Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

Now Playing at Reason.tv: Brian Doherty on Ayn Rand's Legacy

Nick Gillespie | 11.7.2007 2:03 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

reason Senior Editor and Radicals for Capitalism author Brian Doherty takes the modernist measure of novelist, philosopher, and cult figure Ayn Rand.

Click below for the full video:

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: YouTube Tests Honor Among Thieves

Nick Gillespie is an editor at large at Reason and host of The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie.

PoliticsCultureLibertarian History/PhilosophyReason.tv
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (29)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Fluffy   18 years ago

    I hope that when you use an image like that you don't have to send Len Peikoff a check.

  2. de stijl   18 years ago

    The design of the Rand stamp has always weirded me out. It's Deco meets Soviet Constructivism.

  3. Jamie Kelly   18 years ago

    False advertising. That logo makes Ayn Rand look pleasing to the eye, when she was, in fact, the ass product of Danny DeVito and Natasha Badinov.

  4. Taktix?   18 years ago

    I will now refer to Doherty as "Book Plug Brian" from now on...

  5. sophmoricon   18 years ago

    I will now refer to Doherty as "Book Plug Brian" from now on...

    What word did you formerly use in place of 'book'?

  6. Syloson of Samos   18 years ago

    To be frank I've always found Rand's notion of "evil" to be well, problematic and something which could lead to some rather unpleasant and "unexpected" outcomes.

  7. Franklin Harris   18 years ago

    The design of the Rand stamp has always weirded me out. It's Deco meets Soviet Constructivism.

    Love of art deco is about the only thing I have in common with Rand's artistic preferences. You'll notice that recent printings of all of Rand's books use art deco designs on their covers. I sometimes wonder if Rand modeled herself somewhat on Tamara de Lempicka, an art deco painter who also had to flee the Bolsheviks.

  8. ed   18 years ago

    The design of the Rand stamp has always weirded me out.

    You should see someone about that. I'll take it over the Elvis stamp any day. Not that Rand was nearly as important as The King. Of schlock.

  9. J sub D   18 years ago

    False advertising. That logo makes Ayn Rand look pleasing to the eye, when she was, in fact, the ass product of Danny DeVito and Natasha Badinov.

    This is a nit I have to pick. As a Rocky and Bullwinkle aficionado, I demand accuracy in smart ass blogging. Natasha Fatale is not now, and has never been, married to, or had sexual relations with, Boris Badenov. Slander like this cannot, nay, will not, be permitted. Desist or face my unholy wrath.

  10. Jamie Kelly   18 years ago

    J sub D,
    Holy Christ, I'm sorry.
    At this piont, I need the way-back machine.

  11. Warren   18 years ago

    Natasha Fatale is not now, and has never been, married to, or had sexual relations with, Boris Badenov.

    I think you're wrong about the sexual relations dah'link. But I don't know what your definition of 'is' is.

  12. JN   18 years ago

    Brian,

    What the hell are you looking at in that video?

  13. J sub D   18 years ago

    Holy Christ, I'm sorry.
    At this piont, I need the way-back machine.

    All is forgiven, Jamie Kelly.

    I think you're wrong about the sexual relations dah'link.

    Never! Natasha Fatale is my first two dimensional sexual infatuation. She'd never "do" Boris. Fearless Leader, maybe.

  14. Fred   18 years ago

    My thanks to Taktix for answering my question: How long does it take in this video for Doherty to pitch his book? Apparently, not very.

  15. barry payne_economist   18 years ago

    WAS AYN RAND A RACIST AND SUPPORTER OF
    ULTIMATE EMINANT DOMAIN?

    The comments below are from a speech by Ayn Rand at West Point in 1974 about American Indians ...

    "They didn't have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using . . . . What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their 'right' to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent."

  16. Tbone   18 years ago

    Jamie (and with fealty to J sub D),

    Don't apologize, I laughed my ass off.

  17. Captain Chaos (now in thrall t   18 years ago

    Thanks Barry. You've shown this nest of rabid Randroids that the woman had glaring flaws.

    Except that there are few hardcore Rand folks here, and everyone already knew that AR could be more than a bit batty.

  18. joe   18 years ago

    No good can come of a politics that divides the world into a productive class and parasites, and fantasizes about the former getting their revenge on the latter.

    We've been down that road from all kinds of different directions, and it always brings us to the same place.

    Whiff of the gas chamber indeed, Mr. Chambers.

  19. matthew hogan   18 years ago

    Isn't Ayn Rand dead? Can we leave her there please? Call a halt to Galt. Dead is dead qua dead; selfishness is altruism, businessmen are Aryans, to the gas chambers go!

  20. Ayn_Randian   18 years ago

    WAS AYN RAND A RACIST AND SUPPORTER OF
    ULTIMATE EMINANT DOMAIN?

    Err, no, but she wasn't a big fan of misspelling and ignorant-ass context-droppers such as yourself.

    I suppose I could explain that she was saying that the whole "mixing land with labor" thang, a notion to which many smart folks around here ascribe, was essential for ownership and Indian-Americans had a tendency to want to corral literally millions of square miles for "hunting grounds", "holy lands" and just because "our people have always roamed there". Ayn Rand was calling bullshit on that stuff.

    I mean, I could explain all that, but providing some context isn't what you were going for anyway. You want to score a cheap point.

    Additionally, I suppose we have reached a point in dialogue where you call someone a racist and stop listening to anything they say. Too bad for you Ayn Rand was explicitly not a racist, she explicitly castigated them, and no punk-ass little shit like yourself is ever going to change that. FOAD, FWIW

  21. John-David   18 years ago

    No good can come of a politics that divides the world into a productive class and parasites, and fantasizes about the former getting their revenge on the latter.

    I believe that Animal Farm simplified the divisions of the world in the same way that Atlas Shrugged did. Was Orwell wrong as well?

  22. ERIC DONDERO   18 years ago

    RAND WAS A RACIST? hey so is ron paul!! especially jews.

  23. smartass sob   18 years ago

    I've always wondered how American Indians can make the claim that the land was stolen from them when they, themselves, did not believe that land could even be owned (or so it is said.) People who don't believe in property rights look sort of foolish claiming that theirs have been violated.

  24. BakedPenguin   18 years ago

    J sub D - I went out with a Russian woman for a while. I actually got her to say "moose and squirrel" a couple times, but she was baffled by the reason why I wanted her to. I think she believed that she was saying something that sounded really dirty.

  25. joe   18 years ago

    John-David,

    Orwell pointed to specific individuals as being parasites in Animal Farm.

    Rand took a much more collectivist approach, and depicted whole classes of people that way.

    That's a pretty considerable difference.

  26. joe   18 years ago

    If Ayn Rand had written Animal Farm, there would have been no Snowball, no internal fighting, no good pigs at all.

  27. joe   18 years ago

    I suppose I could explain that she was saying that the whole "mixing land with labor" thang, a notion to which many smart folks around here ascribe, was essential for ownership and Indian-Americans had a tendency to want to corral literally millions of square miles for "hunting grounds", "holy lands" and just because "our people have always roamed there". Ayn Rand was calling bullshit on that stuff.

    And she was dead wrong about that. Indian groups all over the country mixed their labor with the land, tending crops in fields just like the Europeans. The non-agricultural societies on the plains were the exception, not the rule, and certainly not the universal reality she claimed.

    Repeating this old, discreditted, historically-ignorant stereotype that was used to justify their eviction and the theft of their land, and lumping together such unlike people's as the Lakota and the Wampanoag is order to shill for that eviction and theft, looks pretty damn racist to me.

  28. BakedPenguin   18 years ago

    Rand took a much more collectivist approach, and depicted whole classes of people that way.

    joe - Rand had good poor people, and evil rich people. The main "class" division was the attitude the person held.

    There is a very "Snowball-esque" figure in We the Living, a devoted Red who fought during the civil war and is later betrayed by political intriguers. IIRC, she also showed a great deal of in-fighting among the politicians in Atlas Shrugged. Her point was analogous to Orwell's - the ones who believe they are really trying to create a better world are no match for those who want to seize power for themselves.

    I don't have any serious disagreement with your assessment of her discussion of First Nation peoples.

  29. joe   18 years ago

    Baked Penguin,

    I guess I could have been clearer - I didn't mean "class" to mean "economic class," but "category" or just "swath." My point was, she just tarred whole segments of the population as The Productive or The Parasites.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Should the
Civilization Video Games Be Fun—or Real?

Jason Russell | From the June 2025 issue

Government Argues It's Too Much To Ask the FBI To Check the Address Before Blowing Up a Home

Billy Binion | 5.9.2025 5:01 PM

The U.K. Trade Deal Screws American Consumers

Eric Boehm | 5.9.2025 4:05 PM

A New Survey Suggests Illicit Opioid Use Is Much More Common Than the Government's Numbers Indicate

Jacob Sullum | 5.9.2025 3:50 PM

Judge Orders Tufts Grad Student Rumeysa Ozturk Be Released on Bail From Immigration Detention

C.J. Ciaramella | 5.9.2025 3:17 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!