Ah, memories.

Probably “artificial, racist opposition” should be the claim, if we want to be truly up-to-date.

DaGoat, her “personal shortcomings” — if by that you mean her increasingly odd and totalitarian behavior toward her followers — and the extremeness — lunacy, really — of her philosophy are connected. In addition, Chait did not rely solely on her personal shortcomings to discredit her theories. Among other things, on the third page, he does a meticulous and detailed analysis of her ideas in and of themselves.

I should introduce you to a friend of mine who denounces planned parenthood due to its founder Margaret Sanger being a eugenicist. You seem to share some similar perspectives, just on opposite ends.

P.S. I laugh at him when he does this.

Leonidas, did you read the entire piece? And in the quote you mention, did you notice the adjective “personal”?

Yes and yes and I still find the title inappropriate. It would be like calling Keynes the God of left wing ideology. Although influential, Keynes is hardly a god to liberals (excepting maybe a few examples like Paul Krugman).

Although there is a fine line at times between selfishness and self-interest. And sometimes it's a matter of perspective as well.

It occurred to me just now when I read your second sentence, about the Rand idea of “the virtue of selfishness” that it sounds just like the evil twin of “enlightened self-interest.” Selfishness is not a virtue, but enlightened self-interest is.

Sad state of affairs.

Political discussions can get heated sometimes, and I certainly can point to individuals who have told me in various ways that I am misguided, don't know what I'm talking about, dishonest, brainwashed, etc., etc., etc. I don't usually take offense at words like that because I can give back as good as I get. The only time I get truly offended or upset is when something genuinely cruel and obviously intended to hurt me is said, or something blatantly, demonstrably untrue is said to me — iow, when the other party clearly intends the insult personally — and that has never happened in public comments, that I can recall at least. I don't think I have ever treated anyone here that way, either, but if I am mistaken I'd like to know about it.

Your analysis itself is unfair and dishonest, in my view. The only point you make that is accurate is that the piece is more of a critique (or an article, or an essay) than a review. That's true.

There you can change your display name.

I read Atlas Shrugged. Gave me a headache so I read “Rendezvous With Rama” instead. Bless you Mr. Clarke!

On her theories though, just like any other philosophies they tend to fall apart when taken to extremes, and Atlas Shrugged was extreme. Rand admitted that herself. I think objectivism is most useful as just one tool in your philosophic toolbox rather than a strict guide, and I think that's the way most conservatives and libertarians regard it.

Now if you will excuse my blurry eyes…yes I read the entire link…I must go find an intellectual equal with whom to procreate.