Rand and Romando massacre have something in common
Did anyone else notice the pairing in your September 13 print edition that assembles a hypothesis:
Cause: Essayist's defense of Ayn Rand's proto-philosophy ["Ayn Rand: Her detractors miss her stellar vision"] that states that the individual should never subordinate self-interests to any collective, not national patriotism, not religious creed, not standards and rules of community, not family affection or duty.
Effect: The teachings of a group that fascinated a young murderer ["Three notes: Source says Romando purchased gun, left letters"]: "We believe in indulgence, self-preservation, and individuality," says Schroeder [spokesperson for the group].
The young murderer showed no signs of mental illness, was regularly in church, and appeared to be succeeding with education. And he was fascinated with a philosophy of self-indulgence, self-preservation, and individuality.
The essayist even mentions that among the reasons for Rand's continuing popularity is youthful fascination: "Rand appeals to adolescents who think they're self-sufficient, special, and destined for great achievement. Yet surely the world would be poorer– materially and spiritually– without people who carry some of that "spirit of youth."
The spirit of some youth turns toward self-indulgent murder. And, so, another pairing: Ms. Rand expressed a nearly praising fascination with a notorious, sexually-sadistic child rapist/murderer who cut off a child's limbs, gutted the child, and– apparently to add flair to the act of his triumphant individuality– sewed the dead girl's eyes open.
Perhaps the young murderer in our community never read Ms. Rand. But, the extravagant popularity of her work– including by Honorable Paul Ryan, who offered a long praise of Rand at an official tribute to her as a Congressman (no longer a young high schooler in Wisconsin)– has perhaps influenced our culture that so frequently and lucratively pairs youth and self-indulgence.
What about this hypothesis?
One last note: the essayist is disastrously wrong that "individual autonomy... gave us freedom and human rights." Where is any citation for this assertion? Certainly not in Ayn Rand, who would have considered human rights organizations, human rights treaties, and human rights advocates to be the very devil.
There are many sources for thinking about human rights. The authors of American Independence found the source in an appeal to the Creator. The authors of the American Constitution found the source in 'We the People.' The founders of human rights in other histories discussed other sources: in Buddhist nonviolence, in the goal of social equity, in anti-Colonialism, in rights of humanity to health, education, security, and other common goods. Never in individual autonomy.
Edward Strickler
Scottsville
9 comments
Not personally a fan of Rand, but this really reaching. Also the bit on human rights at the end is off the mark. You'd benefit from actually reading what the Founders wrote about liberty and the rights of mankind, and while they weren't Randian, they were indeed very concerned with self-determination.
So how about that mushroom cloud made out of chains? It's beautiful, isn't it?
You clearly like to think. Maybe you oughta go do a little more of that.
Guess which corporation developed the Delphi technique?
Nothing more to add to a great tragedy as far as facts are concerned. So this is what you have to offer? Wow a new low.
This essay is ah, how you do Americans say it, big bunch of doo doo?
Re: KS September 20th, 2012 | 10:38am
Not personally a fan of Rand, but this really reaching. Also the bit on human rights at the end is off the mark. You'd benefit from actually reading what the Founders wrote about liberty and the rights of mankind, and while they weren't Randian, they were indeed very concerned with self-determination.
'Self-determination' is not the same concept, or content, as 'individual autonomy' - which this comment presents as the same thing. Obviously they are not, shown by a simple use of terms, within human rights discourse: we can easily speak of 'the self determination of formerly colonial societies'; we can easily speak of 'the self-determination of communities subjected to neglect and abuse under legal apartheid or other legal oppression'; etc. We cannot logically speak of 'the individual autonomy of formerly colonial societies'; we cannot logically speak of 'the self-determination of communities subjected to neglect and abuse under legal apartheid or other legal oppression'.
Ayn Rand was interested in individual autonomy ('auto-nomy' - 'a law unto oneself'). Rand was not interested in self-determination in all meanings of the concept. American Founders were not interested in creating a society with individuals who were 'laws unto themselves': they used the concepts 'We the People ' and 'more perfect Union' ... with rights from 'a Creator'.
Yet another smear job on Rand. Nowhere in the letter has E Strickler evidenced any understanding of her philosophy because while the emotionalist anger aginst Rand is palpable, there is not a word that actually tries to respond to any of her arguments in favour of the primacy of reason and the supremacy of the individual. Tjhere are only cheap smears and innuendoss of the most offensive kind instead of a civilized discourse.
The writer's burning anger in 'somehow' disparaging Rand through cheap smears, innuendos and outlandish allegations makes one wonder.... Is there so much anger within some people against reason, self-actualisation, personal happiness, voluntary social cooperation, individual rights and limited government?