Hi Guys,
Not to mess with the current rolicking political debate too much, but to frame Rand in terms of Liberal and Conservative, Socialist or Capitalist is to miss the mark.
At one time, I used to be a big fan of Rand and her books. Rand's philosophy is called "ethical egoism." It is a mishmash of prior philosophies (drawing heavily on Kant for Metaphysics and Nietzche for ethics). If I can smash a lot of information flat, Rand was in one sense a materialist, that is she believed only in the existence of the material universe. She also believed that man was born tabula rasa, and that information is only mediated through the senses. The source of all ethical imperatives therefore could not be found in the universe, matter gives us no information about what our principles of conduct ought to be. This could only be found in the self. To paraphrase Rand from memory, If there is no God, then men ought to be selfish - i.e. we ought to act in what we perceive to be our own self-interest.
She extended the same principle to all spheres, therefore government was for Rand an entirely voluntary association of men acting in their own self-interest alone. Rand's version of the "social contract" differed from Locke's in that she didn't believe that men should give up any liberty (coercive government and religion were her two twin evils) and she didn't believe that we should be forced to act in a utilitarian or altruistic manner. We could choose to do so if we judged it was in our best interest, but there was no ethical imperative to do so.
In terms of personal conduct, Rand's philosophy encouraged Hedonism. You only live once, so eat, drink, and be merry - enjoy your self. Rand attempted to live out that philosophy but with predictably disappointing results. In terms of economics, which is of course the most important test for any philosophy for the politically motivated, her philosophy was at loggerheads with socialism as it naturally encouraged the accumulation of personal wealth and said that no man should be compelled to "share." This is why she is often claimed as the darling of captialists and therefore by extension conservatives, but ultimately she is much closer to anarchic than conservative thought (what tradition is being conserved in her system?)
Ultimately of course her metaphysics, economics, politics, and ethics are totally opposed to any system that finds it source outside of the autonomous individual, whether that source be God or a nebulous idea of "the greater good." That is why they defy definition in terms of left and right and why she is at loggerheads both with Socialists and Christians (or any religion that emphasizes self-denial - a few of her most trenchant critics have been Buddhists.)
- SEAGOON
