no no, I obviously wasn't suggesting they were quotes, but they are the inevitable result of ascribing to her phillosophy. She only showcases how her approach works in situations where it is already a given. If you start applying her phillosophy to more down-to-earth aspects of modern living, you come across some rather disturbing conclusions about how you should view the world:


Believing that everybody with a functioning mind will agree with you.
Believing that anybody who doesn't agree with you must consequently not have a functioning mind.
Believing that some people are inherently better than others.
Believing that these people are allowed to rule and "create" with no restrictions whatsoever.
Believing that some people are inherently worse than others.
Believing that the best thing those can do other than idly sitting around is being serfs to the better people.
Believing that everything that has not been created by humans is free for unlimited consumption by everyone.

Now, to put the burden of proof back on your understanding of Objectivism/Altruistic Egoism, what about Ayn Rand phillosophy shows that she disagreed with these conclusions?

She didn't give a damn who agreed with whom. Only that those who disagree with you don't impose their views onto yours. I might be of the opinion that if you disagree with me, you don't have a functioning mind, but I can't DO anything about that.

There was no "inherent superiority" implied in her philosophy. She thought that the best situation would be when people recognize talent and don't try to argue with results. Her whole philosophy is that if I am a competent teacher, a bureaucrat shouldn't come in and try to tell me how to teach, especially when I am already showing success. If I show some success, but am not wholly successful (for instance, there's a teacher who regularly outperforms me), then it should be another teacher that I emulate, not a bureaucrat. Perhaps that means that the bureaucrat should recognize my "inherent superiority," but only in the arena of teaching. Similarly, I wouldn't try to outshine the bureaucrat in navigating the bureaucracy, not if he is consistently successful at it. If that's recognizing my "inherent inferiority," so be it; it's only in that particular arena. Furthermore, even "inherently superior" people do NOT have the right to enslave "inherently inferior" people. However, the inferior do not have the right to place demands on the superior, either.

The whole serf idea is patently ridiculous. Rand believed that everyone should be entitled to enter into a working relationship with anyone of their choosing. In her ideal world, competent people would prefer to work with and for other competent people. In her ideal world, the boss would be more competent than those who work under him/her. What a revolutionary idea! That the ladder of success is populated according to MERIT!

The whole idea of unlimited consumption of natural resources is where you have a point. She lamely tried, in one of her books, to predict that by the time some resources run out, innovative humans WILL have invented alternative sources. Well, that may or may not happen. It's the one time that I thought she was unreasonably optimistic. I think, in the name of rational self-interest, we should conserve resources as much as possible.

__________________
Life is too short for endless patience.

perhaps I can be of some light here.

Rand is an ethical egoist, which means the correct action is the one that benefits the individual. This is different from utilitarianism in that it doesn't matter what is good for others. Only for the individual being considered.

Essentially, if I want Chocolate ice cream I should get chocolate ice cream regardless if my choosing vanilla will provide lots of happiness for EVERYBODY else.

Same for someone else choosing Vanilla, they are not wrong they are just doing what makes them happiest and that is the correct action for them.

The essential problem with Ethical Egoism is it can't really be prooved. when asked the question "WHY? is ethical egoism best" it is tempting to say that when a nation follows ethical egoism EVERYBODY is better off. But thats just silly, because then the theory ceases to be ethical egoism and becomes a convolted utilitarianism in justification. This then begs the question of what about everybody else? Quite frankly we have no reason to judge others over ourself and no reason to judge ourselves over others. This is the essential problem with Rand's view and Ethical Egoism in general.

Rand was a fraud, a whack job, an ego maniac and an ethicly bankrupt fascist.
Her entire quasi philosophy was based on a total misrepresentation of human nature, flawed logic, and psuedo intellect with faux terminnology and syntax, that her following of simpletions sucked down like the unsweetend kool aid it was.
Rand was a con artist who had a message that made the week minded feel smart, and the wek of heart feel stong. Hers was a pat on the shoulder to the frustrated bitter clinicly depressed of the world saying, "shhhhhhhh...only WE know the truth of hos things should be...wink" As if to tell them that their "gratification of self" was all they needed.
A great collection of faux intellect..little more

__________________
Argue with some..IGNORE the stupid

Yeah it hurts, you have been fucked by an Elephant !

"Happamia, sanoi kettu pihlajanmarjoista kun ei niihin yltänyt" ("Sour, said the fox about rowan berries, being unable to reach them"

of course beethoven is better than Mozart.

Well, Rand did tend to get a "tad" dogmatic towards the end, but at the same time she was a lone voice speaking out against the collectivist mentality that was accepted as permanent, unquestionable, and morally good by nearly every intellectual on the planet. She was totally right about the undesirability of this and single handedly fought back against it and in the end won. That MORE than makes up for her shortcomings of which there were many.

In other words you never read her. All you are doing is parroting what people who haven't read her have said about her.

If you don't want to slog through her novels, I would suggest reading "the virtues of selfishness". Fairly short and it gives you a good understanding of most of her positions, that is if you actually care to understand them.

You haven't read anything by or about Rand other than what you may find in wikipedia.

I don't rememebr her saying that anyone is inherently anything.

I think you are missing hte boat completely, nowhere does she even suggest anything close to having people sit idly by and be serfs to "better" people - and those "better" people were merely those who made their own way in the world and didn't need to rely on others. People who had their own independent thoughts.

Have you read any of her works? Which ones talked about people being inherently better than others?

She didn't, in her "paradise" there were tons of "average" people as well. The way to get in wasn't to be an "elite" but to do the best one could with what they had and to stand on one's own two feet. In short, it was an attitude, not an aptitude.

Dude..Please...make no mistake, I am smarter then you, more educated then you, and better read then you

With that obvious fact out of the way….I read the fountainhead in 7th grade, Atlas shrugged in high school, and I have her testimony before the committee on anti American activity and her New Yorker interview on objective ethics almost committed to memory

Apparently you are one of the simpletons who were conned by her quasi intellect and faux analysis.
Good thing you were not in Berlin CIRCA 1939, you would have been in a brown shirt no doubt

Try harder and do better

__________________
Argue with some..IGNORE the stupid

Yeah it hurts, you have been fucked by an Elephant !

"Happamia, sanoi kettu pihlajanmarjoista kun ei niihin yltänyt" ("Sour, said the fox about rowan berries, being unable to reach them"