"it's a term used by brutal and selfish people to make them believe their behaviors are perfectly okay."

I take exception to that, my feelings about being Objective stem from a deep concern for others. I"m so concern about how I interact with others that I choose to be honest and forthright with myself and with them. If not being touchy feelly/ passive-agressive doesn't suit that person then I can only appologize for not playing games and saying what I really mean.

Now I wouldn't know Ayn Rand if she showed up at my house but wouldn't the world be a little better if we all said what we meant, if we acted in a way that honored honesty, or if we were realistic with our environment instead of burying our head in the sand and numbing ourselves with television?

Imagine buying everything at fair value, being paid what you're worth, or hearing the truth about the possibilities for improvement. Imagine how much less complicated your life could be if you practiced being objective and others around you did the same.

This is what objectivism means to me.

>it's a term used by brutal and selfish people to make them believe their >behaviors are perfectly okay.

Alright, I see a lot of people being way to 'nice' to this kind of comment. Even for those Rand diehards, they will understand that use of force is unreasonable unless used as a response to force from another. Throwing out negatively connotated statements such as those I view as a hostile attempt to slander - so let's address just those comments. First with 'selfish'...

Perhaps you shouldn't have stopped with just Fountainhead and Shrugged and perhaps delved into some of the more clinical works on the subject of objectivism such as the 'virtues of selfishness'. One of Rand's main themes, as well as that of objectivism is that 'selflessness' as a form of sacrifice is insanity. So tell me then in a reasonable fashion what you find so wrong with being selfish? Mind you, the objectivist notion of 'selfish' does not mean you take things from others - it means you keep what is yours and you only part with what is yours for equal value in exchange. A=A

With that, let's go to brutal. What is brutal at all here? If you are saying selfishness is brutal, then read the above paragraph and answer that same question - what is wrong with being selfish? Another key facit of objectivist philosophy is the concept of 'egoism' - and it is important to understand the semantical differences between 'egoism' and that of 'egotism'. Perhaps what you have either done is met an egotistical person claiming to be an objectivist? (or more likely, you met a true 'egoist'-ical objectivist and found it offensive that they weren't interested in giving you the time of day if you had nothing to offer them, and judging by what I see in your post and that review you link to, I can't say as of yet I would blame anyone meeting that description)

I went and read your 'review' as well - although it read more like a selective plagarism until the last three paraphraphs wherein you simply summarized plot points and included a few excerpts until the very end. It was also difficult to read as the sentence structure seem to hiccup and burp a few times throughout.

I'd like to address some of those points you made in those last commentary paragraphs as well - from an objectivists perspective. Here's where I am being nice and truly trying to be educational - even though my opinion about the hostile nature of your original post still applies:

>First, can you really be assured that any drive you have is best?

The whole point basically goes back to 'egoism' - if you understand that an egoist perspective says that we all do things for our own reasons and in our own best interest, then it stands to reason that the relevancy of those things we do also reflect directly back on us. We benefit most from our own choices and decisions, we loose the most from our own failures. Can I really be sure that any drive I have is best? For you? no. For the rest of the world? nuh uh! For me? Hell yeah and no one else can do ANYTHING to assure me that 'their' drive is best for 'me' unless it is part and parcel with my own drive or intention.

>If the thing you enjoy most is to cut down trees, shouldn't you assess
>whether it would be best for others if, say, you stopped cutting down
>trees before you've razed the whole forest?

To this I would comment on both the 'value for value' and a notion I think you seem to be missing that is core to the teachings of Rand as well as the fundamentals of objectivist epistymology. That being 'reason'. It would not make logical sense to cut down an entire forest under most circumstances. An objectivist would not do something unreasonable or unearned. So your analogy focuses on a 'biased' notion of what 'selfishness' actually means when phrased as an objectivist virtue. (again, read the 'virtue of selfishness')

> Or what if you're joy comes from being a soldier: is that really a skill
>you should "give" to your community?

People do it all the time. But again, your analogy lacks 'logic' and 'reason' - soldiering is not an activity that logically 'fits' in a picket fence community. Soldiering is something to do in a war zone. A true objectivist would find no value in 'soldiering' through suburban Rochester neighborhoods, so you don't have to worry about hiding from any that might be headed your way.

> Second, what if you don't know what your passion is?
> [tribulations deleted]

That sounds like a personal issue. Rand's example of a person with a passion for a particular field are just that - examples. I know many people who have great objectivist perspectives on things who don't necessarily have a specific passion or expertise. Myself included.

>Finally, is there a place for consensus at all?
> [..] And what of diplomacy
>of finding that which is the greatest benefit to all parties involved?
>Is that not just pure altruism?

Of course there is room for consensus. But consensus should not by some undefined 'right' of the governing be able to 'demand' individual sacrifice. As our society stands, obviously this is the case. We are all 'required' to pay taxes - try not paying some time and see what kind of response will eventually catch up with you.
Galt's Gulch was not built by a bunch of people completely shut off from their neighbors - the difference is that people treated each other with respect and thereby got respect in return. They offered other's fair and equal value and thereby got fair and equal value in return.
Altruism denotes 'sacrifice'. Sacrifice and altruism is when there is a notion of 'duty' or 'requirement' to give without receiving equal value. To place such a requirement or expect such a duty is irrational, unreasonable and immoral in my own humble opinion. Yet it happens every day.

It is very easy to mistake 'self-interest' and 'self-motivation' as conciet or arrogance. I actually get a laugh when I run into people that don't fully understand it. And an even bigger laugh when I run into those people in the public eye who do. (I don't know if Tom Leykus is an objectivist or labels himself as one, but I love when someone asks "how are you?" and his response is a cynical "do you care?")

TreII28