I found it particularly amusing and appalling that the author is a salesperson, and was attempting to state why Objectivism was not an appropriate moral guide for those in sales. With his #7 "Facts do NOT trump feelings, wishes, hopes, and fears," he comments, "Emotion trumps reason every time..." All I can think of is the stereotypical used car salesman taking advantage of customers by preying on their "feelings, wishes, hopes and fears" rather than giving them the FACTS about the car they're considering buying. I'm currently rereading AS (sixth time? seventh?) and was struck by this passage in Galt's speech: "I do not surrender my reason or deal with men who surrender theirs. I have nothing to gain from fools or cowards; I have no benefits to seek from human vices: from stupidity, dishonesty or fear." What a contrast in perspective. Would you rather buy a used car from John Galt or the author of that article?

I certainly don't consider myself a conservative. I did not miss the point of Objectivism. I disagree with one of its premises.

Hello Mitch,
I always wonder whether these hit pieces are simply misguided emotional outbursts or if there is some ulterior motive.
The article is rubbish, but the comments are priceless.
Respectfully,
O.A.

Being drunk is no excuse. You are right. Not even an inappropriate comment. The Scandinavians have a saying "That which is said while drunk, was thought of before while sober".

I accidentally read this in class and busted up laughing, hard. When I showed my classmate, he looked at me as he thought it was true. Alas! The plight of the ignorant intelligent!

The aspect that has has the strongest attraction to me, are the arguments and descriptions for Objective Morality that Objectivism advocates. Everything else, other than the metaphysics and epistomology that form the basis of those ethics seems either just a detail or a consequence. The fact that everything we should do, should be driven by considerations that enhance our life and/or existence, makes Objectivism a topic of which I intend to remain a student of, in spite of my middle age.

entertaining

Far from getting upset with the first point I was amused because the author also reveals himself as a nitwit...he states...... "Just like Marxism, in the real world, produced the Soviet system in Russia, the real world implementation of laissez-faire capitalism, led by Rand-disciple Greenspan, produced the great recession" .......I don't know about the rest of you but I'd take the Great Recession over 75 years of destitution oppression an outright murder under communism in the Soviet Union any day of the week. In point of fact the Great Recession was caused by government intervention into laissez-faire capitalism. To equate the two is completely ridiculous.

As an Objectivist position - reason is required for basic human survival. When you remove reason by screwing with your brains capacity to make rational reasonable decisions - how do you know you will not make what should be important decisions? You are inherently unable to make reasoned decisions. That's why people drive drunk, abuse their kids, cheat on spouses, etc... Drunk or high should be the essence of what an Objectivist would not want - as it taints real reason and that is very against the idea of Objectivism. I would not be inclined to tell someone they cannot partake in alcohol or even mild drugs - so long as it is not to the point of hindering the normal ability to reason. For heavier drugs that are highly addictive and almost certainly cause lack of ability to reason properly, a rational reasonable person should not take them in the first place.

+1

The Gulch is a special case in the evolution of Objectivism within society because of the Atlas Shrugged * movies. The films attracted conservatives. The Gulch actually has very few Objectivists. It has few who are seeking new ideas. Overwhelmingly, Gulchers have their minds made up. As noted in the comments following, they became conservatives when they got old. Remember that Ayn Rand defined the movement as explicitly not "conservative." *We are radicals for capitalism," she said. Radicalism does not appeal to old people.

How many people here finally got over believing in God because of the works of Ayn Rand? We have atheists, but they came here that way.

With young people, they struggle with new ideas, explore new concepts, grapple with challenges.

We do not get that here much.

Agree. BT

There's nothing wrong with drink or even drugs, within safety limits. Just be responsible about them, and don't make important decisions while drunk or high.

Reason is a great and unmatched tool. But it doesn't need to be the only one in people's toolboxes.

Yes. People are beginning to become curious about Rand, slowly but surely.

I'm pretty sure the only thing that Ayn Rand ever got wrong was that "cigarettes aren't harmful". That's the only thing I can find. Objectivism is sound and valid, always will be. I almost read this article but then I realized there was no point. I've already logically validated Rand. There is no argument that can refute what I know to be true.

I happen to think that one thing that we can do is point out the failures of socialist programs. They get a free ride on failures all the time, blaming them on not enough money. We should bring the failures to light. I HOPE that Trump will assist in this by saying what he thinks and not letting people muzzle him with political correctness.

We can only "lose" by default..................should we fail, reality/existence will extract the price............."if
one tries to wipe out reality, reality will wipe out the wiper". We are making progress, but philosophical change is slow...........the more Objectivism penetrates the culture, the more screams, rants, crying tantrums, etc. we will hear.............even this kind of article may spark some to investigate and discover Objectivism.

I knew the article was in trouble when I was CBS, they never understand anything! Then as I read each point, I saw a poor little guy who is defeated before he even tries to approach the grown up world of Rand. He does not begin to understand the philosophy nor business. In logic =, we were taught that you do not attack the one who delivers the message, that is an error of its own. OK, Rand was not perfect, but that does not discredit her philosophy. Marx was far from perfect, but this guy likely would likelystand up for Marxism. Being true to the self, what is it that people cannot undertand about that. When you do what is best for you, if it truly is, then it is also best for others, if you act according to the principals of Objectivism. It was clear this guy was raised on the, "There is no I in team" garbage, stay true to peers, and what, you end up a dope head! If everyone agreed with what he says, business would soon cease to be mutually beneficial to all, in fact, it would cease to function at all. Grernspan was early on a disciple of Rand, but he did not stay true to her principals nearly as much as he did to the FED and the CFR. This guy needs to be tutored by Thomas Sowell.