Actually, if I remember correctly, Rand thought Robin Hood was immoral and criticized those who used his story (or myth) to justify initiation of force by taxation. Am I remembering correctly?

I don't think so. Compulsory taxation is necessary for the existence of the State. The State is necessary to enforce and protect liberty. Therefore, compulsory taxation is necessary to support liberty. However, compulsory taxation that takes from one person and gives to another person is theft and the improper use of force. The only legitimate function of compulsory taxation is to pay for the essential functions of government in a free society. It needs to be compulsory because if it is not, those who give money to the state control it, to the detriment of those who do not; or those who give more to the state control it to the detriment of those who give less.

Remembering that the root of the term "fan" is fanatic, which carries with it an obsession with blind absolutism and condemnation of any deviation as heresy, then I have to say I guess I don't qualify as a "fan". I admire Ayn Rand's clarity of thought, and ability to reduce deliberately confused political dogma to simple, understandable language. Her insistence on Aristotelian questioning to clear the fog and reveal the unpleasantness of statism helped me better appreciate the brilliance of the Founders of American government in focusing on the rights of the individual. My disagreements with her come from her insistence on Atheism (which I find odd, since she was a victim of the Atheistic Soviet state apparatus), since I personally find it easy to separate my spiritual beliefs from my pragmatic daily actions. I enjoy the serious, sincere exchange I find in the Gulch, and hope it serves to aid more people to apply rational self interest to their actions.

jimslag, you express my feelings well. See my post about the purpose of the Gulch. I can argue with Progressives anywhere (which I don't; it's a waste of time); I come to the Gulch for other reasons

Khalling, that is exactly what I have observed

Most off the Wall comments probably come from non producers. I enjoy the books enjoyed the movie mostly and on occasion enjoyed some of the commentary. But like most public forums you will get a mix of people who come from the full spectrum of thought from supporters of ELF to the KKK and everything in between. So I take most with a grain of salt will renew my membership when it comes due, and hope next time when they make a movie they stick with the previous cast. What made Atlas I and Atlas II was the acting made up for the lack of or cheesy special effects. But this is about ideas and growth not base entertainment.

I am a huge fan, however; having said that, ANYONE who enters here, and is REALLY interested in what is being said for the purposes of "bolstering" their argument or debate I am all for that.

Sun Tsu, "The Art of War" , "Know your enemy and know yourself and you will always be victorious."

When the "Enemy" i.e. emotion enters and starts to debate, they will lose, since emotional arguments are based neither on reason nor fact. I personally encourage any left leaning liberal to provide an actual debate on the topic without trying character assassination or name calling.

Once the thread degrades to name calling, the one party has lost since that is not reason.

Edweaver asked also how can a fan of Ayn Rand vote progressive. The answer to me is simple, and can equate to Religion or any other firmly held "belief." The question is answered with another question.

"How much do you believe, or ascribe to?"

LIke many "false Christians" they pick and choose only the parts of the Bible that appeal to them and justify those they do not agree with by claiming that particular part is outdated.

MUslims are the same way, how much of their Quran do they REALLY believe, and does that make them a "good" Muslim if they do not follow 100% of their self-proclaimed belief?

Ayn Rand followers can also be the same way. Some pick and choose only those parts they like while disregarding the rest.

Some like the story are a fan only for the sake of the quality of the stories not for the actual practice of being an Objectivist.

Ironically and from my understanding the "true" Objectivist is exceptionally tolerant of any and all opposing or different views provided they do not prevent me or you from believing and practicing according to our reasonable understanding. Very much similar to a fundamental Libertarian.

Anyone who enters I encourage to use reason, thought and FACT to make the point, and provide some semblance of PROOF when making an argument and avoid the "emotional" responses.

I really enjoyed Ayn Rands interview with Phil Donohue. She remained logical, while Phil became emotional and lost his argument at every turn. The same thing happened in his interview with Milton Freeman.

It is sort of like Libertarianism, I agree with the principle but not all the ideas. With Ms. Rand, I agree with the principle of what has been written and espoused by her but there are some sticking points that do not sit well with me. As for the Gulch, well, like most people, I like to deal with people who have some of the same ideals as me. Some of us are tired of fighting battles with individuals who are are the opposite side of those ideals (Liberals and Progressives) that seem to populate most cities and governments. It is nice to able to hold an intelligent conversation with someone who understands where you are coming from, instead of an antagonistic argument.

Very well said Zenphamy. Well Done !!

His goal is often to be confusing and to conflate arguments.
This leaves participants frustrated and often those conversations stop. What is your definition?

Robbie has stridently refused to read one sentence on his own of Rand. Yet he ie in here mis stating her arguments and the philosophy on a regular basis. He does enjoy the Conservative interaction. And enjoys making his religious arguments on almost every post. Why? He 's got a mission that is counter -productive to the site 's mission.

Plus 1

Rand was clear on taxation. See "Government Financing in a Free Society" in _The Virtue of Selfshness_. Note, however, that that was projection to a context that we do not have: we are not in a free society, but in a mixed economy. In that same context, Rand was equivocal on other issues, such as working for the government, taking government subsidies, and (in her time) not surrendering in Viet Nam, though she was opposed to our being there in the first place. Not everything is easy to parse. You have to know the context. That is the difference between an Objectivist and an Absolutist.

The same label has been attached to you, and to me. Pot, kettle, and all that. The word has meaning and does not apply to CG, you, or me. It is an easy way to denigrate the opinions of someone you do not agree with.

Circuit Guy is just a man who thinks for himself. He enjoys the consonance when others agree with him; but he holds his ground when they do not. He is not alone in that. He just has a different set of disconnects with your expectations. You tolerate disagreements from some people, but not others. You are not alone in that, either.

I can. CG and I have chatted via email. He seems easy enough to understand.

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.c...

Many Ayn Rand fans do not understand her philosophy. They haven't chewed on and digested essential ideas. Even the Objectivist ethics baffles many younger or more careless readers (of whom I was one for years). It's a revolutionary philosophy which takes years of study and practice.

I suppose several enemies of Objectivism have invaded the Gultch (though I've had no encounters I'm aware of) just as several fanatical Muslims have crawled into Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs.

In capital letters, TROLL.

Indeed!

Yes. Compulsory taxation is theft and improper use of force.

I'm not much into celebrity, but her ability to cut through the fog and eloquently write about and speak of and even fictionalize philosophy, and her development of a philosophy that places the individual, rationality, reality, and personal achievement on the proper stage of a logical and reasoned method to think about and live one's life while interacting with society maintaining one's personal objectives and morality with integrity are all something I admire tremendously.

Huzzah! beautifully said.

"avid" fandom and "rabid" fandom are, as you say, not the same thing. I think that your zeal doesn't "make" you be rude to the rabid fan; I think, like many of us, a shout and a walk about the block is sometimes necessary. Not really being able to do that, some move to rudeness to get others to BACK OFF. Don't be too hard on yourself.