She takes some interesting truths and then thinks the world can be guided by simplistic aphorisms, completely discounting the facts of the world in many cases, and completely ignoring human nature in others.

Objectivism is fundamentally flawed, and the fact that in it's premise is that reason is the only absolute path to knowledge while being so inconsistent in it's principles is mind-numbing. but Rational Self Interest and personal responsibility are. She simply makes the same false assumption that a lot of people make, which is that financial success is proof of some inherent worth or intelligence, when the truth is there are many paths to success.

the problem with Rational Self Interest is that for most it equals selfishness, even though John Nash Jr. proved that the most rational self interest is to increase the success of all members of the group, because the total success of the group will then improve, including the success of those at the top. It is better to make a bigger pie and share it with everyone when you are getting a percentage of the pie, than it is to take the biggest share of a small pie, I don't have all the math but it's pretty fundamental.

She also refuses to acknowledge that society is not "a bunch of individuals living near each other", but an entity which has it's own needs, sometimes in conflict with the "pursuit of happiness" of the individuals in it. Unregulated ANYTHING that intersects with society is bad for society, even when it is good for a subset of that society.

Full disclosure I only know about Rand from other people who have read her books. It just did not sound interesting to me. But I read the bible and that was mostly because I knew it was full of it. What you said does interest me. So maybe I should read and understand her a little better. It would take a lot less time than the bible.

It's the over-simplification, I think, that makes Ayn Rand's thesis so attractive to neocon economic fundamentalists. Like religious fundamentalists, they look for easy answers to difficult and complex questions. They both buy in to a mythology with a simple narrative based on false premises because it is easier than learning how the world really works.

I've dealt with too many objectivists to think of the entire philosophy as anything other than selfish, childish, abusive sociopathy. They were also all, to a being, horribly ablist. I refuse to have my worth as a human being reduced to how other people can use me.

When I was young far more open minded, I read her books. What I got out of them was a vague sense of personal responsibility for my destiny, and a huge sense of doing everything in my power stop the very poeple she penned as heros. My belief in working as hard as you can to build and maintain community was strengthened. My disdain for the Christian right movement was strengthened by her writing.

Any Rand, a Russian-American novelist, has been and still is Paul Ryan's mentor and inspiration for his style of government. Ayn Rand's ideals are what these people have been pushing for years. They may not speak her name much but they push her policies.

I think hardly anybody outside the US reads or cares about Rand. She's generally regarded as having made selfishness into a philosophy and dismissed on that account. Seeing her on film she appears fanatic and socially dysfunctional, if not actually sociopathic. I've found nothing to like, either in the woman or her thoughts, and I won't be reading her any time soon.

I loathe Rand. If I walk into someone's place and they have Rand on their shelf, then that is a huge red flag.

Some time ago a group known as the Brights started with meeting in some cities including Seattle. I discovered a lot of conservative atheists and was puzzled. One guy gave me "Atlas Shrugged" and said it was the greatest book ever written. I started and only got part way when I thought what was this guy smoking. I ended up reading the whole piece of trash and then wondered what I was smoking to read the whole thing?

I read all of Ayn Rand's major works back in the mid 1960s and found her interesting, but , in a way I could not identify at the time, somehow off-key. Over time, like you, I came to see that her main messages were (1)greed is good, (20 I have the freedom do what I want and no one has anything to say about it, and (4) all government is bad.

Her 'big two' were part of my undergrad reading along with 'zen and the art' and 'foucaults pendulum'... they were what the cool kids were reading. My maleable mind though I was awesome for reading them.. have reread them since and see now how self indulgent and impractical they are

Each does have a profound moment or two though

It is interesting, although not many admit to liking her. Ryan was kind of different in admitting that. I think they are either atheists in private or simply dismiss that aspect.

I read just enough of her work to recognize that I didn't admire her or agree with her.

Not a student of hers, but I've heard enough of her ideas espoused to know I'm not a fan, especially since the conservatives have taken her up.

Not a fan.