Thanks for the clear and enjoyable read. I agree with the formulation of seeing Musk as a "Rand villain," and I find it helpful to think of him as such. I've been more neutral about him given his so-called virtues as a businessman, but I see your point.
I think you miss the point of why we call him a Randian hero. I say this because none of your critiques are wrong and we're all aware of his flaws.
We aren't claiming that he somehow adopted objectivist morality and embodies what we believe in. Instead, we are enjoying seeing at least a handful of our values concretize in a main stream character. In particular, the characteristics that people criticize Rand’s characters as being unbelievable.
1) He values freedom and free speech (or at least claims to which is better that most these days)
2) Industriousness: Say what you will about him just hiring good people but managing multiple companies is more work that I'm capable of. He's also very hands on in the engineering aspect of the companies.
3) Money: He seems to have a belief that money is the representation of one's accomplishments rather than proof of evil.
So sure, he's not a John Galt or even a Dan Conway. At best, he has potential to be a William Hastings. But in a world full of James Taggard’s and Ellsworth Tooheys, even that is a breath of fresh air to see even that on TV.
First, I completely disagree that he "values freedom and free speech." I think I communicated that I think it's quite the opposite -- he cares about neither and doesn't have any legitimate notion of individual human beings, let alone individual rights. He thinks people are to be manipulated and controlled, including by the use of disinformation and propaganda. And he has violated free speech on X throughout, cancelling accounts of people who disagree with him and gaming the algorithm to push ideas he disagrees with out of sight and amplifying ideas he does agree with. His "free speech" thing is a lie.
Second, as to his "industriousness," that's debatable. He sure makes a lot of noise about how he's doing a bunch of things -- just like he did in making himself out to be the #1 competitive gamer in the world, which was a fabrication. How much else of what he's supposed to be accomplishing is equally a fabrication? And lots of people are good managers -- that doesn't make them philosophical heroes.
Third, for him, money is a way of keeping score, just like in video games. Nowhere in Objectivism will you find the idea that you can measure a person's virtue by how much money they have. Ayn Rand would never have used that as a metric, because it's too easy to get money through criminal and immoral means. Hell, in a mixed economy, having that much money often demonstrates how well you've gamed the system to your advantage.
To say someone is a hero, in philosophical terms, is to say that they are a paragon of virtue -- not as opposed to the worst people that exist today, but as an ideal. But even as measured against real people today, Musk must be considered a sheer villain merely because he is so incessantly dishonest.
Ask yourself this: given how he lies _all the time_, how can you trust a word he says? How can you believe anything about him when you know that so much is pure fabrication? For me, some people revere him because they _want_ a hero and they're holding up Musk as some idealization of a floating abstraction -- because they just don't want to accept the facts of reality. I'm not saying that's you, but I've seen it in many others, who _never_ respond to facts about him as if they actually matter.
And my point is, that's not Objectivism. That's evading reality.
You mistake style for substance, and posturing for principle. To call Musk a villain in the Randian sense is to misunderstand what makes a villain: not visibility, not ambition, not imperfection—but moral inversion, the willful elevation of need over ability, collectivism over individualism, stagnation over progress. Musk may be flawed, but he builds, he risks, he acts. He does not plead for unearned praise, nor ask others to live for his sake. That alone disqualifies him from your gallery of villains. In a mixed economy, no man operates untouched by the state—but to judge him solely for navigating its maze, while ignoring what he creates within it, is to evade reality in favor of moral theater. Your argument flatters the mediocre and indicts the exceptional—not because it proves a point, but because it resents one.
Your error lies in conflating moral failure with the presence of flaws. In Objectivism, a villain is not defined by imperfection but by the rejection of reason, productivity, and individualism. Musk’s actions represent a fundamentally creative and independent pursuit. To label him a villain without demonstrating a consistent pattern of moral inversion is to misuse the term and to misapply the ethical framework that distinguishes creators from parasites.
You're just repeating Randian-sounding talking points here (some of which are simply incorrect). If you read my article, you will see that I specifically outlined where Musk rejects reason, where he's inherently dishonest, and where he's blatantly collectivist. It would be great if you'd go back and read it again. I think I was clear enough.
Then tell me what I got wrong. You had a bad take and now can’t really defend it.
You claim to base your response on objectivist ethics while completely missaplicating them. You made the concious decision of saying Musk is a Randian Villan. A Randian Villan is not a nebulous concept you can adapt to fit your opinions, it is clearly defined. You could have said he is not a Randian Hero, he has more than plenty of shortcomings when compared to a Hank Rearden or a Dagny Taggart. But he objectively is not is not like a toohey or an Adam Taggart. The space between those is gigantic, why do you insist on placing him on the poles? you make many disingenuous claims:
On dishonesty: You cite Musk’s public exaggerations and marketing claims as proof of irrationality. There is a difference between lying to gain unearned value and dramatizing achievement to get investors or push boundaries. The former is parasitical; the latter can be part of rational long-range thinking in a flawed culture.
On collectivism: You interpret Musk’s talk of humanity as a ‘collective’ or his appeal to shared futures as collectivist. But collectivism, is not using the first-person plural, it’s the moral primacy of the group over the individual. Musk’s vision of multi-planetary life is framed not as sacrifice to a mystical “humanity,” but as a technical, ambitious goal requiring innovation and private initiative. That is not collectivism.
On the use of government contracts: You claim his success is illegitimate because of state entanglement. But question is: does a man seek unearned subsidies to avoid production, or does he create in spite of regulation? Musk’s ventures—Tesla, SpaceX—are judged by their output: rockets, batteries, infrastructure. The moral standard is creation, not political purity in a statist system.
On freedom of speech: You argue that Musk manipulates platforms and algorithms, thus contradicting Objectivist support for free expression. But Twitter/X is a private platform. Moderating content is not a violation of rights. Objectivism defends property rights, not anarchy of access. The deeper question is: is Musk moving toward a freer discourse, or using the tools of control to silence dissent? The evidence is mixed, not conclusive.
You identify flaws but inflate them to moral inversion. As I understand it, Randian villainy is not mere error, it is the systematic rejection of reason and value. That standard cannot be met by cherrypicking inconsistencies.
You are misrepresenting my positions, and I have no desire to take the time to identify where and how. Those reading these comments can decide for themselves as to whether you are responding to what I actually wrote or to your own flawed interpretation.
As Mark declines defend his own claims, I’ll speak to the readers he invited to judge.
Labels in philosophy are not impressions, they are definitions. To call someone a Randian villain is to assert that they reject reason, exalt need, and stand opposed to value as such. Mark attempts to apply these standards to Musk, but he does so by inflating flaws into moral inversions. That is the error. To identify inconsistencies is not the same as proving villainy.
If words are to mean anything, moral categories must be applied with precision, not stretched to suit a narrative.
I have answered with specificity. He has declined to engage. Readers can judge which reflects the higher standard.
I certainly agree that he's a massive secondhander, has a collectivistic worldview to the extent that he has principles at all, and is largely devoid of integrity. At the same time, I have massive appreciation for how much his efforts have advanced reusable launch vehicle technology. SpaceX has done more to bring about everyday commercial human spaceflight in 15 years than NASA did in the preceding 50. The difference that will make to human flourishing cannot be overstated. So my basic position on him is that he is an EXTREMELY mixed character and deeply flawed, but deserves huge credit for a massive contribution to human flourishing. In Rand character terms, he's something like Stadler - a man with the potential to be a hero but who squanders it by defaulting on the responsibility to hold principles.
If the only bad thing Musk did was abuse ketamine while doing other actually heroic things, then I’m sure my position would be different. But that’s kind of a weird thing to isolate to make an argument.
I’m not making an argument against your general position. I’m just amused at how ignorant you must be of Rands personal life to throw that complaint about Musk out in an article with the chosen title.
Furthermore, since Rand and her followers/admirers are libertarians favoring personal freedom, the mere fact Musk uses ketamine doesn't disturb them at all. What an amusing notion: "Beware the risk of ketamine! One of its users became the world's richest man!"
And, as a physician, I'd note ketamine in fact has clear medical benefits in some circumstances.
I think I answered that, didn't I? Certainly, I wouldn't have supported Rand's abuse of methamphetamines -- which I'm well aware of. I can't say whether it affected her thinking, other than that it's certainly possible. But regardless, that has nothing to do with Musk.
Musk's ketamine abuse is well-documented, it's contemporary, and it's just one data point in my overall assessment. As I said, if this was the only "bad" thing I knew about him, I wouldn't have written this piece at all. My evaluation of him would be completely different. However, he says and does so many batshit crazy things that his being under the influence of ketamine is a distinct possibility -- hence why I bring it up.
And note that I'm directly responding to "Objectivists" who allege that Musk is an "Ayn Rand hero," in saying that he is, in fact, a villain by anyone's definition. I'm alluding to a certain rationalism among some of them, whereby I wouldn't agree that it's perfectly fine to abuse a drug just because it's done freely -- even while agreeing that it shouldn't be against the law. So I'm not sure what your point is there.
Thanks for the clear and enjoyable read. I agree with the formulation of seeing Musk as a "Rand villain," and I find it helpful to think of him as such. I've been more neutral about him given his so-called virtues as a businessman, but I see your point.
What a load of crap.
Thanks for the insightful contribution.
I think you miss the point of why we call him a Randian hero. I say this because none of your critiques are wrong and we're all aware of his flaws.
We aren't claiming that he somehow adopted objectivist morality and embodies what we believe in. Instead, we are enjoying seeing at least a handful of our values concretize in a main stream character. In particular, the characteristics that people criticize Rand’s characters as being unbelievable.
1) He values freedom and free speech (or at least claims to which is better that most these days)
2) Industriousness: Say what you will about him just hiring good people but managing multiple companies is more work that I'm capable of. He's also very hands on in the engineering aspect of the companies.
3) Money: He seems to have a belief that money is the representation of one's accomplishments rather than proof of evil.
So sure, he's not a John Galt or even a Dan Conway. At best, he has potential to be a William Hastings. But in a world full of James Taggard’s and Ellsworth Tooheys, even that is a breath of fresh air to see even that on TV.
First, I completely disagree that he "values freedom and free speech." I think I communicated that I think it's quite the opposite -- he cares about neither and doesn't have any legitimate notion of individual human beings, let alone individual rights. He thinks people are to be manipulated and controlled, including by the use of disinformation and propaganda. And he has violated free speech on X throughout, cancelling accounts of people who disagree with him and gaming the algorithm to push ideas he disagrees with out of sight and amplifying ideas he does agree with. His "free speech" thing is a lie.
Second, as to his "industriousness," that's debatable. He sure makes a lot of noise about how he's doing a bunch of things -- just like he did in making himself out to be the #1 competitive gamer in the world, which was a fabrication. How much else of what he's supposed to be accomplishing is equally a fabrication? And lots of people are good managers -- that doesn't make them philosophical heroes.
Third, for him, money is a way of keeping score, just like in video games. Nowhere in Objectivism will you find the idea that you can measure a person's virtue by how much money they have. Ayn Rand would never have used that as a metric, because it's too easy to get money through criminal and immoral means. Hell, in a mixed economy, having that much money often demonstrates how well you've gamed the system to your advantage.
To say someone is a hero, in philosophical terms, is to say that they are a paragon of virtue -- not as opposed to the worst people that exist today, but as an ideal. But even as measured against real people today, Musk must be considered a sheer villain merely because he is so incessantly dishonest.
Ask yourself this: given how he lies _all the time_, how can you trust a word he says? How can you believe anything about him when you know that so much is pure fabrication? For me, some people revere him because they _want_ a hero and they're holding up Musk as some idealization of a floating abstraction -- because they just don't want to accept the facts of reality. I'm not saying that's you, but I've seen it in many others, who _never_ respond to facts about him as if they actually matter.
And my point is, that's not Objectivism. That's evading reality.
Found the objectivist who surrendered his capacity to write to an AI chat bot.
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
You mistake style for substance, and posturing for principle. To call Musk a villain in the Randian sense is to misunderstand what makes a villain: not visibility, not ambition, not imperfection—but moral inversion, the willful elevation of need over ability, collectivism over individualism, stagnation over progress. Musk may be flawed, but he builds, he risks, he acts. He does not plead for unearned praise, nor ask others to live for his sake. That alone disqualifies him from your gallery of villains. In a mixed economy, no man operates untouched by the state—but to judge him solely for navigating its maze, while ignoring what he creates within it, is to evade reality in favor of moral theater. Your argument flatters the mediocre and indicts the exceptional—not because it proves a point, but because it resents one.
If that's what you took away from this article, then you either didn't read it carefully enough or you don't know very much about Musk.
Your error lies in conflating moral failure with the presence of flaws. In Objectivism, a villain is not defined by imperfection but by the rejection of reason, productivity, and individualism. Musk’s actions represent a fundamentally creative and independent pursuit. To label him a villain without demonstrating a consistent pattern of moral inversion is to misuse the term and to misapply the ethical framework that distinguishes creators from parasites.
You're just repeating Randian-sounding talking points here (some of which are simply incorrect). If you read my article, you will see that I specifically outlined where Musk rejects reason, where he's inherently dishonest, and where he's blatantly collectivist. It would be great if you'd go back and read it again. I think I was clear enough.
Then tell me what I got wrong. You had a bad take and now can’t really defend it.
You claim to base your response on objectivist ethics while completely missaplicating them. You made the concious decision of saying Musk is a Randian Villan. A Randian Villan is not a nebulous concept you can adapt to fit your opinions, it is clearly defined. You could have said he is not a Randian Hero, he has more than plenty of shortcomings when compared to a Hank Rearden or a Dagny Taggart. But he objectively is not is not like a toohey or an Adam Taggart. The space between those is gigantic, why do you insist on placing him on the poles? you make many disingenuous claims:
On dishonesty: You cite Musk’s public exaggerations and marketing claims as proof of irrationality. There is a difference between lying to gain unearned value and dramatizing achievement to get investors or push boundaries. The former is parasitical; the latter can be part of rational long-range thinking in a flawed culture.
On collectivism: You interpret Musk’s talk of humanity as a ‘collective’ or his appeal to shared futures as collectivist. But collectivism, is not using the first-person plural, it’s the moral primacy of the group over the individual. Musk’s vision of multi-planetary life is framed not as sacrifice to a mystical “humanity,” but as a technical, ambitious goal requiring innovation and private initiative. That is not collectivism.
On the use of government contracts: You claim his success is illegitimate because of state entanglement. But question is: does a man seek unearned subsidies to avoid production, or does he create in spite of regulation? Musk’s ventures—Tesla, SpaceX—are judged by their output: rockets, batteries, infrastructure. The moral standard is creation, not political purity in a statist system.
On freedom of speech: You argue that Musk manipulates platforms and algorithms, thus contradicting Objectivist support for free expression. But Twitter/X is a private platform. Moderating content is not a violation of rights. Objectivism defends property rights, not anarchy of access. The deeper question is: is Musk moving toward a freer discourse, or using the tools of control to silence dissent? The evidence is mixed, not conclusive.
You identify flaws but inflate them to moral inversion. As I understand it, Randian villainy is not mere error, it is the systematic rejection of reason and value. That standard cannot be met by cherrypicking inconsistencies.
You are misrepresenting my positions, and I have no desire to take the time to identify where and how. Those reading these comments can decide for themselves as to whether you are responding to what I actually wrote or to your own flawed interpretation.
As Mark declines defend his own claims, I’ll speak to the readers he invited to judge.
Labels in philosophy are not impressions, they are definitions. To call someone a Randian villain is to assert that they reject reason, exalt need, and stand opposed to value as such. Mark attempts to apply these standards to Musk, but he does so by inflating flaws into moral inversions. That is the error. To identify inconsistencies is not the same as proving villainy.
If words are to mean anything, moral categories must be applied with precision, not stretched to suit a narrative.
I have answered with specificity. He has declined to engage. Readers can judge which reflects the higher standard.
I certainly agree that he's a massive secondhander, has a collectivistic worldview to the extent that he has principles at all, and is largely devoid of integrity. At the same time, I have massive appreciation for how much his efforts have advanced reusable launch vehicle technology. SpaceX has done more to bring about everyday commercial human spaceflight in 15 years than NASA did in the preceding 50. The difference that will make to human flourishing cannot be overstated. So my basic position on him is that he is an EXTREMELY mixed character and deeply flawed, but deserves huge credit for a massive contribution to human flourishing. In Rand character terms, he's something like Stadler - a man with the potential to be a hero but who squanders it by defaulting on the responsibility to hold principles.
As I said in my article, I sincerely doubt that he’s done very much of actual benefit. That’s merely the persona he’s managed to fabricate.
“Musk abuses ketamine” Amusing article title given Rand heroes love of smoking and Rand’s well known many year personal use of amphetamine.
If the only bad thing Musk did was abuse ketamine while doing other actually heroic things, then I’m sure my position would be different. But that’s kind of a weird thing to isolate to make an argument.
I’m not making an argument against your general position. I’m just amused at how ignorant you must be of Rands personal life to throw that complaint about Musk out in an article with the chosen title.
Furthermore, since Rand and her followers/admirers are libertarians favoring personal freedom, the mere fact Musk uses ketamine doesn't disturb them at all. What an amusing notion: "Beware the risk of ketamine! One of its users became the world's richest man!"
And, as a physician, I'd note ketamine in fact has clear medical benefits in some circumstances.
I think I answered that, didn't I? Certainly, I wouldn't have supported Rand's abuse of methamphetamines -- which I'm well aware of. I can't say whether it affected her thinking, other than that it's certainly possible. But regardless, that has nothing to do with Musk.
Musk's ketamine abuse is well-documented, it's contemporary, and it's just one data point in my overall assessment. As I said, if this was the only "bad" thing I knew about him, I wouldn't have written this piece at all. My evaluation of him would be completely different. However, he says and does so many batshit crazy things that his being under the influence of ketamine is a distinct possibility -- hence why I bring it up.
And note that I'm directly responding to "Objectivists" who allege that Musk is an "Ayn Rand hero," in saying that he is, in fact, a villain by anyone's definition. I'm alluding to a certain rationalism among some of them, whereby I wouldn't agree that it's perfectly fine to abuse a drug just because it's done freely -- even while agreeing that it shouldn't be against the law. So I'm not sure what your point is there.
Excellent - and SO refreshing to read such a logical, fact-filled and well-written article! Thank-you.
Thanks, and glad you enjoyed it!