Well said yourself. I'm a Christian too.
Me dino found out about Ayn Rand by a brother who made Christmas presents of all three Atlas Shrugged DVDs.
Oh--oh, yeah. He''s also a Christian, by the way.
Bet there's some practicing Jews who like Ayn Rand too.

Well said my favorite dinosaur!!! I don't agree with my hero, Ayn Rand on everything either. Isn't that what a thinking person should do instead of being a robot.
I, too, believe in a higher power...I'm a Christian. I have been unbelievably criticized for my beliefs by some in the Gulch who also said that the Gulch was no place for me and therefore, I should leave. Well, thanks to a lot of Gulchers who supported me, I'm still here, I respect your opinions, so please respect mine. As Ronald Reagan said, "The person who agrees with you 80% of the time is a friend and as ally not a 20% traitor."

I've found difficulty with Rand's insistence that consciousness presupposes existence. Galt declares: "A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it COULD IDENTIFY ITSELF as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something." (Emphasis added.) Yet elsewhere she writes: "The hallmark of a mystic is the savagely stubborn refusal to accept the fact that consciousness, like any other existent, possesses identity, that it is a faculty of a specific nature, functioning through specific means." This second quote (from ITOE) seems to imply that consciousness, "like any other existent," exists INDEPENDENT of whether or not anyone has identified it.
Further, while this is not "Objectivism," I dislike Rand's assigning motivation, often highly unfavorable, even evil, to theorists with whose ideas she disagrees. There is no way she could have known or should have declared that "Kant is the most evil man in mankind's history."
But as someone else on this thread declared, I learned a great deal more from her, more with which I agree than disagree. And to paraphrase her own words elsewhere still: Hers was "so great an achievement that her errors are irrelevant by comparison. You will find my tribute to her in that fact that I've collected and sold her rare, signed and manuscript works since I met her when I was 16.
Do contact me if you're interested in acquiring rare, signed, and/or manuscript Ayn Rand. Pen Ultimate Rare Books

If I recall correctly, Ms Rand was highly dismissive of Libertarians, at one point calling them "Hippies of the right wing".
I disagree.

This seems to be an Objectivist, rather than an Ayn Rand position [as this question has now been refined] but -- I fundamentally oppose the position that abortion is solely a question of the mother's rights and that the child, admittedly totally dependent upon the mother's body for safety and sustenance, has no rights and no place in any discussion of the right moral response. If the mother's health is truly in danger, then she has the right to defend herself. If not, then we are weighing the rights of two human beings, one of whom is totally innocent and without any ability to defend himself or herself against a person in power choosing to end the life of the innocent.

I would posit that all of us recognize people who are so essential to our happiness that we would risk our lives to protect theirs, even if we knew that the risk was so high that our own death was a virtual certainty. I have always put my children's lives in that category. The risk to my own life would have to be enormous and virtually certain for me to entertain a choice that would destroy my own child, however young.

Of course, there are hard questions. What about rape? What about the molested girl? It is axiomatic that hard choices make bad law. But, hard choices -- and the face of the traumatized victim looking at us -- is insufficient reason to ignore the face that we don't see.

So, the Ayn Rand/Objectivist position that abortion should, nay must, be available at all times and for any reason has always struck me as utterly lacking in any consideration of the absent voice in the discussion.

I don't believe there is anything I have come across in my studies of Objectivism that I disagree with. Too many people, in my opinion, have a flawed understanding of too many of its concepts. It is the application of it that is difficult.

Ayn Rand even made a point of this. We all have different experiences and very differing levels of knowledge - even on the same topics. Remaining open to the idea that we may have different opinions on the same topic due to those differences is vital. And having real conversations - with depth - is the only way to reconcile those differences and figure out what is correct and what is not and to correct those parts in our minds once we do so. The point is, even among Objectivists, you will find differing opinions on a subject. Knowledge is not grey - it is simply a matter of finding the errors and correcting them, or filling in gaps where they exist. The broadness of people's experiences make this difficult and time consuming to do - especially if not founded in Objectivist rationality to begin with - as there will surely be more to correct.

Anyway - the most specific two examples I can think of is Rand's error in judgement about her consensual affair with Nathaniel Branden and her stance on abortion. In the first case - I think she made a value judgement error that resulted in her husband turning to alcohol. I think this arrangement was more complicated and damaging than she had anticipated - and surely would have done otherwise if she had the power to reverse time. Second, Objectivism is based in reality and reason - and supports rational science. And clearly, not taking up force against others - unless they are imposing force on another. An unborn baby - just because it is called a fetus - is still a human being. Moving from one side of mom's flesh to the other - does not convert it from non-human to human. It always was a human. A = A. Science shows that we are always moving the age earlier and earlier that a baby can live outside of the mother. It is not rational to assume the pre-born baby is forcing the mother. But, allowing the mother, to kill the pre-born baby is totally antithetical to Objectivism and I think it be a blatant travesty that she and Leonard Peikoff hold this stance. I understand the mothers right to HER own body - but the baby inside of her is not HER body. This logic could apply to her OBGYN when reaching in to remove placenta after birth - he/she is inside her - therefore she could shoot him/her at that moment? I think it is very simple - the baby inside/outside of the mother is a separate human life and should be protected from force just as equally. Life is the ultimate basis of Objectivism. Self. The sovereign individual. That does not give the right for someone dependent on another to be executed by their caretaker. No more than people on Welfare, which I disagree with strongly as an Objectivist, should be able to be killed by those whom pay taxes. The only exception for the mother and unborn baby is when there is true serious medical risk for the mother - but that is VERY small at this point in modern medicine and the options available.

Really the only point i disagree with is her total rejection of religion. There is quite a lot in christian doctrine that agrees with her philosophy if you look at the actual roots and direct Bible quotes.

I had this discussion on psycho-epistemology of pilots with Ayn during the NBI days in NYC...she was not very confident in their dedication to their profession...

years later I had luncheons in L.A. on layovers (I was a pilot for American Airlines) and discussed this with Nathaniel Branden...he said that Ayn was concerned with many critical professions that did not practice professionalism and that their psycho-epistemology was suspect...

I got to know Ayn and Nat by attending all NBI sessions while I was in college during the 60s...her side comments were very enlightening...she was not treated well by the academia at all...to include the Austrian School of Economics and many Conservatives (William Buckley in particular)…

later I was an instructor pilot for the Air Force and trained military students from every culture around the world and in the U.S....plus I was an FAA-designee instructor for American Airlines...along with being in the I.G. (inspector general) and Stan/Eval (standization/evalution) in the Air Force...

professionalism was all over the map...from terrible and to highly qualified...I came to understand her reservations...I have seen it all...I have had student pilots try every which way to kill themselves and me while learning to fly due to their lack of attention to detail and the rules of reality...they got away with it with me onboard...and use to kid some of them that they were so far behind the airplane procedurely, that if it crashed they wouldn't get hurt...lol...they finally got it and paid better attention to details...

people try to make life more difficult that it really is...and lose perspective...like when forming concepts from percepts...learning to ignore the tons of nonsense and prioritize the essentials that will keep you alive...

I disagree with her male chauvinism. It seems inconsistent with her whole philosophy of individualism.

I agree with Ayn Rand about most of her writings, but I also believe in Christianity. The wish to help others less fortunate than themselves is set aside by Rand and urged, though not mandated, by Christian doctrine.

My own experience is perhaps relevant. I was put in jail for a month due to a contempt-of-court action after a bad divorce: I had to get life insurance to guarantee alimony and child support and due to illnesses could not get it. An unsympathetic Maine Supreme Court had me locked up. So there I was, having committed no crime, mingling with other minimum-security men often locked up for alcohol or drug misadventures, and I told the interested that glutamine 1 gram three times daily reduces the physical craving for alcohol and pineapple reduces the urge to smoke nicotine (both true). I also told a guard who had a migraine problem that turkey, magnesium, and oxygen help (also true). When I lost my balance in the gym and nearly fell, my colleagues were frightened on my behalf and ran to my rescue (I had a stroke years earlier).

I didn't tell my colleagues there about my attempt to help the most despised people in our society (see http://harshman.name/brightwriter/Lan... at the time, but I sent the jail library a copy of that book and the others I wrote as soon as I got out.

I had an easy enough month there that I am pretty sure I had divine help, due to my having been badly treated by the government and having tried to help the despised downtrodden. Ayn Rand seems to have missed that possibility.

Okay, it is now a separate question.

I don't claim to be an objectivist, but I find myself agreeing with them more often than not.

One of the core philosophical positions she espouses is the rejection of the initiation of force. This is, of course, an admirable and desirable position to take.

Nevertheless, it has happened throughout history. Pretty much every piece of land is owned by someone as the result of it being taken away from someone else by force at some point in the past. Sometimes the distant past.

Antarctica is probably an exception.

Her argument that we we own the land of the U.S., not because we took it from the Indians but because we were the first to put it to effective use ignores the hundreds of years of Indian culture such as Cahokia in southern Illinois which was a farming and trade center which had a population as high as 40,000 at its peak.

Of course other tribes took it from them in the meantime.

I live in Southern California and I'm sure that if you follow the deed of my house back far enough you will find I own it because the U.S. took it from Mexico.

Nothing is black and white in nature and human life.

The Universe and humans are shades of gray. It is not a binary status.

It is the proportion of black and white in every situation that defines the outcome and makes for villains or angels.

There are conditions of life that are metaphorically "black" and "white". Comfort and discomfort are absolutes of a living organism. To live or die are absolutes. Ice cream or banana to meet this end is gray-dient.

The Objectivist's Ethics is a simplicity beyond the complexities of other Rand authorships. What am I?, and What is this experience? are metaphysical realities of which we cannot avoid consequence of relationships or choices. If these types of self-evident simplicities are not used as fundamentals before delving into the practicum of objective behavior a lot of confusion ensues. Example: The US constitution has no preamble (such as The Declaration Of Independence; Rights of Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness) to set the tone of "Why" the ensuing articles are to be constructs of guidance. And thus, this attempt at a Representative Republic has been relegated to a structure of a Corporation. The "Rights" stated were assumed, and never printed into the Constitution. Ergo....Objectively, The Constitution is invalid to govern the behavior of a living being

Guess you could call it carte blanche abortion.
Me dino is for it if a lady's life is in danger.
I believe in a higher power too. Don't give a flip who doesn't like it.
No one is perfect. Not even an awesome intellect as was Ayn Rand's
BTW, I'm here to learn and have fun-~~not to pass someone's muster.

There’s a big difference between what I disagree with about Ayn Rand and what I disagree with about objectivism.

They should be separate questions.

ugh!!! The typos! They write themselves.

The last sentence in the penultimate paragraph under intellectual property should read:

"...one conforms more closely with objective reality..."

"Nothing's black and white, I guess."

Without black (wrong) and white (right), gray (compromise) is impossible. See Ayn Rand's "'Extremism,' or the Art of Smearing" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal for details. If the choice is between eating wholesome food, tainted food, or poison, there is no shame in being an extremist and accepting only the wholesome food. When compromising with liars, thieves, or violent attackers, it is only the liars, thieves, and attackers who benefit.

--- --- ---

Objectivism is based on self-evident axioms of reality, identity, and reason. There is nothing to quibble with here. If any of these did not exist, then your question and my answer could not exist. However, some of Ayn Rand's later applications of Objectivism to specific issues were flawed.

smoking

Her most obvious error was her defense of cigarette smoking. Imagining oneself to be a latter-day Prometheus by holding fire in one's finger tips is one thing, but sucking tar and nicotine into one's lungs is another thing altogether. Maybe she could have achieved the same goal by advocating candle making or cooking on gas stoves rather than electric stoves.

government

Ayn Rand's description of government in "The Nature of Government" conflates self-defense with revenge; she does not draw a clear distinction between them, leaving the reader to wonder which she is discussing at times. Her insistence on a government monopoly on the initiation of violence ignores the power of an armed populace to hold tyranny at bay, not only through the direct threat of popular armed resistance, but much more through the cultivating of a culture that supports independent thought, action, and responsibility. Unless the military consisted predominantly of foreign mercenaries, its soldiers and officers would have grown up within such a culture and be more likely to resist orders from tyrants, whether democratically elected or installed through a coup or an invasion, perhaps to the point of taking preemptive action against government rulers.

In spite of her later position, one of the greatest heroes in Atlas Shrugged is a vigilante pirate. Her justifications for Ragnar Danneskjöld are much more convincing than her protestations in "The Nature of Government."

intellectual property

Many objectivists embrace Rand's position in "Patents and Copyrights," but it is founded on an analysis of human rights rather than on the underlying metaphysical reality of the nature of information. Ultimately, the argument is grounded on convenience, rather than on rights.

Specifically, anything that can be encoded as a string of 1s and 0s and stored on a hard drive is a large binary number; a number that is unusually valuable, granted, but a number, nonetheless. To claim ownership of a specific string of 1s and 0s is to claim ownership of a number. It does not matter if that number is 6, 42, or some massively large number; it is a number. Granted, it might have taken a herculean effort to discover the utility of that specific number, but the Labor Theory of Value was debunked in the 1870s.

Economic value—i.e., price—is determined by the combination of scarcity of supply and degree of demand. If there is so much of a good that everyone can have as much as he wants without negatively impacting anyone else's consumption of that good, then the market price is zero.

Copyrights and patents require the existence of coercive government to enforce the artificial monopolies on quasi-infinitely available information goods. They are different from trademarks that can exist in a state of nature among civilized persons, who recognize each others' brand markings; this is why one can sell bound paper copies of Shakespeare's works without paying royalties to Shakespeare's heirs, but not claim them as one's own creation. Rather than cling to outdated rationales for patents and copyrights, one conforms more closer with objective reality by acknowledging the contradictions inherent within those rationales and designing more robust business models.

Take, for example, the operators of this website. They have created artificial scarcity by restricting access to certain features, and they charge a modest fee for access to those features. That is a cleverer solution than slapping up a paywall that makes the user choose upfront whether to subscribe, and it is much less annoying than slapping banner ads all over the interface.

polygyny

This is not a major concern, but just a nagging observation.

Ayn Rand demonstrated through her own behavior that she was not fundamentally opposed to adultery. She also made clear in several places that women seek men, up to whom they can look for inspiration (and, presumably, protection). The corollary of this is the widely recognized tendency for men to marry Cinderellas. So far, so good.

If women marry up, and adultery is not de facto immoral, then why not take that last logical step and support man-sharing? Perhaps John Galt would have settled for no one other than Dagny Taggart, but the next man down the totem pole might have been OK with two or three of the next heroines in the hierarchy, who preferred to share the second man, rather than settle for a monogamous relationship with the third man in line.

This is not to suggest that polygyny be mandated by some formula; only that it be recognized as an explicit corollary of the adulterous Cinderella.

(With regard to how to deal with the excess of men at the bottom of society, we probably would have to seek our answer in the works of Robert Heinlein, rather than in the works of Ayn Rand.)