(no subject)

[calimac]

Since the definition of "fan fiction" seems now to include anything palpably inspired by its model, whether it uses its characters and setting or not, at least if it invokes its spirit, behold some Ayn Rand fanfic.

(Really, though, who else but Ayn Rand could invent this character? So what is he doing in my universe?)

Comments

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

If Ayn Rand had invented Paul Ryan, it would have been as a villain, I think. That's based on his views on abortion. Rand was very explicit in her condemnation of Ronald Reagan, saying that anyone who opposed the right to abortion could not claim to be an advocate of individual rights, and therefore had no philosophical foundation for a defense of capitalism; and Ryan is if anything worse on abortion than Reagan was. She described the idea of a prenatal right to life as "vicious nonsense."

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

That's why Ryan is trying, implausibly, to distance himself from Rand today.

But Ryan and his like see no contradiction in individualism. Opponents of abortion claim to be defending the rights of that defenseless individual, the fetus.

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

As to that,

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn). (The Ayn Rand Lexicon, "Abortion," first entry)

I don't think that Ryan could conceivably be any further from that position. Talk of his "distancing" himself from it sounds odd.

As to which properly counts as "individualism," I would argue for its being Rand's, and I suppose to you it's academic anyway, since I don't think you are an individualist; but I don't think it makes sense to call both of them "individualism." What they mean by "individual" is just too different; their positions are only verbally similar.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

This is not a dispute over principle. It's over definition.

What is the Randian position over protecting small children from abuse by their parents? Do they have the right not to be abused, and require outside assistance because they are incapable of defending themselves? Or is Randian individualism so pure that it insists that all persons, no matter how helpless, have the responsibility of their own protection?

If the latter is the case, then, yes, protecting the fetus is inconsistent with Randian individualism. (But it would not be surprising in Ryan, as it is a striking characteristic of many activists of his stripe that they show the most tender concern for the fetus, but none at all for the welfare of the child once born, the sort of behavior which caused Barney Frank to invent the quip, "They believe life begins at conception and ends at birth.")

If the former is the case, however, then the definitional dispute over who counts as an individual does not address the philosophical basis of the position.