QUORA: 'How many libertarians know that Ayn Rand based her philosophy on a famous child murderer?'

 QUORA: 'How many libertarians know that Ayn Rand based her philosophy on a famous child murderer?' 

I posted this answer:

I'm not even sure it's a serious question. If it is, it's the stupidest critique I've ever seen written about Objectivism. As a believer in Objectivism, I’m offended. But unlike “cancel culture” cowards, I’ll meet the question head-on, even though I’m not a Libertarian (whatever that vague term means). 

Though this has nothing to do with Objectivis­m or the current debate, I’ll comment anyway. You are guilty of major context-dr­opping. Rand did not idolize a serial killer, but abstracted an apparent individual­ist character trait of [ William Edward] Hickman’s for the purpose of creating a profile for a potential novel character (which was never written). Isolating an attribute from an otherwise monster does not imply supporting the monster. People have often commented on the charisma of Hitler. Acknowledging that demagoguery and charisma often go together is not an endorsement of demagogues, or a condemnation of charisma. No one would accuse someone of basing their beliefs on a racist mass murderer simply for observing that Hitler had charisma. Plenty of great leaders had charisma. Likewise, just as admiration for the intelligen­ce of a master thief does not imply idolizatio­n of the criminal or his crime nor invalidate the virtue of intelligen­ce. How often do we read about a serial killer whose neighbors are shocked that such a “good neighbor and family man” could be such a cold-blooded killer? Does this mean that those neighbors’ beliefs are “based on a “famous serial killer?” Don’t make me laugh.

So it was with the 23-year-ol­d Ayn Rand in regard to Hickman. It should be noted Rand’s musings on Hickman are part of her private notes, published for educational purposes. They are not part of Objectivism, Rand’s developed philosophy. In Rand’s case, she observed an element of independence in Hickman’s character, and mused about a fictional character infused with that trait. Being an advocate of independence, it shouldn’t be surprising that she zeroed in on that element of Hickman. Plenty of good people have an independent mind. That doesn’t make independence a vice. I don’t believe that other people should exist for me, nor do I think they should. That belief is certainly better than being a parasite who believes the world owes me a living or happiness. Does that mean that my philosophy of life is based on Hickman? Give me a break.

Rand abhorred the depravity of Hickman's behavior, of course, and said so. Hickman is discussed extensively in "Journals" on pages 22, 27, 36-39, and 40-44. On page 22, I quote from editor David Harriman:

Hickman served as a model for Danny [Renahan, a character in Rand's "The Little Street"] only in strictly limited respects, which AR names in her notes. Danny does commit a crime in the story, but it is nothing like Hickman's. To guard against any misinterpretation, I quote her own statement regarding the relationship between her hero and Hickman:

"[My hero is] very far from him, of course. The outside of Hickman, but not the inside. Much deeper and much more. A hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me."

A question like this indicates a mind at an intellectual dead end. Unable to refute Rand’s ideas, the dead ender resorts to guilt by association and context-dropping.  Isolating and abstracting out a particular statement or character trait that one considers admirable is not an endorsement of that person’s life in full. Isolating and abstracting out is all that Rand did. 

Context is always crucial, and it’s right there in its entirety in “Journals of Ayn Rand”. It was 1928. One should take care to take isolated bits from never-inte­nded-for-p­ublication private journals and twist something ridiculous out of it. That statement is not an endorsemen­t of murder, as your quoting it absurdly implies. The totality of her published writing is an unequivoca­l condemnati­on of the initiation of physical force in human relationsh­ips, which she regarded as an unmitigate­d evil. How does that jibe with idolizing a killer? To believe that is to put yourself in the market for the Brooklyn Bridge.

Typical of her opponents, the questioner resorts to the cowardly ad hominem fallacy. It’s easy to cherry pick errors of thought or character flaws of thinkers, real or imagined. But Rand was 28 years old. Her philosophy was not fully developed until three decades later. Her chosen philosophical heir, Leonard Peikoff, systemized her philosophy in Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, published in 1993. The life and passing private thoughts of any intellectual can be anecdotally picked apart. But Rand’s philosophy is not called “Randism.” It is officially titled Objectivism, Rand’s own choice. If you’re going to critique Objectivis­m, then just do it. If you can find one shred of evidence that Objectivism is based on Hickman or any murderer, I’d love to see it. You can’t, because nobody can.*  To say that “Ayn Rand based her philosophy on a famous child murderer” because of musing in her private notes is a sign of a person who does not know what s/he is talking about and is at a mental dead end.

* [By the way, the link provided along with the question is of no help. Thom Hartmann’s article should be disregarded by anyone who objectively wants to make her own independent judgement on Objectivism. Hartmann’s screed boils down to an attack on Capitalism by a person who can’t refute Rand’s powerful defense of Capitalism on the merits.]

Related Reading:

Introduction to Objectivism from the Ayn Rand Institute

Books to Aid in Understanding Rational Selfishness

Did Ayn Rand Support the ‘Native American Genocide’?