The original video attacked the ideology. this guy attacked the person and made it personal. Big diff.

again we're seeing more tearing down of the existing system and no building up of your system. It's a huge strawman. No one says gov't is perfect. We just went through a large wave of criticizing problems with the police. we are quite aware of the many flaws.

Even Lantern's obsessive defense of the cops is far more rational and understandable than advocating complete removal of the police force and disbanding gov't

As for the Ayn Rand thing, another strawman. I never brought up Objectivism. Ayn Rand hates gov't. non-statists hate gov't. it's pretty easy to see how they're linked. taking benefits from something you despise isn't very cool. If she were so principled, she would have left gov't altogether and never paid into it. She also tried to hide taking the benefits by doing so under her husband's name if I recall correctly.

@VoodooV: "Every one of these youtube crusaders are comfortably enjoying the perks of a system they despise."

What perks? Like roads and firemen? You know, it's not like we couldn't have those things without government. And those kinds of services are only a small portion of the federal budget. In fact, from all the excise taxes collected on gasoline, tobacco and alcohol, they'd cover the roads completely, which costs around $60 billion annually. In fact, things like the EPA, Dept. of Trans, NASA, Dept. of Edu, all cost less than the revenue the federal government categorizes as "other." Look it up: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals

So what about all the wars and militarism? Is that, too, a perk? And the prison industrial complex that locks up 1% of our population? What are these perks you speak of?

Even Ayn Rand took gov't assistance.

I love it when statists bring this up. I personally am not an Objectivist, and find lots of flaws with their ideology, but this is a cheap blow. Obviously it shows the economic illiteracy of most statists. For one, she's forced to pay into social security, so therefore why shouldn't she receive some of it back? And second, if you spend more than a couple seconds reading about U.S. monetary policy, you'd know that the purchasing power of the dollar is reduced over time due to inflation, and hence savings are always impacted. This should alarm you instead of excite you.

The whole thing is infested with logical fallacies: false equivalencies, ad homs, strawmen, and even a no true scotsman thrown in for shits and giggles.

By all means don't take any time to point out which things he said were these things. No, that'd be helpful, and we wouldn't want to cloudy any appeals to emotion with pesky things like fact and well thought out rebuttals.

they spend all this time criticizing the problems of gov't and NEVER ONCE demonstrate how it would work without these systems.

I think there are plenty who do. It's just that statists don't accept those answers, or any answers that don't emulate the current status quo systems they're accustomed to. I'm not interested in replacing public schools with another bureaucracy.

Gov't is demonstrably false? Last I checked, there are a lot of independently verified gov'ts out there. LOL!

You know what is demonstrably false? Anarchists independent from the gov't they claim to hate. Every one of these youtube crusaders are comfortably enjoying the perks of a system they despise.

You want to impress me? Go find an island somewhere and show us how awesome non-statism is.

Even Ayn Rand took gov't assistance.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by mintbbb.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/ayn-rand-and-her-stories-of-rapey-heroes

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by ChaosEngine. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/ayn-rand-and-her-stories-of-rapey-heroes

I am not a supporter of Objectivism, but to say Ayn Rand didn't support anything, but was only against things isn't accurate. She was passionately in favor of capitalism, reason, science, and individual rights. Her biggest weakness was as unwavering belief that she was right, and everyone else was wrong without any doubts whatsoever, even when the evidence was practically slapping her in the face because if something contradicted her philosophy, it had to be wrong.

Her affair with Nathaniel Branden was a perfect example. You can't say she was anti-marriage. She was however passionately in favor of affairs in marriage if one felt as she did about Branden, even as her husband and his wife drank themselves into oblivion in a feable attempt to cope.

If you think she was simply contrarian, then you completely missed what her ideas were.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'ayn rand, john oliver, last week tonight, why is she still athing, objectivism' to 'ayn rand, john oliver, last week tonight, why is she still a thing, objectivism' - edited by calvados

Obligatory XKCD reference

especially important is the alt text

I had a hard time with Ayn Rand because I found myself enthusiastically agreeing with the first 90% of every sentence, but getting lost at 'therefore, be a huge asshole to everyone.'

Sorry, but no, this is complete bullshit.

Some of the most powerful politicians in the US are devotee's of Ayn Rand, including the last vice presidential candidate and several front runners for the upcoming presidential elections.

Dissecting and criticizing her work is not some sort of straw man argument. It is perfectly legitimate criticism of the core values of those politicians.

Ayn Rand is still popular because she gives a philosophical fig leaf for sociopathic behaviour of the rich and powerful. Whether she was right or wrong is irrelevant, at least she sounded clever.

I got recommended to read Atlas Shrugged by a friend of mine. That friend turned out to be a beret-wearing high-art-snob ponce, but i didn't know it at the time.

I managed to finish it and whilst there were reasonable ideas in there that i think in some way we have paralleled in reality - whilst i find that most of her characters are sociopathic to some degree, i can very much sympathise with the idea of being led by the least capable in society who abuse the system of power that they shape and build to implement bad ideas badly.

I like the idea that the world would grind to a halt if the morons in charge did not have the ordinary, hard working people to keep things afloat... but that's about all i like about it. And i think we genuinely can see it happening in the world today in a less exaggerated fashion - the recent recession clearly demonstrated that the people in charge of money and property do not understand what they're doing and ignored the warning signs for years. Furthermore, our feckless leaders have done nothing about it, property bubbles continue to grow and bonuses for the upper echelons are still outlandish whilst the lower workers are struggling to get by in the recession. And then the expenses scandal of the MPs in Britain literally stealing money from the public pocket to have their moats cleaned (that actually happened) and such. Yesterday the watchdog looking into the scandal has decided that the investigation will take place in secret from the public and punishments will also be kept secret. Et voila, two clear instances of those in charge having no clue and no moral compass swept under the rug and forgotten about.

In conclusion, Ayn Rand is a very small minded individual who thinks that everyone in the world must think like she does. That is the only reason i can think of for the approximately 30 pages i read about the female lead character's personal sexual obsession with being taken aggressively by a man and made to feel defiled and used, and how all women feel that and all men wish to dominate and use a woman in turn.

But i think she got it spot on about how being led by those least capable morons will bring the world to its knees, and it won't require the hard workers to quit either. It just requires them to let it happen. And there's no little paradise to run off to, there's just Earth.

@artician - that's exactly it. The characters have no human empathy in Atlas Shrugged. I don't understand why it has to be all or nothing for most people - all conservative or all liberal. Why not the best of both? It IS possible to be ethical, productive and innovative at the same time.

Rand was certainly not a great writer (as is often the case with those who write novels in a language that isn't native to them). As such, there's no comparison between Rand's use of English and say, Dickens' (but you could probably say that about Dickens and almost anyone else, John Oliver included. And Harry Potter isn't much better than The Fountainhead! Or most popular fiction for that matter.)
I doubt most of Oliver's audience have read Crime and Punishment, or The Brothers Karamzov, or The Sound and the Fury. I doubt Oliver's fans are any more "intellectual" or well-read than Rand's, quite honestly.

But Rand didn't even believe in small government. Just limited government. She was certainly no anarchist. John Galt was, perhaps, but not Rand. (The character is not the author.) Both Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand learned from Ludwig Von Mises, and they took what they learned in very different directions.

Yet, most of Oliver's audience probably haven't even read Rand and she's hardly that much of a contemporary topic worth talking about.. So why would Oliver (HBO) want to spend valuable broadcast time talking about her? She wouldn't be a "thing" if they chose to ignore it, and yet they aren't. Why? Might this bit be (the $beneficiary of those who are) uneasy with a potential Rand Paul presidential run, thus needing a straw man with which to link him with "libertarians" and Ayn Rand?

All this "OMG Rand!" going around, and yet her work continues to stick around long after she's gone.. And will likely remain so, given ^programs^ (and commenters) like this and their unwillingness to let it go.