[discostu]

You misunderstand. The quote you provided gave a nice succinct definition of how Rand saw people, the actions of Billy and the Dems shows that's not how people are, at least not a rather significant percentage of them. If that's the foundation point for all her other stuff then much of it just won't cut it out here in the real and gritty world. It would be nice if it did, it would be great if her view of people was accurate, but it's not.

As for happiness and ethics what I was saying was that how Dems define their own happiness isn't really ethical. Unless you've got some new exciting definition of the word that includes getting BJs from interns while sending troops to their possible death. I'm not saying that seeking happiness is innately unethical, just that what makes some people happy is distinctly unethical.

[thinktwice]

If that's the foundation point for all her other stuff then much of it just won't cut it out here in the real and gritty world. It would be nice if it did, it would be great if her view of people was accurate, but it's not.

Ayn Rand's ideal human is the heroic human with a disciplined (that means using reason) mind. Rand's unideal person is the depraved human, one that follows without leading, one that parrots others without thinking, one that takes without achieving.

So you're right, Rand's stuff won't cut it with most people, especially that 43% of Americans voting for evil in every election.

[weikel]

She only says that some people are horoic beings a lot have the nature of the looter.