[Am-info] Ayn Rand Institute?

[Mitch Stone]

Logical consistency is where you find it, I guess. Rand's rigid 
self-interest dogma led to some fairly bizarre conclusions. For example, 
the only kind of force seen as "objectively" unethical is physical 
force -- you should not beat money out of someone. But if you can swindle 
them out it, that's okay because it just indicates that you're smarter 
then they, and therefore more deserving. Think of it as social darwinism 
for nerds -- a human potential movement for people without a conscience.

I've developed a sort of acid test for people who claim to believe in 
objectivism. I ask them if they should be allowed to fire a gun into a 
crowded room, provided they don't hit anyone. This is precisely the sort 
of moral and ethical question Rand's philosophy can't resolve. If they 
hesitate in their response, prevaricate or change the subject, they 
probably recognize that all ethical issues can't be reduced to "objective"
  elements, and you might have something else to talk about. If they 
respond in the affirmative, I'd suggest steering a reciprocal course with 
all due haste.

On Monday, March 18, 2002, at 08:05 AM, Hans Reiser wrote:

> Wow.  Ok, it is logically consistent, I gotta give her that.  Wow. 
> Missing any concept of herd welfare.  Missing any concept of group 
> interest.  But internally logically consistent.....  I think she is a 
> holy woman.  Holy men are normally a bit batty, it is part of their role 
> of serving as lighthouses for the rest of us to navigate by....



   Mitch Stone
   mitch@accidentalexpert.com