Wealthcare: Ayn Rand's Retardation. Damn you Spelling Nazis!

[Caliga]

I think one can make a distinction between liking Rand's novels and liking Rand the person.  I don't really care about Rand the person one way or the other.

[grumbler]

The issue with her is not so much the actual positions she takes (which would slot her in roughly with the secular, libertarian, isolationist right) as the ways in which she advocates and justifies those positions and the vehemance and sheer nastiness used to brand opponents.

I have no issue with her as a person whatever.  I don't think she, as a person, is significant enough to my life or interests  that I need to inform myself sufficiently to take a position.  That is why i have restricted my postings in this thread, out of both ignorance and indifference.  I was just making one comment about one comment made about her "philosophy" which seemed to me to be erroneous. I understand that others feel differently, and I scan through the thread every now and again because there are some interesting things being said (I think I learned more about her by reading one paragraph by you than by reading two entire books by her).

So, carry on, but you'd be better-off addressing your arguments to those in a position to respond knowledgeably to them.

[citizen k]

... you'd be better-off addressing your arguments to those in a position to respond knowledgeably to them.

Well that eliminates me and most of Languish.   

[Barrister]

Yes, I think this is completely accurate.  As I posted earlier, I don't think Rand ever argued that it was *wrong* to be charitable, but rather it was *wrong  to feel/be compelled* to be charitable.  Be as charitable as you want to, just so long as you're doing so because it makes you happy, and not because someone is trying to coerce you.  This is probably one of the reasons libertarians like her so much, since they tend to support charity-based welfare but despise government-mandated welfare.

By the way, I thought part of Objectivism was that charity was, in fact, morally "wrong" unless there was some particular self-interest.  Not that it should be illegal or prohibited or anything, but that people should act only in their self-interest and doing tthings not in that self-interest was "wrong".

[Barrister]

Yes, I think this is completely accurate.  As I posted earlier, I don't think Rand ever argued that it was *wrong* to be charitable, but rather it was *wrong  to feel/be compelled* to be charitable.  Be as charitable as you want to, just so long as you're doing so because it makes you happy, and not because someone is trying to coerce you.  This is probably one of the reasons libertarians like her so much, since they tend to support charity-based welfare but despise government-mandated welfare.

By the way, I thought part of Objectivism was that charity was, in fact, morally "wrong" unless there was some particular self-interest.  Not that it should be illegal or prohibited or anything, but that people should act only in their self-interest and doing tthings not in that self-interest was "wrong".

hmm.  It seems she has argued both ways at times.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/charity.html

[grumbler]

hmm.  It seems she has argued both ways at times.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/charity.html

In my ignorance, I no more expected her to be consistent in her fiction that I expected L. Ron Hubbard to be consistent in his. 

[The Brain]

You are 100% consistent, grumbler. 

[grumbler]

You are 100% consistent, grumbler. 

:yes!: Teh Braim concurs! 

[Razgovory]

Yes, I think this is completely accurate.  As I posted earlier, I don't think Rand ever argued that it was *wrong* to be charitable, but rather it was *wrong  to feel/be compelled* to be charitable.  Be as charitable as you want to, just so long as you're doing so because it makes you happy, and not because someone is trying to coerce you.  This is probably one of the reasons libertarians like her so much, since they tend to support charity-based welfare but despise government-mandated welfare.

By the way, I thought part of Objectivism was that charity was, in fact, morally "wrong" unless there was some particular self-interest.  Not that it should be illegal or prohibited or anything, but that people should act only in their self-interest and doing tthings not in that self-interest was "wrong".

hmm.  It seems she has argued both ways at times.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/charity.html

I wonder if it's okay to do charity for very selfish reasons.  Such as create a poor house with the intention of raising an army or an orphanage to so you can experiment on little girls.