So, how do we go about falsifying Ayn Rand’s “philosophy”? We could mention that she was addicted to meth amphetamines during almost her entire career, but some would consider that an attack on her character and not on her philosophy. We could mention that she modeled two of her main characters after a man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Edward_Hickman) that kidnapped and dismembered a little girl, but that doesn’t mean that her philosophy is wrong, does it? It might even be taken as an emotional appeal. We could mention that after positing a pure meritocracy of capitalism, she immediately gave the character representing herself a discount because she was pretty, kind of a way of flattering herself. But that seems petty and trivial. We could mention that she basically said that nobody can call themselves an objectivist unless she says they are an objectivist and she can retract the status at any time if she doesn’t like what you are doing, that makes her philosophy arbitrary in a way, but I kind of see the need to control your own brand. We could mention that the only influence she ever admitted to was Aristotle, the father of science, thus making herself the greatest philosopher since Aristotle which means all the philosophers between herself and Aristotle didn’t really matter or make an impact. We could mention that she concealed the prodigious contribution of Nietzsche, to her philosophy because he was also a huge influence on Hitler, it was also his regime that invented Meth amphetamines, to which she was addicted, but all of those things are kind of attacks on her character.
But this is how we are going to falsify her. Alan Greenspan was asked why he didn’t see the sub-prime mortgage drop out coming. His response was that he thought all of the players in the stockmarket were “rational”. Some of you might know he was one of her closest disciples. Now what is interesting is that he is not using the Objectivist definition of Rational which Ayn Rand herself defined as greed. In order to make himself correct he is using the normal definition of rational. So either he was doing it strategically and lying, or he had realized that Rand herself had been full of poop, but either way his switching of definitions should be addressed and questioned.
Some people might argue that self interest is no longer self interest when it becomes self harm. But most of the people that took the money in the sub prime mortgage still have it, it never found it’s way back into the economy, and it was Alan Greenspan’s job to prevent stuff like that from happening. So he failed at his position and thereby falsified her philosophy on a grand scale. He either intentionally didn’t do his job or he accidentally failed to do his job, but either way it falsifies her conception of the meritocracy of capitalism in which there is no theft and every exchange is perfectly equitable. There is no way around it, either the market falsified her or Greenspan did, and they don’t get to pass blame around in order to conceal the fact that Ayn Rand’s philosophy is and was wrong.