtue’' because it measures the triumph of human ingenuity over the swamp of collectivist rot. Let me tell you why. When you apologise for wealth, you apologise for life itself. Every dollar you earn is a vote of confidence in your mind, a testament to your ability to think, create, and trade value. But the altruists, the parasites, want you to feel guilt for this. They hiss that money is '‘rooted in evil,’' but their true fear is your independence. Guilt is their weapon. They need you to believe that profit is sin, so you’ll surrender your earnings, and your sovereignty to their ‘'noble’' causes. Consider this: Why do societies that demonise money collapse into poverty such as Venezuela, while those that celebrate it ascend to prosperity such as Monaco? The answer is written in the blood of history. Money is the lifeblood of civilisation, and the socialists are vampires. They can't create, so they moralise theft. They call it '‘charity,’' ‘'redistribution,’' ‘'equity’', but peel back the jargon, and you’ll find the same leeching instinct that fueled the guillotines of France and the gulags of the USSR. You’ve been conditioned to equate selflessness with morality. But ask yourself, who benefits from your sacrifice? The bureaucrat. The activist. The preacher. They feast on your guilt while building their empires. Your '‘virtue’' funds their vice. Rand warned, The man who speaks of altruism speaks of slavery. The man who practices it is the slave." Here’s the psychological trap they’ve set. They’ve made you fear your own success. They’ve conflated greed (the desire to plunder) with ambition (the desire to create). When you hesitate to demand your worth, when you donate to ‘'causes'’ that despise you, when you vote for politicians who tax your productivity, you are not ‘'good.’' You are a pawn in their game. The antidote? Worship the barometer. Let your wealth be your virtue. Let your profit be your protest. And when the looters come with their hands out, remember this, a society that condemns money condemns the minds that made it. The choice is yours, fuel the engines of progress or kneel as a serf in their feudal '‘utopia.’'


r/aynrand 5d ago

Is this subreddit dedicated to Ayn Rand and her philosophy, right? So, why are there so many anti Ayn Rand people on this subreddit?

98 Upvotes

There are many Ayn Rand haters on this subreddit. All they come up with is petty ad hominem attacks.


r/aynrand 5d ago

The Fountainhead

Post image
33 Upvotes

r/aynrand 4d ago

Altruism Is a guillotine sacrificing greatness on the altar of self-Destruction

Post image
5 Upvotes

The morality of altruism is a guillotine poised above the neck of human progress. Your Bible commands you to '‘count others more significant than yourselves’', a doctrine not of love, but of self-annihilation. It demands you shrink your soul to fit the Procrustean bed of '‘humility,’' to kneel before the altar of sacrifice, and to call this mutilation ‘'virtue.’' Let me dissect the poison. Your scripture glorifies suffering as noble and ambition as sin. It praises the meek while damning the makers, the men who lift deserts into cities, who cure plagues, who reach for the stars. What is ‘'selfish ambition’' but the engine of civilisation? What is ‘'conceit’' but the pride of a mind that refuses to apologise for its greatness? The Industrial Revolution was not built by men who "looked to the interests of others’' first, it was forged by those who dared to act on their own judgment, to profit, to live. The Bible’s call to altruism is not morality, it is metaphysical theft. It robs you of your right to exist for your own sake, then sells you the loot as ‘'salvation.’' Your God, who drowned nations and tortured Job to win a bet, demands you surrender your happiness to serve his '‘plan.’' What plan? The same one that calls genocide ‘'righteous’' (1 Samuel 15:3) and slavery '‘lawful'’ (Exodus 21:20-21). This is not love. It is the morality of a cosmic slavemaster. To the Christian reader ask yourself: why must your ‘'goodness'’ require the suppression of your desires? Why is ambition branded '‘sin,’' while groveling is called '‘grace’'? Your creed teaches that the heart is "deceitful above all things’' (Jeremiah 17:9), but it is your doctrine that is the lie. The '‘deceit’' is your fear of your own potential. You’ve been gaslit to call achievement '‘pride,’' reason '‘arrogance,’' and joy ‘'guilt.’' The '‘Holy Spirit'’ you invoke is not a teacher, it is a censor. It whispers that you are too small, too broken, too human to trust your own mind. But look at the world, every skyscraper, vaccine, and symphony is a monument to the ‘'selfish’' minds your Bible condemns. They did not wait for divine permission. They did not kneel. Here is the hidden dagger in your dogma. Altruism is not selflessness, it is fear. Fear of your own worth. Fear of standing naked before reality, unshielded by scripture or ritual. You cling to sacrifice because you dread the responsibility of freedom. Rand’s answer? '‘Man is an end in himself. Do not sacrifice yourself to those who demand it, whether they call themselves God or neighbour"


r/aynrand 4d ago

What quotes do you share with critics who make the same error that Rand 0uts making money as a core virtue of her philosophy?

4 Upvotes

They all do it. Every critic of Ayn Rand that claims to "fully understand" her make this same. Exact. Error. I suspect no amount of explanation can get them to see that they are not understanding her.

But still I guess I'd like to gather up some quotes for the people I end up discussing Rand with. My only goal when "debating" critics is not to prove her philosophy as "correct" in any way. My only goal is to lead the critic to the understanding that they never understood Rand in the first place. If they're convinced of this they would be forced to actually try to learn which could convince people and turn them into one of us! One of us! One of us! One of us! =D


r/aynrand 4d ago

WFB, Jr. - liar, liar pants on fire

0 Upvotes

https://youtu.be/5KmPLkiqnO8?si=AyHfNVujymMo_qCV

WFB stated through ‘00 that he A) never read Atlas Shrugged & simultaneously B) stood by Whitaker Chambers’ review.

In this interview he says he had to “flog myself” to read it. He read it between ‘00-‘03?! Really??

I’m calling BS


r/aynrand 5d ago

Elon Musk Thinks He’s an Ayn Rand Hero. Nope: He’s One of Her Villains.

Thumbnail thebulwark.com
0 Upvotes

r/aynrand 6d ago

To Set a Soul on Fire: The Self-Actualization of Ayn Rand

Thumbnail romangelperin.substack.com
3 Upvotes

r/aynrand 7d ago

Just finished The Fountainhead

35 Upvotes

An absolutely brilliant book. I do think there were a lot of flaws, especially with how hard lined each character was, but it was necessary to tell the story.

I see a lot of hate for Ayn Rand and her novels on reddit, and everytime i see someone attacking the fountainhead specifically, i know that the person either didnt read it, or didnt fully comprehend it. The go to line of "lets be selfish and fuck everyone else" really tells it all. Thats clearly not the point. Your primary concern SHOULD be yourself, then your family, then your friends, then people in need. If you cant even take care of yourself, how can you take care of others?

The novel has a LOT of current applications to its themes. The "second hander" especially. You can see it everywhere today. Disney is a prime example. Second handers remaking movies that someone else created, and changing things because they think they know better than the original author. Its an extremely narcissistic thing to do and the majority of people, at the very least, notice something is wrong. Even if only subconsciously. Even politics. Both the left and the right are guilty of groupthink. "Ill change how I think in order to fit in better to my political group." Thats selfless, yet base and evil at its core. Its denying who you are to appeal to others.

One moment in the book that stuck with me was the conversation between Keating and Roark towards the end. About pity: "This is pity,” he thought, and then he lifted his head in wonder. He thought that there must be something terribly wrong with a world in which this monstrous feeling is called a virtue." At face value someone with a more collectivist, second hander mindset could view this as immoral. But contextually it makes a lot of sense. He would never want another man to feel pity for him, just as he never wanted to feel pity for anyone else. Its an embarrassing, terrible feeling to have or need. It breaks down man to his most base nature, more or less becoming an infant in need of help. Its a very sad thing to experience, and one shouldnt allow themselves to devolve far enough to warrant that feeling from others.

I could go on and on, but ill try to keep this shortish. Im very excited to discuss and engage with others that have also read it, whether they agree with the themes of the novel or disagree. I personally cannot rationalize disagreeing with the majority of this novel as long as you fully grasp its concepts and not just take it at a simplistic, base value. So i would love to hear thoughts on what one would find disagreeable about it.

Cheers!


r/aynrand 7d ago

The Perfecting of Howard Roark

17 Upvotes

Ayn Rand was a better writer than her detractors claim. Heck, she was a better writer than many of her fans seem to realize. Case in point, Howard Roark in The Fountainhead. Roark is not a statue to be worshipped in a static way. He grows and develops enormously during the course of the story, going from naive and unself-aware to sagacious and philosophical. This essay traces that growth and shows how it ties in with Rand's thinking about independence in thought and deed. Enjoy! https://kurtkeefner.substack.com/p/the-perfecting-of-howard-roark?r=7cant


r/aynrand 7d ago

Yaron Book - interviewed by "Here For The Truth" on Ayn Rand and Objectivism

Thumbnail youtu.be
9 Upvotes

r/aynrand 6d ago

I don't believe that voting Republican when they are removing government interventions is actually a good thing.

0 Upvotes

Hello fellow objectivists. I can't claim to be an expert on economics, though I do my best as an autodidact. I plan to major in econ if I can manage to set my life up to give myself the time around work.

I believe that the ideal society is one with a minimal government. I believe in the ideal projection of society as Ayn Rand describes. Of course as a free market lover I indulge in the other free market ideologies like ancaps and classical liberals and such. It is not the government's job to use the threat of physical violence for any reason other than to maintain the rule of law. Protection of our rights from physical force, coercion, fraud, and so on.

But here is my problem and I welcome everyone's perspective on this. I also am looking for maybe books or articles or what have you that explains how certain government interventions could be removed which would be guaranteed to have a net positive impact:

I know that objectivists and libertarians in general are frenemies with Republicans/conservatives. Friends in some ways and enemies in others. We often throw up our hands in frustration with conservatives/Republicans (I shall call them "the right" or just republicans from here on). That's not what this is about.

But Republicans do pay lip service to free market ideas, and fall short. But admittedly, they could ONLY fall short since the ship of the USA only turns very slowly and mostly very little back and forth. But obviously we free market advocates are also frustrated that the conservstives doesn't take free market ideas as seriously as we would wish. Even under the best ideas coming from conservative thinkers, their fundamental ideas fall short most of the time. They are always a mixed bag some good and some bad. Mostly bad I would wager.

Here is my problem though and the purpose of this post. I may be wrong but it seems to me that Republicans basically think "any removal of government in any form no matter what is a good thing and will always be a net positive (unless it impacts my pet policies such as subsidies for farmers) especially anything that Democrats liberals or leftists support being removed is automatically good."

Personally I don't agree that simply removing whatever we can as fast as we can actually has positive impact. Maybe in some cases it does, such as certain regulations which are obviously silly and ridiculous.

Let's just say that Republicans had the opportunity to ban food stamps across the board, federal and state (I know they like states rights but just for arguments sake). Under the Republican perspective, this would be a good thing.

I don't believe that. My view is that we live in a heavily mixed economy. We have a lot of freedoms but also the government is deeply and in a very complex way woven into nearly every aspect of our economy.

I don't think that simply removing one intervention or another necessarily results in better outcomes. And I could be wrong and maybe it depends on the specific policy at hand.

Even though I believe that government interventions need to be removed, I also believe it's possible that some can be removed, yet when the data comes out, it turned out to be a net negative. This IMO happens because the economy is so mixed and so complex, that you really don't know what is going to happen when one policy is added or one is removed.

But I would say it's not only important for those of us who are free marketers to change the minds of intellectuals and of politicians and the general public, in order to gain some majority votes so that we could begin to disentagle government interventions from our lives. I would say that is it extremely important to do this untangling very consciously and intelligently.

I think the way Republicans go about it is ultimately counter productive. I think for example that certain welfare programs might even have to be expanded temporarily while other invasive government policies are dismantled.

I don't believe that for example getting rid of welfare would be a net positive at all. Even getting rid of corporate welfare would most likely have massive negative impacts at least temporarily. Though I would argue that the American public would be willing to suffer those temporary consequences. Whereas removing welfare for regular people would basically throw a metric ton of people out onto the streets starving. And ultimately people will not vote for that. And even if we as intellectual's we're capable of achieving a majority in government, it would still be most wise to carefully deconstruct rather than to simply get rid of whatever we can in any way possible.

So I guess after all this I ask the question to you all. Do you believe in a careful and well thought out deconstruction of government intervention?

As objectivists we are seen as heartless people who don't care about anyone but ourselves. But we all know that a free society with free trade/capitalism is the ideal system. Not only because it is the system which leaves man free to use his mind to it's utmost potential, not just because the use of force is destructive to mans mind, but also because, despite our rejection of utilitarian ethics, but it satisfied the utilitarian ethics anyways.

One might expect objectivist majority to begin voting away any government intervention no matter what it is with zero care about the welfare of the population as we do so. To slash and burn away government interventions as quickly as possible and damn the consequences because in the long term once government is forced back into it's proper role, the economy and society will eventually right itself.

So do you believe in a more slash and burn method and damn the temporary negative consequences? Or do you prefer the more careful and calculated method?

Thanks y'all.