histhasthai wrote:
That's not entirely wrong, but don't confuse objectivist principles
with Ayn Rand's dogma. She did, to her detriment and to the detriment
of the philosophy she championed. The dogma sometimes (often?)
contradicts the priniciples due to her refusal to let go of the
monopoly state, as her principles demanded.
I've long felt that Rand was a bit of a 'control freak' so her acceptance of monopoly of force in the form of government makes sense FOR HER. But I also feel that it was a strong contradiction to her otherwise firm stance on individiualism.
After reading her novels and most of her other books, I felt I gained a much more balanced view of Rand as a person from reading the 2 books written by the Brandens (Barbara & Nathaniel). Rand may have had a brain sharp as a tack, but she also used that intelligence as a rapier on others. And she had a BIG emotional 'hole' IMHO. More than likely she carried some dysfunctional scars from her origins - family and revolutionary Russia.
And returning to the original question re becoming libertatarian, I agree with the basic non-agression stance of libertarianism, but I shun the politics of the Libertarian party. Guess my anarchic sympathies see little or no value in trying to change government by being part of it.
Jain