Why does Ayn Rand object Libertarianism, yet why does the Libertarian Party and it's philosophy based on Rand?

Question

If LP (Libertarian Party) bases it's philosophy of that of Ayn Rand- i.e.,consequentialism- then this "party" should not exist in the first place (party as a group) Rand "condemned libertarianism as beig a greater threat to freedom and capitalism than both liberalism and conservativism"

and :"They are not defenders of capitlaism, they are a group of publicity seekers"

and so on.

Why?

Please, someone who knows about Ayn Rand's philosophy answer the question. None of this "DUHHHH LIKE um WHO?" if you don't know, do not imply to answer. Thank you.

Answer 1

Ayn Rand is only one of the intellectual founders of the Libertarian movement, and a controversial one at that. More prominent figures in the lexicon of the Libertarian movement are Murray Rothbard, Ludwig Von Mises, and Friedrick Hayek.

Ayn Rand was ambivalent to intellectual libertarianism, which is based on a philosophical system called Praxeology. Though she had her disagreements, she considered Von Mises an intellectual ally (Von Mises initiated their friendship when he wrote her a letter praising Atlas Shrugged). She didn't like Hayek personally, and she and Rothbard had a falling out, due to Rand's atheism and Rothbard's Judaism.

She did NOT like the Libertarian party; which she saw as being nothing more than an eclectic band of political activists. Some Libertarians openly admired her and used her material (sometimes without her permission), and others were among her most savage critics. She saw this as intellectual disorganization, and she had coined the phrase "The only thing worse than not defending the good is to defend it poorly", because she saw poor defense as an empowerment to her intellectual foes. While Libertarians were making a big stink of issues like seat-belt laws and marijuana legalization, their political opponents were writing them off as supporters of eccentric ideas, thus undermining the entire intellectual movement to spur society back towards a more laissez-faire system.

Answer 2

Rand was espousing a philosophy of life not a political platform.

Libertarian's admire Rand's fierce commitment to personal freedom. But politics is all about compromise, which is not really something you could say about Ayn, who refused to endorse ANY political group.

"I’ve read nothing by a Libertarian that wasn’t my ideas badly mishandled"

One can almost hear Captain Jack Sparrow saying "Ah...so you ADMIT they're YOUR ideas."

Answer 3

that is an exciting question, yet i do no longer think of Ayn Rand might believe your characterization of her philosophy. Objectivist ethics are no longer merely predicated on a concept by which "in spite of makes you chuffed" passes for ethical. fairly, objectivism demands individuals to act of their very own rational self interest. there's a distinction, and that i do no longer think objectivists are incredibly hedonists in hide. Given this massive distinction, you possibly can see that objectivism gives you a ethical purpose. figuring out one's rational self-interest in a international wherein one lives with others unquestionably demands a regard for fairness and honesty and different virtues maximum individuals tend to think approximately ethical. certainly, Rand's books are replete with references to the fairness of exchanges of fee for fee. She overtly antagonistic fraud and deprivations of liberty and sources by tension. those are no longer the perspectives of a relativistic "in spite of makes you chuffed" actuality seeker. that is actual that Rand grow to be contemptuous of religion. She predicated her philosophy at using reason, and faith, incredibly by definition, is a concept held exterior and different than for reason. that is concept with out data, and Rand observed no data to cajole her that there exists some supernatural being whose suggestion could be taken on how we are to stay our lives. besides, she grow to be conscious that, in many circumstances, human beings might fail to workout their very own reason to make ethical judgements because of the fact those judgements had already been made for them by religious doctrine. i think of she observed this as risky, and he or she spends a great deal of time in her philosophical writings dealing with the means of religion to impair somebody's pursuit of his very own rational self interest. needless to say, and as i think of you knew once you asked your question, Rand is referred to by conservatives for her political decision for small government. Many if no longer maximum conservatives disagree together with her religious perspectives, whether that is nicely worth noting that no longer each conservative is religious. yet in any adventure, Rand is not any relativist, and it would be a mistake to confuse a philosophy predicated on rational self-interest with a carte-blanche "in spite of makes you chuffed" hedonism or relativism. thank you for the question.

Answer 4

Who cares? Ayn Rand has been dead for a quarter century.

Doug