This one is going to be unpopular - I know this to be true because I have used the internet before.
The world would likely descend into chaos if Ayn Rand’s philosophy (called Objectivism) were to replace other social systems. For example, towards the end of Atlas Shrugged the characters are all in a cabin and one cooks breakfast for the others and they all chip in to pay their fair share of the meal because charity and not earning what one consumes in the world is morally wrong. Yeah, that shit would not work in the world.
But what is missing in nearly all of the critique on her is her upbringing. This is why in school sometimes teachers want students to study the biographies of authors. It helps you understand their motives and the struggles that shaped their writing.
She witnessed the Bolshevik revolution in early 20th century Russia and saw how communism stripped people of their possessions and ambition. So, if you don’t agree with the crazy parts of her books then maybe that is because you weren’t 12 years old living in Russia in 1917.
The point is you should be able to read the books, discard what you don’t like, perhaps keep something you do like, and think “well, none of that matches my philosophy in life but I didn’t have the same childhood as the author and if I did maybe I would think the same way”.
The point is I see a lot of critiques but I think many are from people who actually haven’t read the books. Or someone they dislike likes Ayn Rand or one of her books and since the person they dislike likes her then they must in turn automatically hate her.
I’m not an expert on Ayn Rand but I have read Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and Anthem. And I agree she was flawed but I understand what she was trying to do.
EDIT: Why all the downvotes? If the name of the community is Unpopular Opinion and I certainly posted an unpopular opinion then shouldn’t people be like “well, I hate Ayn Rand but the guy did stick to the theme of the community.”
Ayn Rand represented the idiology of modern capitalistic, individualistic culture. Humans did not evolve to work that way.
The reason humans outlived the neanderthals is because we formed societies and worked together as opposed to the much more individualistic neanderthal species. This is regardless of the fact that neanderthals potentially had higher intelligence than humans on average as a species. Anthropoligists found that early human societies had gift economies, where people would just help each other out and give people what they needed if they could provide it.
This type of society lasted a very long time until people saught power over everyone in their society. Monarchs. This is when you started to see things like currency, taxes, and ledgers created. This is around the time when one could contractually owe another something, instead of just giving without expecting anything in return. This is when the concept of a class structure started to form.
The earliest known constitution/supreme-law-of-the-land is the Code of Hammurabi between 1755 and 1750 BCE, written by a monarch. It is in the monarch’s best interest to conquer as much land as humanly possible with whatever army they can muster. This way, they have more people under their control, and therefore, more workers to produce product needed for the survival of the now-rigidly-defined conquered region of land, or empires.
Then you start to see these empires fight over each other’s land, sometimes blowing out into full-scale wars. This type of event wouldn’t have been common before people started wanting control over others.
I’m not suggesting we revert back to not having defined borders or countries or anything, because I think that’s unrealistic to accomplish in any reasonable amount of time in the present. I am, however, suggesting that we can take those ideas of a gift economy from the past and apply that to some modern form of government.