Atlas Shrugged question

It's important to remember that Ayn was born in Russia in the early 1900's. Not exactly a place where most people have choices or freedom. I loved Atlas Shrugged and agree with much of what was written. That does not mean I'm uneducated, spoiled, arrogant or a jerk. I think it's the type of book that makes you think and creates discussion - and I like reading things that make me think - even if I don't agree with them. In this case, I happen to agree with many things in the book. I also found the huge 40 page rant towards the end unnecessary but obviously she felt strongly about it!

Ayn Rand's writings have been embraced — or more accurately shanghaied lately (and woefully twisted) by a Vociferous Political Wing Which Shall Remain Unnamed.

A lengthy dissertation can be avoided by the use of one word. Greed.

But that's merely my observation. ;-)

"Illusory superiority" posits that those with lower than average intelligence are less able to judge the IQs of others. They also predictably overestimate their own intelligence.

Ayn Rand is plugged into that market. Mainly men, stalled in adolescence, who want to believe that they possess superhuman initiative, and that they are being prevented from realizing their potential by the leftist dregs of humanity.

Alan Greenspan, who brought economic ruin to the global economies, was a disciple of Rand. Many people want simple solutions that are easy to parrot, and they have found them in Rand's badly written novels.

As for why her "philosophy" is popular in the US and not elsewhere, I don't know. Could it be our public education system?

I loved Atlas. Not because I dream of society like that. It was just a great book that let me see things another way, like all books I enjoy. I'm currently reading Dianetics as well. For the same reason I read the bible, to see what all the fuss is about. Tolkien is on my to be read list.

Wow, a lot there in such a simple question, but I will do my best as an American to put in my $0.02...

Rand is popular because a huge number of Americans love to fantasize that they are rugged individualists who did everything on their own, evidence to the contrary be damned. Its a national past time of many to spend a large amount of time being angry about "lazy" people (usually understood, but never admitted to, being the standard culprits familiar to most jingoistic groups all over the world, people of different skin color, ethic background, or higher educational levels than X group. In this case... "real 'Mericans") who naturally are the sole reason that every single Red State resident without a college degree isn't as rich as the Koch brothers.

It comes down to our country's woefully poor educational system and overwhelming media cycle really, something that goes back all the way to yellow journalism and the Spanish American War (an event that again, thanks to our educational system, most Americans aren't even aware happened). Words like "Socialism" and "Communism" get thrown around over and over and over again, with no real definition given, let alone historic context (like that evil Social Security, which most of these folks use to buy books like this, but which none of them would be able to recognize as that hated Socialism. Yes, even when it's right there in the name!).

So you can publish trash like "Atlas" or the more recent and hilariously titled "Liberal Fascism," which takes these context free "bad" words and ideas and attaches them to a political "other", and people will not only NOT laugh in your face, but throw dump trucks of money at you.

It's similar with 'ol L. Ron, only even more cynical. Being such a poorly educated country, a significant number of Americans are extremely vulnerable to every possible brand of snake oil and so-called "self help" style garbage.

L. Ron, while scrapping by in California writing C-level SF for the pulps, noticed just how scientifically illiterate and gullible the US population can be when it comes to quick fixes and woo, and hit upon a fantastically successful way to manipulate people into draining their bank accounts. First via a new "science," but then when he was shot down on that one, as a new and tax exempt "religion." That he is still such a popular figure just goes to show how successful a good cult of personality can be, at least economically for the figurehead of said cult. If you are interested in this topic, the book "Inside Scientology" is a great one to check out:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...

For Rand, I can recommend either "Ayn Rand and the World She Made," or "The Passion of Ayn Rand" if you want a deeper look into her life and how she came to believe in such a particularly miserable brand of "philosophy."

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4...

However you can save yourself a lot of time if you simply picture a child throwing a temper tantrum while screaming "Mine! Mine! Mine! I don't wanna share!" Then picture them as adults throwing the same tantrum and there you are. Don't believe me? You can read some of Kristin's comment above for a textbook example.

It's a nod to those who believe in self-reliance. Yes poverty has its causes, some of them just happen to be the individuals involved. I'm not surprised Rand's opinions are popular, she makes some very convincing arguments. For those who insult Rand, the rubbish left wing propaganda enthusiasts preach is far more ridiculous than anything she ever wrote.

Hubbard and Tolkien's popularity are a complete mystery to me.

First, you have to understand that the Modern Library list of 100 greatest novel was based on 217,520 votes and voting took place between 7/20/98 - 10/20/98. So it isn't exactly current. You are also dealing with the fact that 217,520 votes is less than one percent of the total U.S. population and there was absolutely no criteria in place to determine who these voters were.

To say you need to view this list with a grain of salt is an understatement.

I would guess that if The Modern Library were to take another vote today, Harry Potter would take up seven of the top ten slots.

Agree or disagree with Rand's philosophy but I think your initial question itself is flawed.

The better question is "why was Rand so popular among 217,520 people 16 years ago?"

The special appeal Ayn Rand's writing has for the people living the USA is quite understandable. USA is a wealthy country and this wealth is closely entwined with its peculiar kind of idealism – the so called American Dream. There are still a lot of people in the USA that believe that wealth is something that comes with hard and honest work. I am not writing here about rich people but rather about all the different strata of the middle class. If you’re American middle class you probably believe you can afford your quality of life thanks to your own hard work. Heck, if you are Polish middle class (be it much poorer) you probably believe the same. Yet, if you know anything about the world that surrounds you, you must on some level know that is not true. You must be aware that most of the stuff you can afford, you can afford because it is manufactured by virtual slave labor under conditions that would, had the factories were located in your home country, put the employers/owners in prison. And you really can’t help that. You have to buy toys and electronics made in China and clothes made in India because all this stuff comes from countries like that under conditions like that nowadays. And you are also aware that if the production were moved back to your own country, you’d probably be unable to afford your next iPhone. And that would suck big time.
Therefore you have this big cognitive dissonance you need to come to terms to and that is when Ayn Rand comes to play. Ayn Rand who is going to tell you about the virtue of selfishness and about the ways of the market. How it is not your fault (because it isn’t) that those people are worse off than you. How it is not exploitation – because you cannot have exploitation in capitalism. If you physically coerce people to work, it’s slavery and it’s bad. But everything else is simply free enterprise. Labor force is commodity same as any other component of the market. You cannot pay your employees a cent more than you absolutely have to – it would be dishonest to the market, it would be bad for the competition. And let’s face it: those people are better off than on their rice paddies anyway so would be really unfair to us if they were to demand better treatment or more money from us. We would have to call them LOOTERS.
George Carlin said: “The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it.”
Apparently reading Ayn Rand, if you believe in what she wrote also helps a little.

I'm going to be "that guy" and say the book, like the Bible, Mein Kampf, Das Kapital etc., is just one of those books few actually read but many pretend to have read for the image.

The image sought in this case is a sort of "tough guy intellectual," I guess. Like Hemingway or Orwell, if you're uncomfortable with those guys' light pink and deep red politics.

Despite all the attempts at philosophical answers, the real reason it is popular (defined as selling well and/or doing well in the poll you referenced) is that it has recently begun to receive lots of free advertising by people with large audiences. Glenn Beck, for example, spent time in nearly every episode for years talking about it. When someone with millions of viewers is constantly pitching a book to people, some of them are going to buy it. When many people with big audiences like Beck are doing the same, it is certainly going to hit the best seller list.

Aside from teenagers, I think most people have been prefiltered one way or the other before reading the book (Atlas Shrugged, though Hubbard is much the same) as to whether they will agree with it. Going back to Beck as an example, there is a very low chance that anyone in his audience was going to disagree with it once they read it, especially since Rand's anti-religion and atheist stance is not a major factor in the story and therefor easy to ignore. So essentially a fanbase is manufactured by the process of pre-filtering out those who will disagree and then pushing it hard at everyone left.

And that doesn't even account for all the people who know that saying they like it is the "right answer" despite having never actually read the whole thing. The Bible suffers this same fate.

Obviously, I'm not saying that no one has ever found the book (or any other book, for the matter) and read it with no preconceptions of any kind, but we're not talking about every single person who reads the book, we're talking about why it rates high on seller lists and polls, which is determined by large quantities of people acting collectively (knowingly or not).

As for the others, Tolkien is there because hit movies advertised the books for a decade. Hubbard is because his people/followers push each other to buy lots of copies. On top of that, both Rand's followers and Hubbard's pushed their people to vote the books up on the poll, thus skewing the results in order to create a certain impression. It's not hard to see that a popularity contest like a poll is going to return the results that the advertising (whether by people like Beck or religious followers like Hubbard or massive hit movies constantly being released promoting them) predicted.

Seriously, is it any wonder that books Oprah advertised by adding them to her book club made best seller lists? And does that really say anything one way or the other about the books themselves?

Hmm...quite frankly I am baffled as to why people DON'T like Ayn Rand. But if someone doesn't like Ayn Rand I assume it is a personal preference as to style, or they don't agree with her philosophies. I have no issue with either. I wouldn't consider someone who doesn't like Ayn Rand to be uneducated, or think there is something wrong with them.

On the other hand, I found the OP and quite a few of the comments to be condescending and contemptuous to those who DO like Ayn Rand. I don't really care whether she appeals to other people inside or outside the US. She appeals to me. That is not saying I have read all of her works or will. It is not saying I agree with everything she says.

In a world with very little balance, more often then not you find people swinging to one or the other extreme on issues, world viewpoints, etc. Ayn Rand is simply on an extreme that is not the way the majority of our culture believes.

To really answer your question in full would be to venture into the realms of political beliefs, moral beliefs, etc. I don't really care to go there on this website. So I will suffice to say that some of Ayn Rand's beliefs I...may not necessarily hold to, but understand and believe in to a somewhat lesser extreme. I also like the fact that her viewpoint is refreshing. She makes no apologies for believing as she believes, she is very articulate (if overly wordy) in explaining her beliefs. She unashamedly stands up and says "This is how I believe, I don't give a rats ass what you think about it."

I admire that - whether I agree with the person saying it or not. I have respect for someone who knows what they believe and practices what they believe - even if I do not believe it. That kind of intellectual honesty - practicing what you say you believe - is rare these days. I find it refreshing.

As far as the other authors you have mentioned, I have read them all. I must say Steinbeck is my favorite out of them though. Miller I was never a huge fan of. Harper Lee I enjoyed.

I would say that some Americans enjoy Rand because we feel that was how America was originally created, self made men who help create progress unimpeded. Many theories would work in the world if only the world could be perfect in the aspect that those theories operate in, I personally believe that Atlas Shrugged falls into that category. I thoroughly enjoy the book, and after reading it I went and used an Audible credit to get the audiobook version as well so I could listen to it next time. I enjoy the concept of throwing off the shackles of government and helping make the world a better place through community instead of bureaucracy. I enjoy the vividness of the characters, the life and energy that they bring to the story. The drive of the Dagney and Hank, the mystery behind John Galt, and pirates!! It is all so unlikely and aside from build a community in the Rocky Mountains that no one can find, it all seems like it just might be possible! I hope that is around what Robin, the creator of this discussion was looking for.

I find nothing odd about her books not being popular in the UK, while topping the list here. It's little more than a reflection of the political polarity of our two countries, and in ten years I doubt a poll of Americans would place Rand anywhere on a favorites list. Personal responsibility and independence is quickly losing favor to rigid government control and largess.

It's a natural cycle that periodically evolves into major societal upheavals...both the bloodless and bloody kind.

Atlas Shrugged is a well thought out and masterfully executed novel that also happens to have a moral lesson that are substantiated by their accurate forecasts of realities that have already come to pass, economically, politically and infra-structurally in the U.S. and around the world including Britain.

Philosophical Reasons to read the book:

Does the book aspire to it's own brand of utopianism? Sure it uses libertarianism that blends individual and rational thought into what is now known as Objectivism. The utopian element is exemplified later in the book with the description of a sheltered valley full of only capable human beings. Does she go to far with her rationalism? Yes, I think she does go to far with social Darwinism, but intentionally to make a her point even further. Does the book lack an intelligent answer to how a centralized system can rule people effectively without being corrupted? Yes, it does. It basically calls for what our constitutionalists called for, the decentralization of governance and the renewal of the idea of a collection of republics, which are in turn collections of city states that all govern there own interests. So her larger answer is an anarchical one that depends on the idea of local governance by private intelligent individuals that work together whenever a situation arises that needs cooperation for all parties interests to be served. It would sort be like if the U.S. wanted to go to war, then each state should have the right to decline to fund the war if it's not in their interest. All Central governance power would effectively be checked. No National Security falsehoods! Especially not in a Zero Sum nuclear age. Macro theorists, environmentalists and population dynamists would have a field day with this theory today, mostly because they'd argue the model as unsustainable under current consumption trends. But I think the counter argument that contains any element of centralized power is further vulnerable to corruptibility.

Rand:

Miss Rand encourages the idea, that society should be a collective of competent individuals, who correspond with each other under the code of rational ethics. She is a hyper intelligent individual who had to suffer through the Soviet brand of socialist autocratic socialism that awarded above all, cronyism and corruption. She's dedicated her life to promoting ideas that represent logical thinking, which as a byproduct also produces more happiness for the public at large by creating more innovation and opportunities for employment and self advancement. When leaders are not rational and don't lead in the interests of their constituents no one is served other than their own shortsighted greed. Example: Currently, the mass production of Corn in the U.S. is still being used to create ethanol for auto consumption, when there are people starving elsewhere on this planet. Why? Is this practice rational, when other sources are more readily available to produce ethanol, mainly every households bio-waist in the form of grass clippings, food waste and even fecal waste. Do we even need ethanol as fuel source? NO! Liberalism around the world is failing to create sustainable political and socioeconomic decisions that account for the rapidly changing global pressures of population growth and resource depletion. The decline of the west has been largely predicted among international relation theorists and Objectivist, who pay close attention to how power structures are corrupted through mitigating factors that include economic and the commons physical infrastructural degradation, which includes schools. Current world market pull factors include labor markets, which are continuing to pull sustainable jobs of largely under educated work forces, without replacing jobs with comparable paying sources of income and or opportunities for retraining in the countries they are pulling labor from. Result, large social unemployment necessity, and a further need for centralized power to act as a giant insurance company. Difference? If you don't like the service of an insurance company you can fire them and go to another company that is offering a better service. In the current bicameral system that dominates U.S. politics, changing parties does little to separate the core issue of centralized corruption. What else did Atlas Shrug predict? American Steel industry would be dismantled along with most of the other manufacturing? Check. Product quality would decline? Check.

Socialism in Practice today.

Many people like to point to Scandinavia, particularly Norway, as the great shining example of how socialized democracies can work effectively. What they always forget to mention is that Norway's social infrastructure is subsidized by it's nationalized oil reserves. These reserves are finite and will not be able to sustain large inflows of immigrants indefinitely. Eventually it's system will is also degrade unless it can continue to effectively assimilate those immigrants and continue enough economic growth in the form of job creation that in turn will create tax revenue. This will not happen unless rational actors continue to dictate policy that is not influenced by short term greed. The sickness is world wide. Power structures are not balanced by competence, but by political and economic predators who have been corrupting liberal democratic systems in unproductive ways and stifling innovation. How many inventions have you seen in media that have never seen the light of day? Lets, 60 minutes ran a program last year about a solid battery that should be a thousand times more effective than current batteries? Why don't we have more electric cars? Why is the lithium battery still being used? What about the solar panel technology that creates hydrogen as a byproduct? The list goes on. Where else can we look to see Randian theory being disregarded? How about Venezuela? Unfortunately it's the most recent example of how the guise of socialism is just a shell game for predators like Hugo Chávez, who almost completely collapsed the quality of life on Venezuelans, and replaced a democratic system with military junta that rules under the barrel of a gun, while allowing the the countries infrastructure to rot. Cronyism is running ramped, western society is largely losing ground to these entropic forces. Accept for places that have been hyper rational in policy like Australia and China, who have both realized that Objectivism is necessary for continued growth. The balance between social infrastructure and a robust free market economy to fund that social infrastructure is delicate thing that can become unstable without good leadership. Example: George W.Bush. When I was studying International Relations it was originally thought that U.S. Hegemonic power would be around for many years to come. One of the reasons behind this continue power structured was based on World support. Yeah Bush squandered that one by leading the U.S. down an irrational foreign policy, effectively bankrupting all sympathy after the 911 attacks and morally bankrupting America's authority to effectively maintain international peace.

Atlas Shrugged has never been more relevant than today. It has accurately predicted how the corruption/cronyism would lead to bureaucratic dysfunction as centralized powers and regulatory agencies began disregarding their rational work ethics, when tempted with short term gains. Players who have enough money to buy lobbyists in Washington to help maintain their bottom line brand of fascism are effectively stifling innovation and job creation. The transformation of intelligent citizens into mindless consumers has almost completely been achieved. Instead of an informed population of individuals with civic power to elect leaders that represent their interests, multinational supper farms poison us with genetically modified plants and superbug creating insecticides. The Military industrial complex continues to put American and internationals through their meat grinder. The Federal Drug Administration continues to pass drugs that are harmful into the market due to a corrupted managerial structure that hires former industry execs. The list goes on and on and guess what? This book called it, right down the degrading infrastructure of dikes they knew wouldn't hold in New Orleans. I dare you to take a trip to Baltimore or Detroit sometime Robin and let me know how safe you feel. Society is collapsing in many urban centers around the U.S. were jobs have disappeared and social reeducation programs are nonexistent or ineffective as Atlas Shrug predicted.

Literary Reasons to read:

The pacing and literary device execution creates incredibly dynamic characters that readers can empathize with. Plot points flow better than any other book I've read to date. It is generally just a well written book that infuses well paced anti-climaxes, interesting characterization backed with logical premises and dramatic irony that again continue to reinforce the dynamic nature of the characters and plot construction.

Negatives:

Someone already mentioned, the book is too long and redundant at times, I can't deny this fact. Towards the second half of the book it begins to almost feel like it's belittling the reader with it's repetition. This is one factor that has turned many away from the book. I don't like the comparison to Mein Kampf, however I must admit that the repetition becomes more than preachy. It becomes arrogant and self righteous. At some point even I was screaming enough already, you've made your point. You don't need to continue force feeding me how important rationalism and individualism are. Most certainly another reason it has become so polarizing. But certainly the largest polarizing factor is her stance towards Altruism most likely. However this does tend to reinforce why it'd sell well in India. Hindu beliefs also follow a line of philosophy that thinks it's not enlightening to give charity since people are largely giving charity to make themselves feel better, not to help the person who has rejected society and decided to beg to survive.

Finally:

Instead of writing all this I really should have saved some time and just told you to drop the preconceptions, and passive aggression and just read the book and decide for yourself why it's considered one the greatest novels ever written.

It's my understanding that Hitler had a very popular book in Germany during the 30s. :}

The 'lRoners' and the Unification Church (moonies) have one thing in common. They make their leaders books popular by purchasing large numbers of copies.

The whole Scientology schtick was originally viewed as another self-help phenomena by the US populace and almost as quickly discarded. There were a few hard core acolytes and devotees that stuck around while LRon morphed the writings so that it could be viewed as a full fledged, Constitutionally protected religion. Blah blah blah! The books still sell and thus are 'popular', but read??? Well I know few under the age of 45 or so that have read any non-SF Hubbard.

Anything vaguely anti socialist or anti communist is going to be a big seller or noted anyway in the United States. Even if in the case of Rand it is also anti-religion. That last little tidbit seems to escape many of those espousing a fascination or belief in Rands other viewpoints.

The United States hasn't had a very good track record or outcome with socialist/populist politics. There have been some real accomplishments that are 'overlooked' but generally that style of political philosophy is anathema outside of a select(read uber-elite) group.

John Galt is the anti-thesis to Robin Hood. I grew up poor in the U.S. due to my parents both being stricken with serious long-term health issues. I read Robin Hood in fourth grade, and loved him. He was a true hero of the people. I grew up with a Robin Hood mentality, and was always quick to blame the government and the greed of our corporate overlords for my difficulties in "making it".

And then I read Atlas Shrugged. I don't agree with Rand's elitist philosophy, as it is all too Spartan for me, but it was the most motivating kick in the ass I have ever experienced. Never before or since have I read or heard such a compelling argument against the Robin Hood mentality. Through my changed perception, my quality of life has improved immensely.

The rich are always trying to keep the poor down, but just as any immigrant will tell you, if you have the will, this country is rich with opportunity, and anyone can make it. Ayn Rand writes of strength of character, and of an unparalleled resolve, which we can all profit from by tapping into these qualities within ourselves.

In the U.S., for the last handful of decades, more and more people want everything for nothing, and want to blame others for all their problems and be compensated for their woes. This is a slippery slope that could well lead to the end of us... a total collapse. While Objectivism (Ayn's philosophy) isn't the answer, the self-reliance and personal responsibility that it encompasses are in my opinion traits which are necessary for our citizenry to embrace if we as a country are going to last. Atlas Shrugged portrays these qualities and the importance of them beautifully, all while weaving a story that made it hard for me to put the book down.

Lord of the Rings was full of fun adventure and intrigue, but doesn't belong anywhere near the top 5, even though I loved them.

I was shocked to find Battlefield Earth on the list. I enjoyed the book all the way up until the last two paragraphs, but it doesn't even belong on a list of the top 100 sci-fi novels.

I feel that people love this book in the US because it epitomizes the "American Dream". I think most American's have a firm belief that hard work is the way you move ahead in our country and their is no free lunch. This might be a simplistic view but I feel that "Atlas Shrugged" is an extreme depiction of what happens when people don't want to work for what they have.

On a lighter note, I also think that it is a good story and read despite John Galt 40ish page rant at the end of the book.

I'll just upvote Renee above. She summed up my thoughts on it well: greed.

Political elements and the lackies that suck up their media emanations voraciously defend Rand because it gives them a convenient hall pass to be as greedy as they wish. It absolves them of moral guilt while extolling their avarice's fruit as signs of self improvement. If ever there was a heady cocktail...

It's best served with ignorance or guile.

Edit: I'll just add, I'm an American, and I'm not fooled. Rand is at the top of one of my lists: most hated books.

I think it appeals to anyone who is tired of our excuses only society. Just watch an episode of Jerry Springer or any variety show where people moan cry and complain about their lot in life. Usually their own fault. No one seems to take personal responsibility for anything anymore.

Everyone wants to blame their parents, siblings, teachers and politicians. (Okay so sometimes its true) but more than not it's an excuse. An avoidance. A cop out.

This book was hundreds of pages too long, but it had its moments. Who wouldn't want to live in a Utopia where like minded, hardworking people live?

People who want to live off of the efforts of others, that's who.

She is credited with predicting a shift in politics where an uncaring clueless government claims to help "the little guy" but only helps themselves thereby causing problems. Hmm. Isn't that the very definition of government?

Too many people make this a left/right wing argument. I don't care which side you think you are on. Politicians care about politics not people. Red, White or whatever. And at the end of the day. It is just a book. Read something else if you don't like it. And if someone quotes it to you, remind them it's fiction.

hurray for Capitalism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
kinda the whole point of this woe-besotted book

There´s been a long tradition of extolling the virtues of self reliance, the entrepreneurial spirit,ambition and perserverance in the US starting way back in the late 1800´s and early 1900´s with the Horatio Alger series. It was a series of books about a Young boy who "makes it" through hard work, intelligence and personal strength.

Having gone through several decades of "robber barons"conservatives answers to progressive complaints of social immobility was that you could do it the Horatio Alger way. That has been the repeated response to criticism to social inequality. The burden of self-improvement was the answer to wealth maladistroibution. It has become a fixation of the right, continued in the 50´s with Ayn Rand´s tall tales.

And yes, I am an American.

So much of the criticism of Rand revolves around "selfishness" and misses the more important point.

Her entire philosophy is predicated on morality, and her argument that,as opposed to the utilitarian philosophy which justifies anything in the name of the majority good, true morality is that which makes Man happy, which is the rational exercise of his mind and the enjoyment of what results. And this is also the conclusion of Aristotle for those who are not that into Greek philosophy.

The point is that Rand has removed the imprimatur given to group action which justifies so-called altruism and replaced it with the importance of each individual, and the right of each person to be free of coercion in the name of morality. No person has the right to demand anything of another. I can give but you cannot take. I can give money to a homeless person but he cannot use a gun and demand that same amount of cash. One is charity and one is theft even though the final result is the same.

This is the message of Atlas Shrugged, this is the message that resonates with the independence and individuality of Americans, and this is why the book is so popular in this country.

I know hundreds of people who are fans of Ayn Rand's philosophy. I have attended and presented (on self-esteem theory and research) at seminars sponsored by the Atlas Society (previously called the Objectivist Center) since 1997. From what I have observed, fans of her philosophy appreciate her general ideas on metaphysics--that the only life we have is the life we live on earth; on epistemology--that evidence-based reason is the most reliable way to truth--, on virtue ethics--that living a life in according with virtues like rationality, productiveness, justice, and self-esteem, promotes our flourishing; and her defense of limited government libertarianism--respecting people as ends in themselves, to live with the full political freedom of thought and action for yourself and respecting that freedom for others.

Some social conservatives have high-jacked Ayn Rand's ideas, and that's unfortunate. But you cannot both be a social conservative and endorse anything more than the free market part of her politics.

For those interested in discussing Ayn Rand's ideas; for or against, I welcome you to a group I created called Objectivism: Ayn Rand and Beyond. We have a few philosophers and other intellectuals who were influenced by Ayn Rand in the group.