Furthermore, the ARI's endorsement of war is inconsistent with Objectivism as I understand it, and I know of few Objectivists that consider themselves ideologically in league with the ARI. Most Objectivists are pretty independent.
There's a common mistake that people make-- confusing a belief with a person. This is useful for people who want to smear Ayn Rand-- as they can then attack her by claiming that someone who funded an institute with her name on it held some political position at some point in time. As the starter of this thread did.
Peikoff does this by trying to advocate a belief system based on Rand's opinions, rather than her philosophy. Thus he would reach conclusions that are wrong.
In any debate these days, if your opponent is talking about ARI, "Ayn Rand" or Peikoff or other associates, they are being disingenuous, as far as I'm concerned.
Ayn Rand had lots of opinions. I disagree with many of them. Not ONE of those opinions is relevant to what objectivism is.
If anyone wants to debate objectivism, please read Atlas Shrugged. And then make a logical argument based on what the philosophy actually says.
I wasn't willing to spend a penny either to see a movie made by Snider or Spielsberg
I like how remaining (apparently) ignorant of the philosophy you're attacking is somehow an example if ideological purity.
Spielberg wasn't involved with the movie, by the way!
Read Atlas Shrugged. And do so with an open mind, understanding that Rand was a libertarian who was angry at the massive human destruction she witnessed in the USSR. Do that, and then come back here and talk about "her own words"-- and be able to make arguments based on what she actually said.
Your interpretation of the video in the first post is... nonsense.
As far as Rand goes I wish she was alive today to experience this time. Im willing to bet she would have been wonderful to have around. I don't think she would have approved of peikoffs behavior and may have beat him for it. Word is she was a cruel mistress.
Look at how she talked about Goldwater-- the Ron Paul of his time, and the last libertarian conservative (eg: non-neocon):
http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/goldwater.html
I'm done after watching 10 sec of him opening his mouth, the guy sounds like an immoral scum to me.
I believe in sanctity of innocent human life and that people of all races are equal.
If you really believe in the sanctity of human life, and you know what life is, then you're an objectivist.
Unless, of course, by "sanctity" you mean that in the "pacifistic" way, which says that every man is a slave to any other man who will wield a club to attack him.
I think if you give Atlas Shrugged an honest reading, you'll be surprised. It presents a philosophy that supports libertarian values.
Why people listen to Ayn Rand when there is Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson two completely superior women, I have no idea.
You mean they were better looking? Maybe. The weird thing is, you seem to presume that there is something wrong with reading Rand. The reason people read Atlas Shrugged is that they gain a great deal from it.
Do you know of another work of philosophy that supports libertarianism to a greater degree? IF so, tell us about it.
Objectivists tend to be dicks.
I've seen 100 people insulting objectivists, like you just did, for every objectivist I've seen insulting others. I don't see objectivists running around libertarian forums calling ron paul supporters dicks.... because the objectivists recognize that Ron Paul is probably the most ideal candidate running.
Why do you feel comfortable calling people names? Or making such a broad generalization against a group of people who adhere to a libertarian philosophy?
I'm used to leftist hatred of objectivism and Ayn Rand. They hate her because she demolished collectivism.
Also, as a fan of Ayn Rand, I say Peikoff and Yaron Brooks are morons who don't get Objectivism.
I'd add Ayn Rand to that list, but then, that's just because I hold her to a higher standard.
A key perspective of objectivism, however, is that you have to make up your own mind, based on your best judgement and understanding of the facts.
Ayn Rand was a nutcase. She took libertarianism to an extreme that goes beyond what would create a healthy society. She believed that alturism was a human weakness. MAD as a box of frogs.
Your use of the word altruism is at best, imprecise. I suspect you don't actually know what Ayn Rand believed, or what her philosophy says.
Yet you feel comfortable making these broad, disparaging, characterizations.
