I had to click "parent" on that-you could have said "Oooh" to 5000 things today that I would have had to follow around and stamp out a fire. lol

omg, thanks for the laugh. I needed it lolololol

Good job!

Sorry about the typos. Wish I could edit at this point.

I agree, that word is a barrier. Most people reject the book Virtue of Selfishness just from the title. Most people don't even read the first few pages where she explains what she means by that title.

Is
it
really
that
big
of
a
deal,
jdg?

Oooh!

Yes. She rightly turns "judge not lest you be judged" on its head.

"Objectivist principles tend to allow businesspeople
to gang up against us. . monopolies, collusion,
the whole gamut of nasty stuff"
I don't have a great refutation, but my thought is all that nasty stuff crops up under any human system. She acts as if she's comparing it to some ideal system that eliminates those elements.

did you post this on the article? all of guys are posting great stuff-overwhelm them with this stuff

yes

thanks for the research. yes, went to her website and bio. she speaks NGO

herb, did you post it on the site?

did you put that comment on the post?

I just put the following comment there:::

"'Objectivism assumes that hard work is the primary determinate [sic] of one's success.' . This is not true. . Objectivism posits that the value of a person's contributions determines his or her success. . Contributions arise from skill, inventiveness, creativity, focus, persistence and, yes, hard work. . If hard work were the determinant, a ditch digger would be worth more than a back-hoe operator. . The greatest of the contributors to value is inventiveness. . When I invented a new way to make lubricating oil flow away from machines at a factory where I worked, it became "the mason principle" and I was promoted as a result. . Try that with a shovel and sweat. -- j"

first, the sic word is determinant.

second, this is so fundamental a point that the
author trivialized Rand by claiming it. . but the
biggest problem with the article is the claim that
Objectivist principles tend to allow businesspeople
to gang up against us. . monopolies, collusion,
the whole gamut of nasty stuff. . I'm working on
a way to refute that.

you may have a better way. . Do It! -- j

Her personality was ungiving, as it needed to be not to compromise with evil. But I think what they really get hung up on is Rand's concept of selfishness. They can't get over that, when the whole culture is permeated with the notion that selflessness is the virtue, that people should be kind and considerate and helpful and not rapacious.

The word "selfishness" derails all further understanding. The altruists think of themselves as virtuous; after all, Jesus died for them, and that's to be emulated. It's the stickiest, most powerful meme in the culture.

That's why Rand went so extremely to the opposite end of the scale. And why the bleeding hearts associate hers with heartlessness, greed, exploitation; and they don't realize they are doing exactly that with their redistributionist schemes!

As Rand said, "judge and be prepared to be judged." Judging is what lfie forms do, every second of their existence. Call it evaluating. It is the prime directive of survival.

Perhaps what some people think judging means is "condemning". That usually happens when two people meet whose premises are at odds, and neither can see the other's viewpoint in order to find the point of "no conflict of interest." Without that, the ideas go to battle, and the people go to battle, with escalating demonization and condemnation of that which threatens the comfort of their own unquestionable ideas.

So people who see things rationally are accused of lacking not only empathy but also sympathy because they refuse to concur in error. And how do we know there's error? Check those premises, back to the singularity. Rnad has given us the flowchart with flawless logic.

I have another whole essay on how logic and emotions collide. It can wait.

Done...

Taking on this author is a daunting task. Not because she is difficult to counter, but because there are so many possible Rand quotes and concepts, that it makes it hard to choose just one or two. I have chosen the concept of causation to counter her, but I've left it up to her to relate it to her article. Otherwise I'd have to wear out my index finger typing a multitudinous replies. "In order to make the choices required to achieve his goals, a man needs the constant, automatized awareness of the principle which the anti-concept 'duty' has all but obliterated in his mind the principle of causality -- specifically, of Aristotelian final causation (which in fact applies only to a conscious being), i:e:,the process by which the end determines the means, i:e:, the process of choosing a goal and taking the actions necessary to achieve it." -- Ayn Rand

No, we don't. "All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." At least one of us needs to rebut, if only to keep our values in their faces. Sometimes the right word at the right time can rescue a mind.

"This appears to just be a more "lofty" approach."
I wonder if the website editor asked her to write a more critical piece on Rand because someone didn't like the first one.

Thank you for this discertation. I would only like to add one point. The government has the power to take your property and taxes at the point of a gun. Try not paying taxes sometime and see how fast the jack boot thugs show up with over powering guns to take your life besides your property.

As in Ayn Rand becoming increasingly frustrated with trying to explain her philosophy I too get tired. Those with the intellect will survive while those who don't won't. I quote from Forest Gump " Stupid is as stupid does".

LMAO. If I understood it right that's still better than "get away from me you creepy fat middle aged man.".