I think those are feints. He is clearly a troll

I thought that I did not care about philosophy because it was a waste of my time, thinking instead of doing, pontificating instead of producing. I will admit that the world seemed to be a very strange place and I did not think that I had very much in common with most people. My strategy was to pretend to go along, keep my thoughts to myself and see where it took me. The problem was that I was often out of step, resisting authority and disbelieving anything based on faith. Fortunately, being an only child, I was comfortable being alone.

One day an associate gave me a copy of Atlas and I said "damn, there it is. I am not alone."

A fan is not a sycophant. But if you are not interested in reason, then there is little to discuss.

None of us can.

I think you have to have said Hitler for Godwin's law to apply, but I'm no expert.

I call 'Godwin's law'.

Or want admittance...based upon the 'price'.

Yes. But he says some things that are in line with Rand. I just cannot understand where he is at.

Someone just voted down CG's intelligent question to 0.
Before I reverse this childish act, I will use this event to summarize where I am coming from: I am an avid "fan" of Ayn Rand, until my zeal makes me be rude to those that don't agree with everything that she wrote, and they are making sincere points of debate. Then I am ashamed, and don't think that being a rabid fan is all that much to be proud of.
Food for thought....

Robbie you don't agree with anything Rand said. You are a religious nazi who has no interest in reason.

e.g. circuit guy

me neither

"You need to be more explicit in Step 2." -- Sidney Harris on Creationism.

Mama Emma asserted: "But I think , as an example, that a person who believes it is ok to take from one man to give to another is not a fan of Rand." However, that bald statement lacks context. The easy agreement already from Robbie is evidence of the emotion. The fact remains that the CONTEXT is not defined. As Ayn Rand pointed out via Ragnar Danneskjoeld, that the real Robin Hood (if there was one) took from the thieving rich and gave to the productive poor.

So, it can be perfectly moral to take from one man and give to another.

"a person who believes it is ok to take from one man to give to another is not a fan of Rand."
Thanks for the interesting question in the OP. This thing about takings needs to be defined. Does this mean someone who supports compulsory taxes in any form cannot be a fan of Rand?

I hear you, MikeMarotta, but you are talking about details. I am sure I don't agree with everything Rand ever said; I am a fan, not a worshiper. But I think , as an example, that a person who believes it is ok to take from one man to give to another is not a fan of Rand.

Excellent question. I am definitely a fan and I am enjoying learning more and more about Objectivism. Within certain parameters I think Ayn Rand welcomed honest and reasoned debate. If you stray beyond those parameters, and don't use reason, she seemed to have little patience for that.

That depends on what you mean by "fan." I certainly consider myself one, owning at least 25 of the nearly 60 books written by and about her. I first read _Anthem_ in 1966. I took the "Basic Principles" class 1966-1967. I just finished reading Adam Reed's essay on Objectivist Epistemology and Object Oriented Programming. So, I take this all very seriously - and far beyond politics.

There, however, you will find many here who agree with and appreciate much of Ayn Rand's work but who came to it all late in life when their own personalities, morals, and convictions were shaped. So, they find easy agreement with her denunciations of socialism. However, they may not agree with her claim that religion and faith are destructive, both of personality and of civilization; or that an embryo or fetus is not a human being; or that World War II was not noble and glorious; or that Ronald Reagan was not a consistent advocate of freedom; or that a woman should not want to be President of the United States; or that Beethoven's music is malevolent and anti-life; and so on.

Indeed, I listen to Beethoven; and I think that a woman has as much right and reason to be President as a man. But I still consider myself a fan of Ayn Rand.

So, perhaps Mama Emma, you might explain what you mean by the question.

That is a good question that I would like to understand. I would also like to know how a fan of Ayn Rand can vote progressive.