“With Rand it seems that people demand all or nothing.”
Yeah, I notice that too. I think it’s because it shakes the faith of the relgious, so they attaqck disproportionately to convince themselves they haven’t been fed a crock of sh!t all their lives.
#39, son. And that’s the tip of the iceberg, where Rand’s irrationality is concerned.
Or conversely, it seems the non-religious tend to take Rand’s philosophy beyond the political realm and into being its own secular faith - with all the dogmatism and intransigence of any of the other secular faiths that have plagued the world for the last century - and that turns people off. It’s odd that Rand didn’t seem to like anyone in her lifetime - not Democrats, not Republicans, not Libertarians nor other 3rd partyers, both progressives and traditionalists were attacked with equal vehemence. When you declare war on the whole world, don’t be surprised if you’re left without too many allies and a whole lot of opposition.
Rand makes a perfect circle to describe the world.
Randians shout at her detractors, 'Aha! You don't like circles, what's wrong with you?'
And the detractors say, 'Nothing. But her circle is too damn small, you Nimrods.'
If you build a philosphy which contains as an axiom the preposition that altruism is bad, you might as well be fellating Nietzche.
Having eliminated alruism and sacrifice as a good, she then ignores how much it plays a role in the real world.
EPIC FAIL.
Cheers!