How NOT to promote Ayn Rand & Objectivism

Man scrawls world's biggest message with a GPS pen

One man drove 12,238 miles and across 30 states in the U.S. to scrawl a message that could only be viewed using Google Earth. His big shoutout: "Read Ayn Rand."

...

"The main reason I did it is because I am an Ayn Rand fan," he says. "In my opinion if more people would read her books and take her ideas seriously, the country and world would be a better place - freer, more prosperous and we would have a more optimistic view of the future."

So, to promote Ayn Rand, he used federal, taxpayer-funded highways and a federal, taxpayer-funded system of GPS satellites. What a parasite.



[edit on 8/13/10 by mothershipzeta]

Originally posted by mothershipzeta
So, to promote Ayn Rand, he used federal, taxpayer-funded highways and a federal, taxpayer-funded system of GPS satellites. What a parasite.

I'm confused. Being that we're forced at gunpoint to pay taxes, anything federal is public, and anything public belongs to him to use as well, even if he disproves of the methods used in order to bring that multi-ownership about.

Why shouldn't he use it?

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne

Originally posted by mothershipzeta
So, to promote Ayn Rand, he used federal, taxpayer-funded highways and a federal, taxpayer-funded system of GPS satellites. What a parasite.

I'm confused. Being that we're forced at gunpoint to pay taxes, anything federal is public, and anything public belongs to him to use as well, even if he disproves of the methods used in order to bring that multi-ownership about.

Why shouldn't he use it?

Because it's subsidized? Is he only using it to the extent that he has paid for it, or is he using ALL of it - including the parts paid for by much wealthier taxpayers?

By your rationale, people free to use as much unemployment, food stamps and so forth that they can because they have paid for it at some point. If you've had a job at some point in your life, you've contributed to unemployment insurance via your employer. Food stamps come from taxes that you pay as well. So no more complaining about parasites, then.

He could use toll roads, right? Isn't that Randian enough?

Either you're going to live by your principles or you aren't.

And "forced at gunpoint?" Captain Hyperbole to the rescue!

[edit on 8/13/10 by mothershipzeta]

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Because it's subsidized? Is he only using it to the extent that he has paid for it, or is he using ALL of it - including the parts paid for by much wealthier taxpayers?

And? So are farms. You still eat from them don't you? How do you know that you don't eat more than your fair share?

By your rationale, people free to use as much unemployment, food stamps and so forth that they can because they have paid for it at some point.

What other rationale is there? People who pay more get to use more? WTF is the point of taxing then? Just let people pay for it themselves (of which I am a fan being an anarchist).

If you've had a job at some point in your life, you've contributed to unemployment insurance via your employer. Food stamps come from taxes that you pay as well. So no more complaining about parasites, then.

Who's complaining about parasites? Well, I'm sure some people do. However, they're the symptom, not the problem. Hell, it's human nature to take as much as you can get. I don't blame them one bit.

He could use toll roads, right? Isn't that Randian enough?

He could, but then he'd just be paying for roads twice, and the only reason for toll roads are because they're faster to travel on. He needed exact routes. I wouldn't doubt that some of his paths were on toll roads.

Either you're going to live by your principles or you aren't.

Or die living them in a society that doesnt share your view. Great concept.

And "forced at gunpoint?" Captain Hyperbole to the rescue!

Freedom to Fascism

End.

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
I'm confused. Being that we're forced at gunpoint to pay taxes, anything federal is public, and anything public belongs to him to use as well, even if he disproves of the methods used in order to bring that multi-ownership about.

You are likely facetious here, but I'll comment anyway:

a) anything public belongs to him to use as well -- well, scratch "use" and substitute "misuse". Waste.

b) even if he disproves the methods -- clearly shows the lack of moral spine. He would disprove of the bank robbery, but would pick up the money bag the robbers dropped in a haste and avail himself to cash.

What a disgusting excuse of an individual.




[edit on 13-8-2010 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by buddhasystem

You are likely facetious here, but I'll comment anyway:

Partially.

a) anything public belongs to him to use as well -- well, scratch "use" and substitute "misuse". Waste.

Use-Misuse. Not really a difference, as that's all relative. We could debate all day about what is and isn't proper use of public property (in fact, we've been doing it for almost 100 years). It still does not negate the fact that if someone is forced to pay, then they deserve to get as much as they 'feel' they paid in.

b) even if he disproves the methods -- clearly shows the lack of moral spine. He would disprove of the bank robbery, but would pick up the money bag the robbers dropped in a haste and avail himself to cash.

What a disgusting excuse of an individual.

Sooo.....using public property that he helps pay for is like robbing a bank? WTF are you guys on? I honestly am always left baffled by these kinds of posts.

If someone does not want to pay taxes, he should not be able to use what said taxes pay for. If he is FORCED to pay those taxes, you can bet your ass he will take advantage of pot he has contributed to (and rightfully so). After all, if you were forced to pay for a pizza when you weren't hungry, wouldn't you try to get your slices anyway? It's the same logic. There is NO fault in this logic. It is how the world works. They only way to get rid of this behavior is to get rid of mandatory taxation. End of discussion.

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."

~Atlas Shrugged; by Ayn Rand~

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

~The Virtue of Selfishness; Ayn Rand~

It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.

~For the New Intellectual, from an essay called: The Soul of the Collectivist; Ayn Rand~

Man's unique reward, however, is that while animals survive by adjusting themselves to their background, man survives by adjusting his background to himself.

~For the New Intellectual; Ayn Rand~

People create their own questions because they are afraid to look straight. All you have to do is look straight and see the road, and when you see it, don't sit looking at it - walk.

~Ayn Rand~

Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.

~Ayn Rand~

So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of all money?

~Atlas Shrugged; Ayn Rand~

The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see.

~The Fountainhead; Ayn Rand~

The man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap.

~Galt's speech: For the New Intellectual; Ayn Rand~

The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

~Ayn Rand~

reply to post by mothershipzeta


He's getting the message out. She talking about how bad life was in Russia in 1915ish

Read it, if you want to know where we are headed.

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne

a) anything public belongs to him to use as well -- well, scratch "use" and substitute "misuse". Waste.

Use-Misuse. Not really a difference, as that's all relative.

Oh no no. Embezzlement is not OK. And that's what it was.

b) even if he disproves the methods -- clearly shows the lack of moral spine. He would disprove of the bank robbery, but would pick up the money bag the robbers dropped in a haste and avail himself to cash.

What a disgusting excuse of an individual.

Sooo.....using public property that he helps pay for is like robbing a bank? WTF are you guys on? I honestly am always left baffled by these kinds of posts.

Well yes I can see you are baffled. Unauthorized spending of money that other people paid just stinks, but you are OK with it. I pay local taxes and some of these were used to clean and restore the banks of a lake, but I'm not going to go pee into the lake just because there is my money in the project.

Do you even know who she was? born into a privileged world which went in the dumps as the Bolshevik's took place. Her most 'famous' atlas shrugged in conclusions is that if the rich elite stopped working for even a day the world will collapse, will it? Or is it when normal folk like you and I decide to stop working will the economy collapse? You choose.

Regards, Naeem

[edit on 3/9/2010 by naeem11111]

Originally posted by naeem11111
Do you even know who she was? born into a privileged world which went in the dumps as the Bolshevik's took place. Her most 'famous' book the virtue of selfishness in conclusions is that if the rich elite stopped working for even a day the world will collapse, will it? Or is it when normal folk like you and I decide to stop working will the economy collapse? You choose.

Regards, Naeem

Are you suggesting that Rands most famous book is The Virtue of Selfishness? That book is actually a collection of essays written by Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness being one of those essays, but what you have described is Atlas Shrugged, and if that is what you meant to reference, then your quotation marks around "famous" seems rather odd. In terms of that books fame:

According to a 1991 survey done for the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club, Atlas Shrugged was second to the Bible as the book that made the most difference in the lives of 5,000 Book-of-the-Month club members surveyed. Modern Library's 1998 three-month online poll of the 100 best novels of the 20th century found Atlas rated #1 although it was not included on the list chosen by the Modern Library panel of authors and scholars. The list was formed on 217,520 votes cast

And then there is this:

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 9, 2010 — We are pleased to report that the Ayn Rand page on Facebook has now been “liked” by more than 100,000 Facebook users. This places Ayn Rand’s page among the most-liked pages in the Writers category on Facebook.

www.facebook.com...

As to your assertion that the book concluded that if the "rich elite" stopped working for even day the world would collapse, this is not true. What the book concluded is that if the world's producers stopped producing the world would collapse. In fact, there are several "rich elite" in Atlas Shrugged who are by no means producers, and who pay the horrible price of leeching off the worlds producers, when those producers do go on "strike". I would argue that "normal folk" like you and I are, for the most part, those producers.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Sorry your right I mentioned the wrong book, let me put it this way:

Ayn Rand (originally Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum) was born in 1905 in Tsarist Russia to a well-off family. In 1925, she secured a visa to visit American relatives, and never returned to Russia (which had overthrown the tyrannical Tsarist regime in 1917 and brought Rand’s privileged world to an end, to her disgust).

Atlas Shrugged asks the question what would happen to the world if the global elite – the Old World Order (Rand doesn’t use this term, but it’s exactly what she means) – went on strike. Her conclusion is that the world would collapse. The world, Rand maintained, was full of "parasites", “looters” and “moochers” – the people who envy, resent and resist the OWO, and try to take, often by force (allegedly), what rightfully belongs to the OWO elite. Rand’s worldview is so obnoxious that she has been branded as one of the most evil figures of modern intellectual history. That reputation is fully deserved.

Rand was a fanatical advocate of unregulated, unrestrained free markets. "The market is infallible" was her mantra. We know exactly where Rand’s worldview gets us – the financial crisis we are enduring right now. For the last thirty years, the Old World Order have been able to do whatever they liked in terms of the “free market”. No controls were imposed, no brakes applied. We had unregulated markets in full flow – leading to the current disaster that has cost millions of people their jobs and livelihoods: it’s the “parasites, moochers and looters” i.e. the hardworking taxpayers of the world who are picking up the old world order’s tab.

The truth, of course, is the opposite of what Rand says. The Old World Order are not the agents of freedom and well-being but of global collapse. The ordinary people are having their massive potential ignored in order to feed the vanity of the few. Nothing is more unjust and inefficient than rule by narrow, corrupt elites.

Atlas Shrugged ends thus:

"'The road is cleared,' said Galt. 'We are going back to the world.' He raised his hand and over the desolate earth he traced in space the sign of the dollar."

This is perhaps the only book ever written that ends with the word "dollar". This book is nothing but the sanctification of earthly wealth. Rand called herself an atheist but in fact she worshiped Mammon, the god of this earth, the god of riches for the few. She detested the English folk hero Robin Hood who took from the greedy rich to give to the needy poor.

Rand’s most famous disciple of recent times is none other than Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, leading member of the Old World Order and one of the key architects of the current credit crunch that has wrecked the lives of so many millions.

I do hope this clears my mistake and gives a more clear insight on Rand.
Regards, Naeem

reply to post by naeem11111

Atlas Shrugged asks the question what would happen to the world if the global elite – the Old World Order (Rand doesn’t use this term, but it’s exactly what she means) – went on strike.

It is not true that Rand "meant" the "global elite" when posing the question of what would happen when the leading innovators, including industrialists, engineers, inventors, and artists, simply refused to be exploited by society. In fact, some of the leading protagonists of the story are James Taggert, (Dagney Taggerts, who is the primary protagonist, brother), who is actually the President of Taggert Transcontinental, and while adept at gaining influence, he is presented as wholly incompetent at decision making, particularly regarding the day to day operations of Taggert Transcontinental, and relies very heavily on his sister to run the railroad company, while opposing her at every turn.

Another leading antagonist is Wesley Mouch, (Rand was not known for her subtlety), who was an influential lobbyist, if somewhat incompetent himself. In spite of his incompetence, in the novel, he later becomes the economic dictator of the country.

There is also Lillian Reardon, (wife to Hank Reardon, who is one of the protagonists), who more fairly represents the "global elite" you wish to ascribe to Rand's novel. Lillian is a socialite who, while married to Hank, opposes him at every turn and believes she must prevent him from reaching his truest potential, because she cannot keep up with that potential.

There is Dr. Floyd Harris, yet another antagonist, who works for the State Science Institute, who uses his position there to undermine the production of innovators and disregard reason, also attempting to blackmail Hank Reardon into giving up his metal company. Ferris is also the one who presents the Project X weapon, and is the inventor of Project F, which is a torture device, making him the primary representative of the brute force the "looters" use coerce and control the heroes of the story.

There is also Dr. Robert Stadler, who in the beginning of the novel is a noble university professor to some of the protagonists, but shuns this position later in order to climb up the social ladder, and winds up becoming a toady for the State Science Institute, and he is the inventor of Project X, the weapon.

These are all characters that would more accurately describe the rich "global elite" you seem to want to have a problem with. While the protagonists were also, most of them, rich, they were innovators who profited off of their innovations, even though many of the "looters" worked tirelessly at diminishing their wealth and looting it.

The world, Rand maintained, was full of "parasites", “looters” and “moochers” – the people who envy, resent and resist the OWO, and try to take, often by force (allegedly), what rightfully belongs to the OWO elite.

Not "OWO", but innovators. This is an important distinction you are willfully disregarding in order to present it as what Rand "really meant".

Rand’s worldview is so obnoxious that she has been branded as one of the most evil figures of modern intellectual history. That reputation is fully deserved.

Branded by whom? You have, and ironically so, looted, as in plagiarized an article taken from this site:

www.armageddonconspiracy.co.uk...

The article you have plagiarized does not cite any source to support this contention, and of course, you simply being the looter who plagiarized that site, don't offer up any source to make clear who has branded her as "one of the most evil figures of modern intellectual history.

The sad truth is virtually everything you have posted is a plagiarism of the article I just linked. It is pointless to address that articles contentions while replying to you, and the fact that you have chosen to plagiarize that site in order to vilify Rand, speaks far more to your character and philosophy than it does Ayn Rand's.

Atlas Shrugs - - - is about every man for himself. A totally self-centered survival of the fittest.

That's the whole concept in a Nutshell.

And if you read Any Rand's bio - - - you can understand how circumstances in her life affected her views.

Some would hope human has evolved beyond Animal Survival.

reply to post by naeem11111


What does it matter if you are "branded as one of the most evil figures of modern intellectual history"? Either you are factually correct or you are not, no matter who calls you "evil" or "stinky". Such a childish thought pattern...

Personally I would love to be always evil and always right...





[edit on 3-9-2010 by nine-eyed-eel]

reply to post by Annee

Atlas Shrugs - - - is about every man for himself. A totally self-centered survival of the fittest.

Atlas Shrugged - - - is about many things, but was written by Rand in an attempt to explain her philosophy of objectivism. There is an utter hopelessness in attempting to offer up a "nutshell" analysis of a book that is well over a thousand pages, and roughly 645,000 words. However, when a salesman from Random House, (the publishing house that published her book), asked her if she could describe her philosophy by standing on one foot, here is part of what she said:

If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

Continuing with:

If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.

And finally offering up, in a "nutshell", four tenets of objectivism:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4.) The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

Facts are facts, and A is A. This is rhetoric, but it is not empty rhetoric, it is damn good rhetoric.

Reason is humanities only hope for survival and only source of knowledge is clearly dismissive of spirituality, and Rand was an atheist, and for those who have embarked on a spiritual journey, it is easy to understand the fatal flaw in reducing the source of all knowledge to reason. Faith has its power too, and while Rand ironically wrote about characters who held very strong faiths, not just in themselves, but in humanity, her philosophy seems dismissive of faith, intuition and extra sensory perceptions. The problem with insisting that only reason can discern the facts, is that we as flesh and bones bodies are not inherently objective, but inherently subjective.

For example, primitive man may have looked out at the sea and longed to discover what lay beyond the horizon, but swimming the waters only accentuated the dangers of traveling the sea. One day, primitive man sees a chunk of wood floating on the water, and suddenly realizes that much larger chunks of wood, properly fashioned to function as a boat, would allow him to travel the sea. Thus, primitive man builds the first boat. The desire to travel the sea was born of subjective feelings. The intuition that wood could help him travel the sea was born of objective reasoning, however that reasoning was not reason alone, there was a leap of faith, a postulate if you will, that inspired this reason.

Rand is right to insist that a reliance on feelings and superstitions is contra survival all too often, often times, feelings, and even a strong sense of superstition, or intuition, can be pro survival. It is a balance that is necessary, and while Rand was a zealous cheerleader for reason, in fairness to Rand, reason has been given short shrift for far too long. Indeed, ever since Immanuel Kant wrote A Critique of Pure Reason, which in many ways marked the end of the Age of Enlightenment, and its much shorter epoch The Age of Reason, wishful thinking and feel good philosophies have been the order of the day. Reason deserves far more respect than it gets, but spirituality deserves far more respect than Rand was willing to grant.

That every man is an end in itself is true, but that we are all interconnected is also true. Where Rand insists that there are no contradictions, and when you encounter a contradiction it is time to check your premise, because we are human, and inherently subjective, often times our premise can be difficult to check. Rand was right to vilify sacrifice, as sacrifice by its nature is the giving up of something of value, for something that holds lesser value, and such an means of exchange is clearly contra survival. She is insightful in her analysis of rational self interest, understanding that concern and regard for others is clearly a part of a rational self interest, she all too often dismissed the interconnectedness of humanity. However, individualism is attacked relentlessly in a day and age of collectivist thought, and her philosophy, as well as the predictions she made in Atlas Shrugged, are prescient, to say the least.

Laissez-faire capitalism is perhaps the single greatest reason Rand is so reviled. She unapologetic-ally advocated capitalism, and for the modern collectivist this is an unforgivable sin. Rand believed passionately in freedom, and contrary to the Marxist idealist, she saw freedom as the individual's right to own property and make the most of their own ambitions. Where she is unfairly attacked, is that those who do the attacking rarely, if ever, acknowledge the great pains Rand took to lay out ethical egoism. This concept holds that people always act selfishly regardless of their ideals, but that the ethical egoist engages in rational self interest, which is not at all "an every man for themselves" melee, but a cooperative competitive dynamic, where the understanding that the more who prosper, the more likely we are to prosper. It is selfish, but selfish in the true sense of the word, as selfishness is truly just a chief concern for ones own interest. A truly selfish person, or rational self interest, understands that we are to some degree dependent upon each other, and looking out for others is in our best interest.

Where the collectivist buys into Kantian, Marxist, and ideas promulgated by Hume, the rational self interested person adheres to Smithonian principles of free markets and self government. The collectivist reviles the capitalist, and in turn the capitalist reviles the collectivist, but in terms of selfishness, and if collectivism can be equated with communism, there is only one primary difference between communism and capitalism. In capitalism, man exploits man, and in communism it is the other way around. That is to say, the only difference, when it comes to selfishness is there is no difference. Either ideal is held by humans who are inherently selfish.

Where there is some truth, in a sense, to the insistence that Atlas Shrugged, in "a nutshell" is about every man for himself, it is not, I suspect, in the way you meant it. Rand presents the collectivist mentality as the "every man for himself" brutes and looters, and presents the individualists as the ones who genuinely care for humanities survival, and understand the true nature of love, and brotherhood, and compassion. As dismissive as those who revile capitalism are towards Rand and her philosophy, Rand was equally dismissive of them, and long after her death, the taunting between she and they continue.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Annee

 

Atlas Shrugs - - - is about every man for himself. A totally self-centered survival of the fittest.

Atlas Shrugged - - - is about many things, but was written by Rand in an attempt to explain her philosophy of objectivism.

I know what objectivism is. But it does not really apply to Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand is just fine as long as everything goes Her way - for Her.

She is a completely self-centered survivalist - - nothing really matters but her.

She is someone who did exactly what she wanted - - to get what she wanted for herself - - with no real consciousness for anyone else - - - and presented it as a movement.

People are always looking for some new idea to follow. Then they follow blind.

Oh Yes - - I CAN put it in a Nutshell. I do not cater to you.

People who rail against Ayn Rand (to a first approximation) feel the need to pretend to be "good" in hope of being given extra biscuits...but they are unsuccessful as pretenders, nor are they actually "good", and I am not going to give them any biscuits...

reply to post by Annee

I know what objectivism is. But it does not really apply to Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand was a philosopher who devised her own philosophy. Objectivism is the name she gave this philosophy, so it is a specious argument to say that objectivism doesn't apply to her, unless you are arguing that Rand didn't live by her own philosophy. Is that what you are saying. Just in case, the link I just provided is a Wikipedia article on objectivism, even though I supplied a link in my last post about objectivism in Rands own words, perhaps you are more comfortable with Wiki words:

Objectivism is a philosophy created by the Russian-American philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand (1905–1982). Objectivism holds that reality exists independent of consciousness, that man has direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest, that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure laissez faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform man's widest metaphysical ideas, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that he can comprehend and to which he can respond emotionally.

l

Ayn Rand is just fine as long as everything goes Her way - for Her.

Ayn Rand has been dead for more than 28 years now. Did you know her before she died, or you basing this upon some biography you read of hers? Or, are you basing this upon her own writings?

She is a completely self-centered survivalist - - nothing really matters but her.

According to whom? Are you reiterating what Rand has said, or someone else, or is this just your general sense of the matter?

She is someone who did exactly what she wanted - - to get what she wanted for herself - - with no real consciousness for anyone else - - - and presented it as a movement.

"with no real consciousness for anyone else" directly contradicts her own essays on ethical egoism, and rational self interest, so again, I ask you that when you make these assertions, are they facts that you know to be facts, or are they simply just words that fit within your feelings of her philosophy and writings?

People are always looking for some new idea to follow. Then they follow blind.

Are you projecting?

Oh Yes - - I CAN put it in a Nutshell. I do not cater to you.

Are you under the impression that I told you that you could not, or were not allowed to put her novel in a "nutshell"? Are you under the impression that I demanded you cater to me? Or, are you simply just blindly reacting to my words, doing whatever it is you want to do, with no real consciousness for anyone else?

Well I actually consider her a fraud.

A completely self-centered person - - - using philosophy to justify her right to be completely self-centered.

The FOLLOWERS of those who start an idea (or "philosophy excuse") - - - often take that idea and make it a legitimate philosophy - - - because THEY are the true believers.

As in any idea/philosophy - - - there are Extremists - - - and there are those who see some merit - - and take that merit incorporating it into their way of life and beliefs.

The Ayn Rand group certainly have their Extremists.