The Contempt and the Truth


It is not uncommon to read in the New York Times about what a bad person Rand must have been, and how radical libertarians are.

No greater purveyor of these fantasies exist than that of Krugman.   In the excerpts below, there is a well woven set of words and sentiments, but as is characteristic of Krugman these days, he states what is the truth according to Krugman.  it is a alternate universe where judgments are given by those elites in the "know."  


Rand was a philosophical novelist.  She portrays concepts in clear fashion to make a strong philosophical argument for individualism.   In the Tonight Show interview at right, she displays her dedication to reason and to living life conceptually consistent.


She was a radical and still is, not something that makes her bad.  Her ideas were of individualism and perhaps even redefined what this meant.   Capitalism was the only moral system, not something she originated perhaps, but one that she made a case for better than most.  


The article below is a great example of creative associative story telling, all in the guise of journalism. 


To the extent that Paul Ryan was influenced by Rand remains to be seen.   Rand has influenced and raised many a individualist, something Greece wishes they had more of perhaps.


The Krugman Views of Ryan and Rand:    Link

For those who somehow missed it when growing up, “Atlas Shrugged” is a fantasy in which the world’s productive people — the “job creators,” if you like — withdraw their services from an ungrateful society. The novel’s centerpiece is a 64-page speech by John Galt, the angry elite’s ringleader; even Friedrich Hayek admitted that he never made it through that part. Yet the book is a perennial favorite among adolescent boys. Most boys eventually outgrow it. Some, however, remain devotees for life.


And Mr. Ryan is one of those devotees. True, in recent years, he has tried to downplay his Randism, calling it an “urban legend.” It’s not hard to see why: Rand’s fervent atheism — not to mention her declaration that “abortion is a moral right” — isn’t what the G.O.P. base wants to hear.


But Mr. Ryan is being disingenuous. In 2005, he told the Atlas Society, which is devoted to promoting Rand’s ideas, that she inspired his political career: “If I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand.” He also declared that Rand’s work was required reading for his staff and interns.


And the Ryan fiscal program clearly reflects Randian notions. As I documented in my last column, Mr. Ryan’s reputation for being serious about the budget deficit is completely undeserved; his policies would actually increase the deficit. But he is deadly serious about cutting taxes on the rich and slashing aid to the poor, very much in line with Rand’s worship of the successful and contempt for “moochers.”


This last point is important. In pushing for draconian cuts in Medicaid, food stamps and other programs that aid the needy, Mr. Ryan isn’t just looking for ways to save money. He’s also, quite explicitly, trying to make life harder for the poor — for their own good. In March, explaining his cuts in aid for the unfortunate, he declared, “We don’t want to turn the safety net into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people into lives of dependency and complacency, that drains them of their will and their incentive to make the most of their lives.”


Krugman’s contempt for Rand and all that conveys is quite emotional.  His smear of Rand and Ryan is with great skill and no reservation.   I love the words he chose:  :fantasy”, “most boys”, “devotees”, and so on.   It is not worthy of being dismissed as he so often does.   What he missed was the notion of individualism and creativity and being ones own person, not a troll of the State.   He displays further contempt of individualism and loves statism.  Where can one start to answer his comments, or should I even bother?



Rand and Ryan, your thoughts?