If libertarians were smart they would drop her
She dropped them.
Not that she wasn't a libertarian, or that she stopped being one, but she insisted she was not. I would define "Objectivism" as a subset of libertarianism. But she considered them too different things. She thought that at least most libertarians where at best for the "right thing" for the "wrong reason". And to her that was a problem.
She accused libertarians of plagiarizing her ideas, which mostly strikes me as silly. She wasn't the only source of libertarian ideas or the first. The ideas she did originate where mostly ones that non-objectivist libertarians wouldn't share. Also if you want your ideas to gain influence you should want people to plagerize your ideas as Milton Friedman pointed out.
Plagiarize my ideas, please!
blog.mises.org
She was turned off by the Libertarian Party, but the LP and "libertarian" are not synonymous any more than conservative and liberal are synonymous with the Republican and Democratic parties.
But even though she dropped the libertarians, I don't see why they would drop her. For one thing how would they drop her, they aren't a single organization or organized movement.
Individual libertarians could say "Ann Rand wasn't a libertarian", but it would be innaccurate and pointless.
They could say "I'm not like Ann Rand", or even "I don't like Ann Rand", but I don't see a reason to call for a diverse group of people sharing general ideas with her to do that, and even if they did that wouldn't mean that she was somehow excluded from the "libertarian club", or not associated with libertarians.
Also she was one of the more influential people in pushing libertarian thought.
And I love hanging her around the necks of the neo cons-lol.
I don't see how you can legitimately do so. |
