He's a philosophical illiterate and doesn't know or care what Ayn Rand actually stood for (let alone the "Republican Party"!). She was too clear a writer to be 'misunderstood' that way. That's giving him the benefit of the doubt. Either way he's wasting your time.

Thanks. Might be baiting me but not illiterate. Retired army officer who works for DIA. Probably masters degree I'm guessing.

He's an illiterate who is baiting you. Don't waste your time.

R: yeah yeah, I get what you are trying to get to... "my happiness is my moral purpose" crap.
Rand wrote: “My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”
SW: so, mark basically what you are saying is utilitarianism without actually thinking about the consequences of your actions?
R: Sorry, no Angel Scouts for Mark.
R: Rand would be COMPLETELY against all the things LES teaches. EVERYTHING.
Me: No SW. It's not utilitarianism. Utilitarianism argues the greater good for the greatest number and is behind every horrific decision made in modern times. Objectivism argues that it is wrong to sacrifice an individual for the "good" of society. And that furthermore any "good" that demands it is not really good but intrinsically evil. And usually designed merely to benefit those screaming the most about sacrifice.
Note that In Atlas Shrugged, John Galt's friends risk their lives to save him. Ragnar also risks his life on a regular basis to carry out justice.
A great example of this concept is in Rand's speech to one of the classes at West Point ('74 I think)
"You have chosen to risk your lives for the defense of this country. I will not insult you by saying that you are dedicated to selfless service — it is not a virtue in my morality. In my morality, the defense of one's country means that a man is personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic. This is an enormous virtue. Some of you may not be consciously aware of it. I want to help you to realize it."
Once again, the idea of working for or even being willing to risk one's life for the values that one wants to achieve or believe in.
SW: what if my individual happiness can only be achieved by forcing you specifically to work toward the
R: Rand wants you to be Superman's Lex Luther.
Me: There is no greater good of society. Society is merely a collection of individuals. You can try to force me. But I know how to shoot back.
R: Objectivism is not a form of thinking, but rather a kind of radical imagination in justification of certain types of self identification.
R: Objectivism is both too inflexible and unforgiving to implement into a world that must be shared by people who are, by its standards, imperfect
R: In the end, without the work of others, everyone would have the same three Jobs-- hunter, gatherer and child care worker. Or serve as food for those who gather together for the greater good.
SW: ok so, if we're assuming "individual happiness" is the ethically ideal outcome for any action
what if i'm in a scenario where i can choose between my own individual happiness or the individual
Me: Well it might be true that understanding Objectivism requires too much clear and logical thinking for most people. Certainly it seems to be the case in this discussion where the modus operandi has been to set up caricatures of AR's philosophy and then knock them down or to do the debate equivalent of the raspberry.
Good weekend gentlemen.

This was another response to the main post above with my response and the the thread:

SR: And it is the basis of the Republican philosophy and general outlook to this day...
Me: Actually it's not. Objectivism and Conservatism have very little in common philosophically.
SR: Selfishness is the basis for both.
Me: Actually it's not. At least not as you probably understand it. Makes me think that other than to slander them, you don't really understand either set of ideas. But most progressives don't. Because they think it's ok to force others to live for them or for whomever they choose. Therefore, while they have no real answers, they are afraid of anybody who identified their philosophy for what it is - the philosophy of slavery.
R: In simple terms. Rand, in the apocalypse, would rather eat her neighbors rather than help them. Dog eat dog.
I'd rather help. Unless they prescribe their personal philosophy to Rand, then I'd eat them. Let them taste their own medicine.
Me: In simple terms that's a wonderful straw man argument. But false.
Me: Of course the philosophy that is opposite of hers demands that you would allow your neighbors to eat you if it were good for society.
R: Seems I'd eat you then. I'm gonna need a good barbecue sauce.
R: Sacrifice is necessary for all to survive. If one survives we all die. You're not an island.
Me: I would not be willing to give you that opportunity. Nor to kill my neighbors to eat them. Neither is an acceptable choice under her philosophy. Either seems to fit yours perfectly.
Me: And that statement about sacrifice Rick, if it's true implications are understood, is one of the most evil to ever be uttered by any human. But Hitler believed it fully. So did Stalin.
R: Sad comparison.
R: You won't convince me.
Me: It's the perfect comparison. The concept that some should be sacrificed for the good of the whole is root of every tyranny and system of slavery ever devised. Of course I won't convince you. Because you clearly don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Ayn Rand's philosophy but are content to slander anyway.
R: Im just trying to determine if it is a spicy sauce or a sweet sauce.
Me: Well I'm a sweet guy with a temper so maybe sweet n spicy. Like thai.
But seriously, I've taught over 17 hours of classes at the arboretum not counting the overnight shelter class in the past year and a half. They gave me an honorarium. For several of the classes it either did not cover or only barely covered the amount I spent on supplies. So I probably broke even or slightly better overall. Until you figure in my time spent.
So clearly I did not do it for the money. And I have a day job. So why do it?
A) I like the subject matter
B) I enjoy teaching
C) I enjoy the fact that my class, if applied, might save somebody's life some day.
And D) I prefer to live in a world where more people are interested in nature and the subjects I'm teaching and fewer people die when facing a survival situation.
What I did with these classes did not make much money. And I would have done it without the honorarium. All of those things are things I value and I am willing to trade my time to achieve those values. The fact that I didn't make a bunch of money is irrelevant. I knew that going in.
That is the essence of Ayn Rand's philosophy. I suspect you share similar reasons Rick Hueston for sharing your plant knowledge. But if it's really such a horrid sacrifice that makes you miserable then you should stop. But I think I know you better than that and know you derive enjoyment and satisfaction from it.
Now. If somebody pointed a gun to my head to make me do it, I would tell them to fuck off. Or maybe go along at gunpoint until the opportunity presented itself to slit their throat. Of course one of the fun things about teaching these subject is all the sharp and pointy things.