Me who am His Excellency Dino Philosoraptor Allosaurus Esquire BS designates you who art known as one A Genius is hard to be humble when you are perfect in every way.
And anyone who disagrees with me is to be henceforth automatically cancelled as a racist filled with other socially unacceptable phobias of every shape and form.

Examples of most threads being anti -individual please , besides Abortion. With abortion it could be considered anti unborn individual.

This essay is the baseline for Objective thought and behavior. It is found within The Virtue of Selfishness book.
Almost everyone discounts this essay as the primary for understanding. Try not to get dragged down in the vocabulary.

Hard to say whether they made sense individually or not. Sometimes, once you know something, it's impossible to UN-know it. And thus, that makes it hard to assess fairly. As you know, it's a LONG book, and to tell the whole story was an enormous job. Trying to put it all into one movie would require them to omit more of the book than they already did. Many people think they did a horrible job of it.... I think they could have done better but it was an honest effort and they tried, against huge odds. They were trying to be as faithful as they could to the original book, but you know that's really hard to do, given that it's hard to get money for a project like that.

One of the most jarring aspects was that the characters were not consistent through the three episodes. That's because, of course, the producers and financiers simply couldn't commit to the expense of hiring all those actors for three movies, and the actors couldn't wait around, hoping to pick up the next gig, mainly because they couldn't be sure there'd even BE a next gig.

If you have Amazon Prime, the three movies are free to watch there. I saw them in the movie theatre, but I think you can get a real sense of them by watching them online or on your TV.

I thought the term was ethical self-interest.

Well, regarding, mhubb's comment, Henry Ford was an avowed antisemite, and any positive comments about him must not lose sight of that salient fact.

Also, the first automobile production line was invented by Ranson Olds, and not Henry Ford as many believe.

I wonder why they split it into 3 movies? It seems like it would be rather jagged that way. Did the individual movies make any sense?

I didn't like We the Living as much as The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

More books for my TBR.

Thanks. Adding lots to my TBR.

You said: "The Francisco d’Anconia money speech explains it way better." Would I be a terrible traitor to John Galt if I said what's been on my mind for years..... Francisco's money speech is FAR superior to John Galt's end of book speech. And, truth be told, I thought Francisco's character was far more appealing than John Galt's, and I was disappointed that Dagny didn't stay with him. I realize that would not have served the narrative, but I don't have to serve the narrative; Ayn Rand did.

Also, I'll have to say that I was very disappointed in the way Francisco's speech was handled in the movie series (barely at all), and I was not thrilled with the actors chosen to portray Francisco, either, among others. This is one of the downsides of reading a book and then watching a movie. It definitely did not fit with the movie already running in my head.

Wow! You are in for a treat.
The Return of the Native
Philosophy, who needs it
Capitalism, an Unknown Ideal.
We the Living
The Virtues of Selfishness (clears the air on altruism)
Objectivism
The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged is so close to today's reality, I almost consider them non-fiction

There you go, using that R word again....giggle

A great post, sound question. I posted elsewhere, but I'll refer you to Rand's; The Objectivist's Ethics for the baseline of that.

Oh, sounds good. Thanks!

First, we separate business and abortion.
Objectivism holds: Values and, subsequently morality, are solely based upon mortality.
That which is [for] life, by nature and nurture is good. That which is against life is evil.

Life has certain characteristics, defined by science [objectively] of which self-sustained metabolism and procreation are maxims [irrefutable]
Mutually agreed upon procreation for humans is [for] life. Hedonism and rape are irrespective of objectivity toward life.
A lack of respect toward life is evil.

Those who would practice hedonism (male and female) and rape (male) deserve no public support, yet I propose penalty, as vermin can overbreed resources.
In the instance of rape; female choice is optional. Abortion is anti the aggressor [male] life and the force that was initiated. Male life to be terminated as disease of cancer would. Do not let anti-life infect the culture. I will publicly support the child as long as the male is terminated.

In the instance of hedonism; choice of life, procreative couple to raise child. The choice of not to raise a child results in termination of the couple and public adoption of the child.

It's simple; no sport fucking no problems.

Institute this as policy and the potential of violation will drop to near zero. And a culture will ensue toward healthier relations.

I agree that an Objectivist should not need a political party in theory. But we have two parties that do not believe in individual rights. I do agree that the site is very civil. That is why I enjoy it so much.

Since when am I not "perfect".
Geez, you go a day without reading The Gulch and am now regulated as "imperfect".
Signed: A Genius

Ok with gharkness, disagree with 25n56il4.

Yes, I have read many of Rand's works.
While I believe in Laissez-Faire, I have traveled a slightly different path than Rand.
"Big Business"? Any exchange of value between two honest individuals is a good thing. "Money/value" is like electricity, it is only good when it is moving.
Abortion? This is a hard one. Apparently, Rand has a valid point in determining that every human being has a valid reason to exist and think. This is of course, non-debatable. But when does any being become living? Someone is not considered dead until their heart, not their brain, stops. Using that standard, does it not seem plausible that a yet-to-be-delivered human is not also alive when its heart begins beating, at about 7 weeks?
Is the delivery of a gestating human the lone action that places a stamp of HUMAN on its validity? Is the passage through a cervix the same as the passage through the "Pearly Gates"? (just had to). Would this then equate "Saint Peter" to "Margaret Sanger"? Who gets in (SP) or out (MS) and who goes on to "hell"
"Rand" helps clear my thinking. I rely on her rationale, but I retain the concept that the existence with a beating heart inside of a perfectly designed natural incubation chamber (mother's womb) is not also a human. Just at an age of seven weeks.

That depends wholly upon how one defines that term.

I haven't delved into her non-fiction, but I'm getting ready to.

The problem with Libertarians is that a lot of people see them as gun-wielding kooks (not saying I agree--I tend to fall into the Libertarian portion of the political spectrum). And right now the only viable political parties are Republican and Democrat. I expected the extreme end of the Republican Party splitting off into a third party when the Tea Party movement started, but it hasn't happened yet. Would be nice to see a viable third party. It's so frustrating not really fitting with either.

Yes. All of her fiction, and most of her non-fiction. Multiple times. I appreciate your having asked this question.

My body, my choice! You say!
Of course!
Yes, but what is the proper choice?
The proper choice is to protect your body from an unwanted pregnancy!
Make that choice before you take your clothes off!
To fail to make that proper choice is to be personally, grossly irresponsible!
Exceptions apply when the pregnancy is due to rape or incest and, in those
cases, earnest attempts should be made to achieve an embryo transfer or
an adoption to a woman seeking a child. Another exception would be in the
case where the embryo is not viable.