This interview also made her seem a lot less smart than Republicans have made her out to be (just based on this interview, I haven't read anything else of hers). She seemed like your average Fox News moderator.
I think the broader purpose of the post, though, is to point out the irony in folks who think of themselves as Rand acolytes and Libertarians. This is a common position, and I hear it a lot in Silicon Valley/startup circles.
Personally I don't think much of her ideas, I find them simplistic and in some places naive and immature, other places disingenuous. I think many Libertarians suffer similar failings and propose positions that are vastly simplistic in the context of the real world. I know that many smart people I respect disagree with my position, and that's fine, I'm not looking for argument on those points.
So, as a critic of both groups it doesn't bother me to see them lumped together. But it's amusing that Rand wanted nothing to do with that.
I'm asking because while I don't belong to any political party, there are aspects of libertarianism that do appeal to me, such as dramatically reducing government spending, government waste, government corruption, and actually observing the constitution.
Well, let's see, from the first paragraph:
- She called Libertarianism "a mockery of philosophy and ideology"
- She accused Libertarians of "slinging slogans and trying to ride on two bandwagons"
Later, she accuses them of entertaining "amateur political notions" and "rushing into politics in order to get publicity".
She says that Libertarians
- are based on "half-baked ideas, and in part on borrowed ideas".
- "spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas".
- "are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable."
- would "like to have an amoral political program"
I could go on quoting her, but maybe if you actually read the article yourself you'll see what her "arguments" are.