re: #704 Dan G.

Dan, here is the sequence where Ayn Rand came up:

re: #670 Dan G.

THAT is a different problem altogether, that leads to this problem we are currently discussing (i.e. force people to have insurance so that we can maintain a subsidy program). I believe that such programs are inappropriate, it is a moral issue in that one should not be held responsible for the maintanance of another’s life, unless he/she chooses to. To clarify a seeming contradiction, rearing children or adopting them is a different case based on the fact that children are not mature (biologically/mentally) human beings, the same would apply after one chose/committed themselves to caring for a mentally debilitated individual. In these cases, one is responsible for either caring for, or finding suitable care.

re: #681 austin_blue

I think the moral issue is that this country was founded on a social contract that, as the preamble states, is to support “the common good”. In this modern time, the common good is to ensure that all citizens of this country are fed, clothed, sheltered, educated, and healthy. That gives them all the opportunity to achieve. You apparently disagree, with this Ayn Rand guff. The Virtue of Selfishness is at direct odds with the Founder’s philosophy.

re: #682 iceweasel

The Virtue of Selfishness is crap calculated to promote an ‘ethic’ which is overwhelmingly appealing to the adolescent and the the morally inferior: it pretends to find a a deep philosophical justification for taking what you want when you want from whoever you want, and explains to you that it’s really altruism that’s bad and that true strength and virtue consists in doing whatever the fuck you want whenever you want.

It’s a codification of all our basest desires and attempts to justify them.

BTW, I misread ‘philosophy’ above when I read your comment as ‘pornography’. And I’m not even drunk. How are you, austin?

re: #687 Dan G.

That is an outright lie! The ethics of rational self interest, as stated in “The Virtue of Selfishness” does not contain a single sentence that supports that allegation. Have you read it? All interactions between individuals that occur via volitional trade are what is considered the only moral means of dealing with other individuals; forcibly taking “whatever the fuck you want whenever you want” is precisely what altruists do (welfare, Medicaid, etc…). Nice projection and nice display of a complete lack of integrity (speaking of morally inferior) you obviously haven’t read the book.

So there we have it. While it was austin who first brought up Rand and iceweasel who went on to criticize Rand’s ideas, you were the one who hurled an personal insult. You would have done better to simply argue things on the merits of the ideas in question or simply state that you were reasoning from different points than Rand did. Instead, you got personal, and that was when I got involved.