<“But she is astonished that Mulligan is charging John twenty-five cents to rent his car; she quickly learns that the word “give” is banned in the valley.’
That’s why I can’t stand this philosophy/book. The atheism! You’re politically incorrect if you “give” someone a ride.>
I’m afraid I don’t see what this has to do with not believing in a god. She is making the point that transfers of goods or services among free and independent individuals must be in the form of trades, either by barter, or through an intermediary such as a medium of exchange, in this case, gold. This can also, of course, involve a charitable emotion for one of the parties. Without that trade, and a coerced charity is not trade, the exchange can in effect only take place as a result of force.
Only if you have no right to your property can a coerced, uncompensated charity exist. I’ve often thought that the worst distortion of our moral education begins when we are admonished to share our toys in kindergarten, thereby teaching us that we have no property rights.
Kirk
I agree with you. And Rand's atheism hasn't seemed to be a factor in the story as much as it may be when she's discussing the straight philosophy in it's own regard (where her use of "rational thought" seems to carry hints that one should acknowledge nothing which is unproven).
But still, solid unbending objectivism could be nothing else, though that wouldn't necessarily exclude one from practicing morals and ethics like those taught in religion. And she may or may not have connected atheism with her other beliefs, I don't know. She must have known or expected her vision of society would have to be compatible with belief in God, since the vast majority of people do have some kind of religious beliefs.