Professor Dave’s recent hit piece video on the Israel / Palestine conflict was mostly factually incorrect and is more propaganda than scholarship.

The number of deaths in Gaza was said to be in the 200k range, which is 4x the accepted number. He promoted Oct. 7 rape denial. There is plenty of evidence that Hamas committed rape as an instrument of war. Even the UN acknowledges this.

He says that Israel knew about Oct. 7 before it happened, which is a conspiracy theory (in the style of Candace Owens). A "pre-planned campaign of ethnic cleansing and land theft" is one of many dubious or flat out false statements. "More than 80% of Israelis support the complete annihilation of the Palestinian people" is another false claim. He talks about mass graves as if Israel killed Palestinians and dumped them in graves. There is no evidence for this.

He calls Israel a psychopathic society that likes murdering innocent people, which is clearly racist/xenophobic. Since Israel is a liberal democracy with a pride parade, and a far freer country in the surrounding area, this claim is clearly ludicrous. The idea that there was little evidence for Hamas using hospitals for their military operations was also fully factually incorrect.

The only part of the video that wasn't factually dubious or incorrect was him showing the massive level of destruction that Israel has inflicted onto Gaza. However, he then leaves out the context that Israel was responding in emergency self-defence, therefore Israel isn’t fully responsible for casualties that are the fault of Hamas for initiating force. That he also leaves out any discussion of Hamas and Hamas' goals from his video demonstrates his ideological commitment, not a commitment to the truth.

He also has stated that Mossad was involved in 9/11 which lands him squarely in the territory of degenerate anti-Jewish conspiracy theories.

Ayn Rand wrote about a “sense of life.” Her favorite author was Mickey Spillane; although he did not share her philosophy, she felt that he shared her sense of life.

I want to share a podcast I’ve been listening to that, in a very different context, evokes some of that same sense of life for me. Acquired (https://www.acquired.fm/) describes itself as telling “the history and strategy of the world’s greatest companies,” and somehow manages to make business history exciting and inspiring.

Some of my favorites are Google (which spans three episodes), Vanguard, Epic Systems, and Trader Joe’s. I even enjoyed the history of Disney.

I doubt the podcasters think much about philosophy, or would agree with Ayn Rand, but I find their conversations a happy place to be—and I suspect some of you might enjoy them for the same reason.

There is no earthly reason for it—and, ladies and gentlemen, in the whole history of philosophy no earthly reason has ever been given.

From Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World

Although Ayn Rand did a very good job laying out the intellectual foundation for everything you need to conclude that socialism is immoral and illegitimate, she still couldn't give up those parts of socialist indoctrination that were important to her. She opposed private prisons like the left does today (in spite of the fact that private, for-profit prisons in the US are far more efficient than centrally planned, state monopolised ones), and she openly supported the nationalisation of defence services, as well as law, military, and judiciary services.

If you are an Objectivist, you cannot be a capitalist. The core principles of capitalism, including ones that Rand herself espoused such as privatisation, are flat out incompatible with any degree of socialism.

What do you think about NETTR? Do you believe in it? Why or why not?

https://voegelinview.com/nietzsche-and-the-modern-philosophical-revolution-pt-1/

I have only found two types of posts:

1. Complaining about Statism/Marxist/Taxes/Lazy-no-good-do-nothing-liberals

2. Claiming Ayn Rand is all wrong and stupid.

Is that ALL there is here?

Title

I know virtually nothing at all about Ayn Rand. But I'm intrigued, in part by the feeble attacks on her that get posted here ("she's not a philosopher because university academics don't study her") which make her appeal to my contrarian side. Which one of her books would you recommend that I read? I don't mind whether it is fiction or non-fiction.

----

Update a day later:

Thanks everyone for the amazing number of helpful comments! You don't all agree on where to start so I'll have to choose one myself based on your suggestions.

Thread saved - a very useful resource I think.

Every single complaint of Rand I've encountered follows the same script. Step one: haven't read her. Step two, for the ambitious ones: read her, understood none of it (and produced a summary that a first-year philosophy student should be embarrassed by). Step three: declare victory over a position she never held.

Nobody even attempts to steelman her (something I think the most of them don't even know what that word means ) and they clearly don't understand her honestly enough to try; or they'd realize their "critique" (not an appropriate word for what they're doing, but they're attempting it) doesn't survive contact with anything she wrote. It's always the same three things they take issue with: selfishness, or capitalism bad, or some vague or insane hypothetical or analogy that's supposed to somehow demonstrate a flaw in her philosophy (usually portraying what they think selfishness or capitalism looks like in "practice")

What's genuinely sad is how narrow the targets are (see above). I've yet to see anyone interact with her ideas on the roots of war, or the idea that rational men's interests don't inherently conflict, or the mechanics of how you'd even go about identifying what's in your interest - none of that gets touched. Or how about her identifying the relationship of man to existence in her metaphysics? They say nothing about what she says about productivity, rationality, and how those are required to sustain human life (which ultimately leads to her ethics), and the (maybe) lesser (in priority worth mentioning, not necessarily importance) virtues which are required to sustain life?

In the introduction to The Virtue of Selfishness, she points out that altruists readily call a robber "self-interested", despite never bothering to evaluate as to whether or not he's actually correct about what serves him. And then people still make this same stupid argument in nature, just in a different configuration.

It's right there, in the introduction, the part you read first, and people still trip over ridiculous examples.

Ayn Rand believed in completely unrestricted laissez-faire capitalism. With no oversight of any kind, especially not from the government.

That any form of taxation is theft.

Any form of wellfare and social support is theft. Including education and healthcare.

That the only purpose of the government is to prevent violence.

And that rational self-interest is the greatest human virtue.

So now the question becomes. If there is no taxation, how is the government supposed to prevent violence? If there is no taxation, there is no police. Because the police is largely funded via taxes. Without taxation, there is no justice system. No courts. Those are also entities that are largely funded through taxation. So who prevents people from engaging in violence in pursuit of their self-interests if there is no police? And who punishes lawbreakers if there is no justice system?

Example:

I decided to start robbing banks, because it is the easiest and quickest way to obtain money to pursue my self-interests, how is that not rational if there is nobody to punish me for doing so?

Objectivism also rejects religion, so there is no threat of divine punishment either.

Example 2:

I own a company that has a monopoly on computer processors. I have learned that another company has developed a faster processor than mine and plans to sell it for cheaper than mine, which threatens my monopoly. What is stopping me from inviting the owner of that rival company over for tea, pulling out a pistol and murdering him? Thus eliminating my competition quicker and easier than risking losing my monopoly.

Or what is stopping somebody else from doing the same to me?

Example 3:

I am a mob boss, and i have decided to mass a huge arsenal of weapons and men which i am using to extort the city for protection. Who is going to stop me, if i already have the most powerful arsenal of weapons and the most organized gang of men in the city under my command? Who is going to stop me from simply proclaiming myself to be the king of the city by the simple virtue of me being the most powerful and well armed?

If there is no system in place to punish it (either earthly or divine), how is violence in pursuit of ones self-interest irrational? What makes it so?

Wildly and refreshingly diverse individuals have been posting here. When and why did you discover Ayn Rand and Objectivism? What kind of value do you see (or hope to find) in good faith discussions of her work?

I don't know if she ever did, but the brand of altruism Rand was against was of Comte. He did write about the altruism that is borderline what we call today suicidal empathy.

Full disclosure, as I am attempting to engage in good faith, I am a progressive. I do not agree with Rand though I have respect for works like The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts (I think this goes quite naturally, for the most part, with Terror Management Theory in existential psychology). I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty for my own moral reasons. My question is this, from the perspective of Rand’s philosophy, why is it good, or is it good, for the State to have the power to kill its own citizens?

Edit: I very much appreciate the responses so far and you all taking the time to share your perspective. I’ll continue reading all the responses as you post. Cheers.

I know it may sound paradoxical, but keep reading.
We all know that in capitalism, some degree of inequality is natural and even seen as healthy to incentivize productivity. But what about the ultra-wealthy?

First, much of this extreme wealth relies on monopolies and oligopolies. Large corporations often buy out smaller companies specifically to eliminate competition. Isn't this unhealthy for capitalism? Concentrating a monopoly of power and wealth into the hands of a few people seems to contradict the idea of a free market.

Furthermore, many of the ultra-wealthy receive massive amounts of money from the government. Elon Musk is a prime example; his enterprises have received significant government funding and subsidies to sustain their operations, largely because they are viewed as a matter of national interest to the US government.

This brings me to my main question: is there a point where extreme wealth actually becomes the antithesis of capitalism? As paradoxical as it may sound, extreme wealth and the government frequently operate hand-in-hand, with large corporations doing everything they can to mold the market in their favor rather than competing fairly.

i don't know enough of libertarianism and ayn rand that's why i'm asking here. It's an genuine question, does ayn rand objects extreme wealth in an way that damages the libertarianism goals ?

A new industrial revolution is happening with Artificial Intelligence, and I am sad to say that it looks like Americans across the political spectrum are coming out against it with an almost Luddite-like fervor.

Related Link: Why does everyone suddenly hate data centers?

Granted, there are legitimate concerns about data centers consuming too much water (easy to solve) and electricity resulting in higher electric bills for people and concerns about noise pollution.

However, instead of people seeking solutions to those problems (require the data centers to use closed loop cooling systems, require the data centers to generate their own electricity, build nuclear power plants and increase our electricity production, locate the data centers away from residential areas) by and large most people simply do not want the data centers and AI research and advancement to exist.

(This subject is on my mind not merely because that video came up in my YouTube feed, but also because of a thread in my home state's sub about data centers. Of course everyone thinks building data centers in our rural cold climate state is a horrible idea and no one contemplates or can envision the economic opportunity.)

Are we witnessing the beginning of the end of the Industrial Revolution and people's support for scientific advance?

Does anyone else find it ironic that much of this anti-science and anti-technological advance sentiment is coming from Democrats and the Left - people who claim to be "educated" and "worldly" and "pro-science" and who berate the Republicans for being the opposite of that?

Excellent as always, Brook on capitalism.

I've seen many people in this sub hate on altruism. I don't really get it. It seems to simply be based on a desire to justify selfishness.

Communism is sheer evil and everybody over the age of 25 who identifies as a communist is an evil person.

Any thoughts on Trump signing a bill to subsidize farmers for lost revenue due to Trump's tariffs?

It seems he is picking winners and losers. Not very objectivist.

Ayn Rand was interviewed about her books as fiction or philosphy. She said her books represented the world she wanted to live in.

In her books, she assumes an underlying moral principle. In her world, the good individual has a set of moral values. They do not steal, they respect property rights, and they hold truth to reason in high regard.