I feel like I need to read me some Ayn Rand before I qualify for this discussion but I'm afraid.

It's funny you bring that up Steph! I was just mentioning to a friend of mine yesterday that I know a lot of guy comic book fans who consider themselves Randians.

I think it comes from a place of not really thinking through the whole philosophy, but I can see where Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark play toward those fantasies.

The Peacemaker was also created by Dikto.

I can see where Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark play toward those fantasies.

Right, if someone doesn't think it all the way through, that makes sense. But, really, those two are the furthest away I can think of from objectivism. Because they don't have super-powers; if you don't have super-powers, you *really* don't want to put yourself in situations where you could die. You go the other way. You actually embrace your alter egos' personnae and hit the beach with supermodels and booze.

Chatty's right in that Ditko was a total whackaloon on the liberterian front. Rorschach is based on his character The Question.

It's one reason why Ditko left Marvel, and Spider-Man became much more popular when John Romita took over the art.

Objectivism isn't hedonism. It's about doing what you rationally decide is in your best interest. If having supervillains running around is counter to your interests, and you have the means to do something about it, you certainly should.

Also:

In Atlas Shrugged, Rearden is hauled into court for breaking government regulations relating to his steel company. He gives a wildly popular speech in court about his property rights, telling his accusers: "I am fighting for my property!" He humiliates his opponents by winning over the crowd and concludes by telling them: "I work for nothing but my own profit."

In Iron Man 2, Stark is hauled into a Senate hearing, during which a senator demands he hand over his designs. Stark responds by giving a wildly popular speech about his property rights, telling his accusers: "You want my property? You can't have it!" He humiliates his opponents by winning over the crowd and concludes by telling them: "I will serve this great nation at the pleasure of myself."

[link]

Whoops, I was wrong. Ditko did NOT create the Peacemaker.

He did, however, create Squirrel Girl.

Objectivism isn't hedonism.

I didn't say it was, although I can see how my reference to going to the beach implied it. I am using the term not to mean hedonism, but to mean keeping one's own interest paramount.

It's about doing what you rationally decide is in your best interest. If having supervillains running around is counter to your interests, and you have the means to do something about it, you certainly should.

I disagree in the case of superheroes without super-powers, because despite Batman's toys and crazy fighting skills, and Iron Man's suit, they're a lot more likely to get killed than, for instance, Superman is. I think keeping oneself alive is in one's greater interest than getting oneself killed.

In Iron Man 2, Stark is hauled into a Senate hearing, during which a senator demands he hand over his designs. Stark responds by giving a wildly popular speech about his property rights, telling his accusers: "You want my property? You can't have it!" He humiliates his opponents by winning over the crowd and concludes by telling them: "I will serve this great nation at the pleasure of myself."

And if that were the sum total of Tony Stark's actions as a superhero, ever, I might send him off to the Ayn Rand Institute. One speech does not a philosophy indicate, however.

I'm just not convinced that anyone would become a superhero and court death on a regular basis because that is how they protect their own best interests.

I'm agreeing with Steph here specifically WRT to Batman. So, what about his actions (say, most of them) seem to put his interests FIRST.

so, by definition, we as human beings are our for our own best interests, but Batman's adult life is focused on saving Gotham - and he does it at enormous peril to himself. He clearly likes to be rich, but his main interest isn't being rich.

I am sure there is a rift between the movies (any set) and the graphic novels, but take the 2nd Nolan movie. His actions at the very end of that movie are martyr like.

I honestly don't think that Objectivists would consider risking one's life (or risk of any kind, for that matter) to be inherently irrational if its done in the pursuit of something you value. In its own nutty way it's actually an ends-justify-the-means approach, not a cost/benefit check.

I linked to the Cracked article because I thought it was funny and topical. It does have more than one example, for whatever that's worth. But I've read one issue of Iron Man, and he wasn't in it, so that's just about all I know of the character.