What about Libertarians?

This is in reply to MikePusatera, as comments usually don't match up.
I agree Objectivists do not have a political party. Nor should they. Most just want to be left alone to pursue their rational self interest. I, myself, have "gone Galt" and have mostly disappeared. I choose with whom I discuss debateable subjects. I rarely comment. From what I can see here everyone is civil and can agree to disagree.

It is why Rand specified it as "rational selfishness" to avoid any subjective interpretation. As to your last paragraph, all Objectivists should read "How to Win Friends and Influence People," lol.

That his what a free conversation is all about. We can disagree. And I don't think she would be in favor of croney capitalism.

Big Business - are people on here anti-big business, or are they anti-crony capitalism (what I prefer to call crony socialism). Government being bought by businesses for their benefit, versus capitalism, is the difference between James Taggart and Dagney Taggart.

Abortion - times have changed, as has birth control (e.g. morning after pill). Abortion to 8 months and 29 days (or post birth, just letting the infant die, as was recently de-criminalized in MA) is extreme. Contrast that to abortion in the first trimester.

The former is probably abhorrent to most here, while the latter is probably palatable to most here (my assumptions).

Again - MY assumptions / attempt to frame the question/response - I'm not a very "frequent flyer" here.

I have read some of Rand's works and am reading others as it fits into my readings.

While I agree with quite a lot of her positions, I do not agree with her completely and I personally believe that she would have approved of this position. I don't think anyone should slavishly agree with anyone.

As to big business, I believe that the Government should mostly stay out of the way and only interfere rarely and then with great reluctance.

As to abortion, I abhor it; yet, I believe that it is better for it to be legal than illegal, as this is a service that some desire.

Excellent points. I think younger people don't realize that they are frogs being slowly boiled alive because they've always had certain rights and can't imagine ever not having them.

My understanding is her reasoning is based on rights. The rights of the individual take precedence over the non-viable potential individual.
We know the fetus becomes viable before full term birth because we have healthy premature births. So using purely Rand's logic, the date of acceptable choice for abortion moves to earlier date anyway, and will change with technological developments.
Personally I would want to see the limiting acceptable date much earlier than "viability" anyway. But fully banning abortions has no more reasonable logic than todays proposals (eg. Maryland) to allow "abortion" up to 28 days after birth. At least Rand had reason on her side, even if you don't agree with her conclusion.

That's what I thought.

My personal experience is that we agree more than we disagree, but we don't agree 100%. In my opinion, that is valuable because it means that you have people approaching issues - especially moral ones - from different perspectives. We would be no better than the followers of a television evangelist if we were nothing more than slaves to Rand's ideology.

I haven't found the kind of robust, intellectual debate anywhere else I can get on this forum. It doesn't matter whether I agree with the other viewpoint or not, the individuals on this forum are generally respectful in presenting their diverging opinions and back them up with with their best arguments rather than simply repeating tropes and talking points like elsewhere on the web.


As to the selfishness thing, that, too, has been debated on this forum. Personally, I think Rand used "selfishness" to drum up attention and to directly pick a fight with Christianity - which she had a decidedly negative view of. (Just an aside, but I really can't blame Rand for her negative view of the Russian Orthodox Church given its ostentatious displays of wealth and involvement with the Russian mafia who run the country.) Her definition for selfishness has also been called self-interest which is a fairly descriptive word for the attitude she wanted to focus on.

Oh, I have no intention of giving away my freedom.

That's a good point.

"I think it would do a lot of good for the world if somehow people could be introduced to the books without knowing about the nasty fanbase associated with them."

I agree. I dove into them mostly because one or another of them was on a list of distopian literature. I also ran across an article that said that a lot of conservative politicians who claim to be fans either have never read what she wrote or clearly didn't understand it.

I tend to read books the way I see movies. I ignore reviews if the summary of the contents sounds interesting to me.

I have not. I admit I was put off by the title. Adding it to my TBR.

Although I agree with what you are saying.... I just can't true that up with her idea that it was "in her rational self-interest" - or anyone's, actually - to actively pursue and in doing so destroy the marriage of a man who was some 25 years younger than she, and then flaunt it as something to be proud of. (I realize that Nathaniel Brandon was complicit as well - she didn't do it by herself, but I doubt he would have pursued her, from what I've read about this topic).

Also, the 25 year age difference is actually immaterial. She was married. He was married. They each should have ended their own marriages first, then had their affair for as long as they both wished to. I also read that the affair dragged on a lot longer than he wanted. I do know he won't speak about it now, because I actually heard him say that in person.

This isn't a cult of blind obedience. We have all read Rand, watched Rand (interviews, not just movies), and we enjoy the debate. If there is anything from Rand which is valued, it is her focus on the individual and not giving up one's individuality to sanction groupthink or group politics. As such, the vigorous debates on this forum, IMHO, are the greatest tribute to Rand which could exist. None of us live for another.

I can remember when "chemical" was a name to be admired. Lots of (good) slogans around chemicals.... "Better living through chemistry," I think - is one of them. Now, "chemical" is a bad word, and people disavow any and every part of chemicals and chemical matters, even when it's been pointed out that they themselves are actually made of chemicals. And then, they get mad at the person doing the pointing.

Correct principles are not extreme and the identification in the first three branches of philosophy (metaphysics, epistemology, ethics), is an either/or binary choice on individual issues. Their application in the real world is another issue, even with "ivory tower" Objectivists. There are many schisms in the movement for a variety of reasons, but does not negate her principled premises.

I have had the same thought many times. As much as enjoy the site I think there is a lot more conservative sentiment than there is Objectivism. This country just does not have a political party to represent an Objectivist.

Well, with very few exceptions (IVF, etc.) most babies didn't get in there without some "help" from the man. (Editing to add: even with IVF, unless it's a clone, a man has been VERY close to that new entity.) Just like you don't have to have actually contracted Covid to have an opinion about whether various treatments work, especially if you have studied the subject. People have all sorts of opinions about all sorts of things that they don't own. But as far as a baby is concerned most men DO have a good reason to have an opinion, especially if they have ever fathered a child.

I think it all depends on your definition of selfishness. The dictionary definition does not go into depth and sometimes is confusing or wrong. Have you read the Virtue of Selfishness?

Another suggested reading/listening on this question is Rand's speech, The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus, from the mid 60s.

Rand believed in the individual too, but most of the threads and comments thereon, for the last several years, have been anti-individual.

I too have been watching this happen.

Jan

Take the time to read the introduction and first chapter in The Virtue of Selfishness, Objectivist Ethics, then as Jen Psaki would say, "circle back."

We are AGAINST CORRUPTION (CRONY Capitalism) Not Honest morally ethical Businesses.

Rand should have known better, Unless confronted with physical harmful intent, one does not have the right to kill another...can't get any simpler than that.