I don't engage these people. My Grandpa used to say, "the more you mess with a turd, the more shit you get on you." He was right.

In such situations, I am inclined to say things like, "Ayn Rand advocated win-win situations: If you taught someone something, then you could receive a tangible reward such as money or barter, you could receive an intangible reward such as feeling good about having taught something you love to others, or you could receive a long-term benefit in that you increase the effectiveness of your friends, to whom you might turn in an emergency."

Then I add, "Rand's philosophy abhors the idea that you must purchase your own sense of self-worth by performing deeds you despise to people you scorn. You are worth value in your own right; you do not need to buy it from anyone."

"So - what is wrong with these ideas? Tell me how self-esteem and friendship are Evil."

Jan

He's an illiterate who is baiting you. Don't waste your time.

rule #1..do not argue with a crazy person (gore vidal)...live your life as i have with objectivist morals and goals...it is the only life you are going to get with current medical knowledge...life as free as you can in our unfree society...

And Gore Vidal is nearly perfect in his real life, unwitting embodiment of what an annoying, arrogant, pompous, ruling class elite is.

This was another response to the main post above with my response and the the thread:

SR: And it is the basis of the Republican philosophy and general outlook to this day...
Me: Actually it's not. Objectivism and Conservatism have very little in common philosophically.
SR: Selfishness is the basis for both.
Me: Actually it's not. At least not as you probably understand it. Makes me think that other than to slander them, you don't really understand either set of ideas. But most progressives don't. Because they think it's ok to force others to live for them or for whomever they choose. Therefore, while they have no real answers, they are afraid of anybody who identified their philosophy for what it is - the philosophy of slavery.
R: In simple terms. Rand, in the apocalypse, would rather eat her neighbors rather than help them. Dog eat dog.
I'd rather help. Unless they prescribe their personal philosophy to Rand, then I'd eat them. Let them taste their own medicine.
Me: In simple terms that's a wonderful straw man argument. But false.
Me: Of course the philosophy that is opposite of hers demands that you would allow your neighbors to eat you if it were good for society.
R: Seems I'd eat you then. I'm gonna need a good barbecue sauce.
R: Sacrifice is necessary for all to survive. If one survives we all die. You're not an island.
Me: I would not be willing to give you that opportunity. Nor to kill my neighbors to eat them. Neither is an acceptable choice under her philosophy. Either seems to fit yours perfectly.
Me: And that statement about sacrifice Rick, if it's true implications are understood, is one of the most evil to ever be uttered by any human. But Hitler believed it fully. So did Stalin.
R: Sad comparison.
R: You won't convince me.
Me: It's the perfect comparison. The concept that some should be sacrificed for the good of the whole is root of every tyranny and system of slavery ever devised. Of course I won't convince you. Because you clearly don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Ayn Rand's philosophy but are content to slander anyway.
R: Im just trying to determine if it is a spicy sauce or a sweet sauce.
Me: Well I'm a sweet guy with a temper so maybe sweet n spicy. Like thai.
But seriously, I've taught over 17 hours of classes at the arboretum not counting the overnight shelter class in the past year and a half. They gave me an honorarium. For several of the classes it either did not cover or only barely covered the amount I spent on supplies. So I probably broke even or slightly better overall. Until you figure in my time spent.
So clearly I did not do it for the money. And I have a day job. So why do it?
A) I like the subject matter
B) I enjoy teaching
C) I enjoy the fact that my class, if applied, might save somebody's life some day.
And D) I prefer to live in a world where more people are interested in nature and the subjects I'm teaching and fewer people die when facing a survival situation.
What I did with these classes did not make much money. And I would have done it without the honorarium. All of those things are things I value and I am willing to trade my time to achieve those values. The fact that I didn't make a bunch of money is irrelevant. I knew that going in.
That is the essence of Ayn Rand's philosophy. I suspect you share similar reasons Rick Hueston for sharing your plant knowledge. But if it's really such a horrid sacrifice that makes you miserable then you should stop. But I think I know you better than that and know you derive enjoyment and satisfaction from it.
Now. If somebody pointed a gun to my head to make me do it, I would tell them to fuck off. Or maybe go along at gunpoint until the opportunity presented itself to slit their throat. Of course one of the fun things about teaching these subject is all the sharp and pointy things.

I'm not sure what you're searching for or trying to show with this post. Gore Vidal wasn't a high intellect, Arguing with fools only makes one look like a fool as well, and whoever you're arguing with in your post has no idea what he's talking about. As an example only, "Her philosophy of selfishness, vanity, and egotism is all that is wrong with humanity". Her philosophy is of A=A and existence exists, from that everything else follows in a logical and rational sequence. Without establishing that, one is biting back at soundbites, only.

Mine is not a popular view here I know- I think objectivism is correct as shown by the fact it works in practice. It's an agreement among people about how we treat each other that actually works without unintended consequences that internally destroy it. Socialism sounds good on paper but in the end no one works and everyone mooches. The various fascist, communist, and dictatorial systems count on the masses providing goodies for the ones in power under threat of force. Eventually the masses revolt. (Interesting that the terms revolution applied to politics and the term describing motion of a when that brings you backbtibthe same place are the SAME)

I have been debating lefties for 50 years. In many cases, I was sucked in because to remain silent would infer agreement. If I learned nothing else, it was "they are also deaf who will not hear." Many years ago, I debated someone on an issue that today seems unimportant. The debate strayed into a philosophical discussion, right up my alley. I modestly proclaim, I was brilliant. I knocked down and trampled to bits the other guy's every argument. Afterwards I got the sense that the audience was exactly the same as before. Those who understood gave me kudos, the rest kind of slithered off thinking of how to poison the cake and coffee that was served afterwards.

Hint: at no point in your transcripts do you ask your interlocutor to state what he is for or define his terms. All of his statements are contradictory so get him to first discuss what he thinks about contradictions. If one makes contradictory statements knowingly does that mean a person lied? What does he think is the moral status of liars. Then get him to define and declare his position and point out the contradictions. Then challenge him directly are you lying or stupid? Trick is to get him to talk about lying and contradictions then expose the contradictions in his position. Usually they get angry and you get justified but they never say ...hey you were right all along.

It seems to me that there is a more fundamental issue underlying these types of debates. By taking the bait of defending Ayn Rand, any other author, school of economics or philosophy I unavoidably entrap myself in the logical fallacy known as "Appeal to Authority". After a lifetime (five decades and counting) of studying the work of hundreds of authors and participating in countless debates, I have come to realize that this is a fruitless and self-limiting pursuit.

So instead of being a defender of Rand, Hoppe, von Mises or any of the numerous sources of "Authorty", I have become a proselytizer of the one logically unassailable truth from which all human action must flow - Only by the universal application of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" will the greatest benefit accrue to the greatest number of people.

Truth is universal and needs no "Authority" to defend or prove it.
-

The criticisms of Rand are often so stupid that they indicate those making them are motivated by something I don't want to waste my time addressing - fear, greed, hatred, envy. See Animal's Grandpa's comment on turds...

When you look into the abyss, it looks back into you....

If you're going to engage such people, do so with questions back at them that get to some specific objections, and then answer them seriously, not so facetiously.

Good people subdue the earth.
Evil people subdue other people.
It is good to do more with what you have.
As a result your life should grow and not stagnate.
Your friend doesn't seem to grasp these concepts.

"xthinker88: So you get no enjoyment, pleasure or satisfaction from sharing your plant knowledge? If that is the case then as your friend I would truly advise you to stop.”
Indeed! Imagine the friend thinks, “That guy is always calling me with plant questions, never to do something for me.” I would want the friend to tell me that he would like me to fix is household electronics or maybe pay him money if I don't have anything to offer that he needs while he looks at my plants instead of it being a one-way street. That last thing I'd want is him thinking “I can't stand his requests for plant help, but I'll grudgingly do it because good people are selfless.”

Maybe you could ask him how he would feel if someone did him a favor and he later found out the person was doing it grudgingly out of a sense of obligation not because he wanted to.

A lot of rhetoric

The person you are arguing with has formed an opinion without understanding the topic, probably by listening to a leftist opportunistic devil realizing he is ripe for manipulation. "Rand is evil", really? Please do explain.

I think he is malleable. He has assigned many negative attributes of totalitarian government to individual rights. Provide an example of a how satisfaction in one's self and work is productive, and a counter example of how taking freedom away is a disincentive.

This guy can probably be fooled into asserting an indefensible position such as Rand supports murder. Perhaps explaining how liberal lies and government action killed millions by banning DDT would get his attention.

Sounds typical. I've had many such exchanges, and always with people who got their information from a Huff Post article. None of them ever read Rand thoroughly. I'm reading Atlas for the third time in my life and I am astounded by how clearly she debunked her future critics by laying out a very strong case for helping your fellow human being...but not as altruism. She argued that it is natural and pleasurable to help your fellow man, but when it is promoted as a duty from which you are to take no pleasure, then it is evil.

He did not want to admit getting any satisfaction out of sharing knowledge. He probably thought he was being "tricked" into appearing "selfish". Quite sad really.