Mr Buntze should read Ayn Rand’s works before he serves himself up as a legitimate critic. He and Chambers are from the same school: vilify the enemy without evidence.

Your lack of knowledge, misunderstanding, and misrepresentation of Rand is impressive. To readers: Please go to primary sources; you’ll soon see the above bears no relation to the real Ayn Rand.

Sam,

While I share your dislike for Objectivism, in particular its ethical arguments for rational self-interest and their reflection in Objectivist political thought, I think your case is done a disservice by your ad hominum against Rand in the last paragraph. While the Opinion page of the D is obviously not the best venue for a critical discussion of a particular philosophy, I would think it more constructive in this abbreviated case to briefly discuss or touch on some of the many weaknesses of Objectivism (such as its basic ethical assumption that for an individual the ultimate value is represented by their own life), rather than attacking Rand herself. Just a suggestion.

I’m no Rand biographer and cannot confirm or deny anything listed above, but regardless of the factual validity of this article, this is an absurd ad hominem attack that does practically nothing to address the ideals the author finds so particularly disgusting.

Rather than criticizing Alan Greenspan for any decisions he made as the Chairman of the Fed, Mr. Buntz would prefer to imply that he was incompetent based solely on the fact that he considered himself a Rand devotee.

I have recently come upon articles that depict frankly absurd racism by luminaries like Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill. I would hope the author does not feel that belief in a federal income tax leads to racism, though the logic he displays here would suggest otherwise.

Critics can certainly accuse Objectivism of excessive egotism or a lack of compassion. Mr. Buntz does his argument a disservice by focusing all that energy on Ms. Rand.

Mr. Buntz’s desperate attempt to vilify the philosophical fundamental point that each person has the right to their own lives tells me more than I want to know about Mr. Buntz. Ayn Rand’s basic philosophy is that “No man is the means to another man’s ends.” That’s a tough concept for those who would and do rule others. Whittaker Chambers was an active spy and agent for the Soviet Union in the United States, for Josef Stalin. He and Alger Hiss and many more had deeply infiltrated the highest levels of the United States government in an effort to help the Soviets to win their greatest victory for their revolution without borders. Chambers broke with the Soviets when it as revealed that Stalin was murdering, starving, imprisoning, and enslaving tens of millions of people. Apparently a few million was OK with Whittaker but when the news really got around he was embarrassed by his association with it. Chambers believed that the Soviets and communism would win out over liberty, until the day he died, July 9, 1961. Chambers was instrumental in exposing Soviet Communist penetration of the U.S, government, which supposedly was false according to the people who attacked Senator Joseph McCarthy. Also, Alan Greenspan became Federal Reserve Chairman in August of 1987, Ayn Rand passed away on March 6, 1982, so it is difficult to pin that one on her since, 1) Alan Greenspan is not Ayn Rand (that is another key part of her philosophy, we are our own people) and 2) Ayn Rand had been dead since March 6, 1982 and she didn’t believe in astrology. This column should be sub-titled “Buntz Bunts It Foul On Rand.” “ants to maple syrup”? come on. Anyone really interested in Ayn Rand can watch her field timeless questions of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, on the internet. Type in “Ayn Rand video interviews” and throw off the myths and deliberate misinformation regarding this towering intellect, who promoted and supported the most moral of all philosophies. Her books, speeches and interviews are a tour de force, which will leave you inspired and renewed in your understanding of the nature of the world and your place in it. For all who decide to accept this profound assignment, there awaits the truth.

Nothing wrong with Hubbard and Dianetics either!

Ayn Rand’s interview with Mike Wallace, 1959 is a great one to start with. You get to see and hear a young, on top of his game Wallace, with a lively Ayn Rand.

YouTube, “Ayn Rand/Mike Wallace Interview 1959,” 3 Parts, Approximately 27 Minutes Running Time. It could be the most important step you ever take in your life’s quest for the truth. I recommend it to everyone and to Sam Buntz in particular.

Nothing wrong with Tom Cruise either.

How to Smear Ideas Step 1: Use misdirection to divert any criticism of your rant. “I don’t mean to make an argument merely on personal grounds..” Step 2: Then proceed to misrepresent and distort said ideas through out of context ramblings Step 3: With dripping cynicism and a dash of egalitarian hand wringing claim victory over your victim.

In other words, you are grossly mistaken in your judgment. Check your premises.

$6,907,115,601.00, worldwide gross receipts for Tom Cruise movies. Divided by 35 movies equals $197,346,160.03 rounded, per movie. This makes Mr. Cruise #4 all time. He has found a modicum of success in his chosen profession. Of course, he still has a few years left to add to his resume.

We revere many people who believe things that we do not. We look up to many who have lives that we would not wish to emulate. We do this simply because they have achieved things in their lives, or supported certain viewpoints or perspectives that are worthy of our admiration. For instance, while I would never wish to emulate Ayn Rand in her life, nor her in her spiritual beliefs, or lack thereof, I find her perspective on the economy and pressures of society as a whole to be enlightening and awe inspiring. If I found at Ms. Rand enjoyed kicking puppies, my opinion of her works would not be changed. If you spent enough time reading Ms. Rand’s works, I believe you would learn a thing or two about the irrationality of adhominem attacks.

Gratuitous attacks on Sarah Palin are getting old. There is no way she can be equated with Rand’s anti-family rants. You may disagree with her politics and you may not like her, but Sarah Palin is very pro-family.

Hear hear! I’ve never understood why people have been so willing to look past Rand’s abysmal writing in the first place. Why did people ever take her seriously, I wonder.

@ anon – abysmal writing? have you read Atlas Shrugged? Actually, has Mr. Buntz read Atlas Shrugged? Rand tells an amazing story… although you sort of have to read it to know that.

Also, The last paragraph was embarrassing. I actually blushed for you, Buntz. I respect your effort to take on Ayn Rand, but you should really critique her perspectives and leave random jabs at her supporters out of it. Otherwise, you risk committing the same fallacy as those that denounce Christian ideals because they met an abrasive Bible salesmen. Or those that condemn Muslim ideals due to 9/11.

These comments are what happen when the tails of ibankers past, future, and present get stepped on. You’ve undermined their only philosophical defender, Sam, and they are angry!

‘11 makes a fine contribution to the guilt by (straw man) association, combined with the smearing lie, intellectually vacant line of leftist criticism. It is just “Too Easy” (as Eddie Murphy teaches the Beverly Hills Cops) to recognize what we shall call, the argument from nothing. '11 is another in a very long line of those who can’t argue against Rand’s self evident truths, which leaves them with nothing other than sputtering, substance free attacks. This requires them to deny their own minds and to lie to themselves. Well done 0011. I’m sure that Sam enjoys the backing of a supporter who makes no points and couldn’t make any, so you didn’t.

Ah, the person who argues for “self-evident truths” declares another argument to be “vacant”. Pot, meet kettle. Yeah, Buntz’s editorial was poorly written and researched, but these rabid rebuttals are just as bad. None of you make a cogent argument, except to assert that Ayn Rand spoke the TRUTH. And @ Anony 12, I have read Atlas Shrugged, and Rand—the particulars of Objectivism aside—is a terrible writer in my opinion. Just because you say she’s great doesn’t make her great and there’s room enough in this world for both of us to be wrong, so it’s not even a point worth debating with anybody. Not everyone thinks her philosophy is wonderful, or sound, or even remotely intelligent, and those people are just as smart and well read as you, so get over yourselves. When a philosophy is held so sacred that any argument against it can be refuted with, “No, YOURE wrong”, then its no longer a philosophy, it’s a religion. And the fact that so many people hold the writings of Ayn Rand as sacrosanct are unwilling or unable to dispassionately debate its merits is a sign of ideological fanaticism.

@ anonymous – But even Rand herself would recognize the necessity, to my Objectivist (moral and emotional) constitution, of a right to antagonize folks like you! Indeed, she would defend it with a promethean cigarette hanging from her lips!

0011 comes back for another bite of the nothing they posted last time, writing that they are perfectly entitled to oppose something without any statement of what it is they are opposing or anything remotely resembling the argument supporting their disagreement. In debate, the judge would declare “Fail” and under their breath, “Doofuss.” As for “Really?” “Really?” does no better than 0011. “Really?” continues with the idea that those in support of Rand’s philosophy have the burden to defend it from vacant, purely argumentative negation. “Really?” makes the resounding point that it is entitled to its' opinion that the writing is bad and that lots of smart and well read people say so. Well, that’s “Really?” great. “Not everyone thinks her philosophy is wonderful, or sound, or even remotely intelligent, and those people are just as smart and well read as you, so get over yourselves.” This is where “Really?” leaks and slimes completely out of its' own opposition to Rand by assigning its' argument to a fantasy group of others, an unnamed “not everyones” so that if, and it is a big if, “Really?” could contact this crack philosophy team, they could put up some sort of attack on Rand. “Really?” realizes that unattributed, unsupported assertions, regarding no point (s) of contention, followed up with, “other people are just as smart and well read as you” and don’t agree, is one pathetic, embarrassing admission, that “Really?” doesn’t have a clue, but has decided that additional vacuous blithering is “Really?” effective repartee. Billy Jim, above, gives a good thumbnail summary of Rand’s fundamental point in his first two sentences. Read it and then explain how smart people like someone else think that isn’t “wonderful, sound, or remotely intelligent.” I can’t wait for you to ask someone as smart and well read as [we] are to tell you so that you can tell us. Rand did have a problem with people who couldn’t or wouldn’t think for themselves…that’s you “Really?”, someone had to tell you the hard truth. You never would have gotten it yourself.