The political correctness of Ra and the Confederation

[APeacefulWarrior]

The funny thing is that she's inconsistent on this.  What is the state that she never denied the need for but an organ of collective benefit?  For that matter, the corporations she loves so much are collectives.  Corporations are little central planning organizations within society--in other words, there's no internal markets and pricing structures within the corporation.  Hell, even the market--that God that Rand exalts above all else--is a set of collective rules.  Private property is something that doesn't work unless we all collectively recognize it.

I've often wondered along with many of my left libertarian friends how Rand's objectivism is a sort of syncretic distortion rather than a coherent philosophy.  Because if you follow her principles to their logical end, you don't end up with the Western-style capitalism she loves so much.  But she wasn't really the most coherent thinker; nobody is when you're on that much speed.  

Yeah, there are a lot of little inconsistencies like that. Although I think that she would say that corporations aren't collectives specifically because they adhere to strict hierarchies. Her vision of freedom is basically the freedom to create personal fiefdoms with no one on the outside able to say you can't or dictate how you run them. Which is actually pretty consistent with how Ra and other sources describe higher-D negative S-M-Cs working.

Another thing that ends up subverting her philosophies is the vindictive streak she gives her "heroes." One of the dirty secrets of the Strikers which is very briefly mentioned in passing, but never really elaborated on, is that Galt's Gulch is paid for 100% by pirated gold. Even within the context of the book this is nearly impossible to justify. Moreover, just about every Striker who leaves doesn't just leave, but performs some grand act of destruction on the way out. My favorite example is how Wyatt sets his own oil fields on fire, creating "Wyatt's Torch" which burns proudly as a symbol of freedom for years within the book, and presumably rendering a large chunk of the Southwest uninhabitable in the meantime thanks to the pollution that would cause. Even within the confines of a philosophy that basically denies all responsibility for secondary repercussions from one's actions, there's just no way to defend him having the right to cause so much harm to lands he doesn't own.

Even Galt is basically full of crap. He presents his revolution as a "Strike" and claims that the mere absence of the Elite causes the downfall of the world... but pretty much refuses to publically discuss how his lackeys are systematically destroying wealth however and wherever they can, regardless of morals or ethics, specifically to tip the world over the edge.

(And then there's the train wreck sequence, which is probably one of the most psychotic things put to paper since Mein Kampf...)

I find it a fascinating work specifically because of all those inconsistencies, which fans of the book either dont notice or resolutely deny, even when they're plainly part of the text. Seriously, try to find an Objectivist who'll defend Ragnar's murder of hundreds (thousands?) of innocent merchant sailors. They'll do anything they can to avoid talking about it. Yet they won't denounce it either. They really want to believe there's a system out there that gives them moral freedom to cause great destruction AND claim they're the good guys while doing so.