Nate H

I had already come over to the side of Howard Roark and had dropped altruism (and socialism) and the denigration of selfishness by the time I read the text just quoted. After absorbing all of Rand’s writings, I think your question reasonable to remain. Your question is a very good one. It is broad and rich. I have chased it a long time. I will try to say more soon. Again, welcome. Thanks for sharing that with me. I noticed that the same people who support altruism in my classes are the socialists. One girl went out and got drunk, then was not allowed to debate at the next tournament. She gathered the team together and explained to them why her actions were so selfish and she was not thinking of us. However, she had sacrificed something she really wanted to do (debate at districts) for something she didn't want to do as much (get drunk). Her doing such was entirely consistent with her ethics, I noticed.

So you're essentially saying that man should be free to follow his reason and logic, simply because that's his nature as man. To do otherwise is to reduce him to what an animal is. And if man is free to make conclusions from his experience and logic, he would recognize that life is the best virtue, and that the furthering of his life is his highest moral purpose, that nature demands that he be selfish? ' I expect you to eliminate your competition and then stand another 20 minutes telling me why you're right. I won't accept an ethics of rational self interest simply because I cannot prove altruism by the standards of reason. Egoism and self-interest will be proven and altruism will be disproven before I accept selfishness.

Fair enough. I've never studied philosophy before.

Well, the first question I have is the fact that in her "Essays" book, Ayn Rand suggests that government finance in a free society would not come from taxes, but from things such a lotteries, user fees, or a charge for the government to 'uphold' your contract, all of which are voluntary. Then she states in education that you should be able to get a tax write-off if you fund your own or someone else's education. This would break up the government's monopoly on education (it seems very similar to a voucher system to me). However, this suggestion is for a 'mixed economy', not her ideal situation from what I gathered. In a fully free, Objectivist society, what would education look like? The second question is this: Let's say I create a pill that I say will help you sleep, but it ends up giving you cancer (theoretically). The person that consumed the pill files a court complaint that the creator of the pill has 'used force' against him, because he was not notified of the possible side effects. What would an objectivist court rule? What if the consumer had a side-effect of diabetes instead of cancer? Is someone really using force against you if they don't tell you of possible side effects in a voluntary trade?

All of the other paths in Ayn Rands philosophy I understand fairly well, except for this one. I have found some implicit examples in her books, but I have not come across any explicit examples. I also find it's easier to follow Nathaniel Braden's or Leonard Peikoff's logic for me personally. I've gone through the FAQ and I read the sticky at the top of this forum.