This may be a US position... in the UK the Libertarians generally favour market methods of protecting and dealing with the environment.
Daniel Hannan uses the example of the contrasting fate of elephants in Kenya and the then Rhodesia:
Daniel Hannan - Privatise The Elephant
In the US, Keynesians prefer market methods of protecting the environment where they are viable.
I was more reflecting on the Clean Water Act and similar regulations. And I was only contrasting two views of libertarianism - there are a lot of them.
Yeah, it does.there is no room for favors
Ayn Rand on cooperation:
Classic malignant narcissism - you do someone a favor, you have no reason to return it. Have you ever worked with someone like this, Xajow?
Cooperation with that sort of person only works at the most basic level. These people tear large organizations apart if there's more than one in a group.
Ayn Rand on altruism:
It's okay for her to redefine and cast aspersions on altruism but far be it for anyone to do the same to selfishness. I already pointed out her own warped definition of the term.
The concept of your health affecting mine and happiness being contagious to normal, healthy human beings is completely beyond her and those who spread this garbage.
Ayn Rand on the meaning of selfishness:
This doesn't change that she explicitly believed that not considering others was an ideal to be striven for.
Yes, context does matter. You want to claim selfishness is bad. She claimed it was good. But what's missing from your condemnation of her is any acknowledgement that her concept of selfishness and yours are very likely not at all the same.
No, they're pretty much the same. I've read her fiction. She discusses that people can be charitable if it reflects some value of theirs, but heaven help them if they go against that value. See Howard Roark.
And missing from your attempt to lump most libertarians with Rand is that not only did Rand despise libertarians, the fact is most libertarians, even most of the ones who like a lot of what she had to say, are not Objectivists and have serious objections to many of her ideas and/or the way she expressed them.
Rand despised everyone
. That's not an uncommon status.
But the biggest names promoting conservative libertarianism these days - Clarence Thomas, Alan Greenspam, the Koch brothers, Glenn Beck - all explicitly promote Ayn Rand's work.
Like it or not she is the person with the most influence over modern libertarian discourse.
Seems to me Rand was perfectly okay with concerning oneself with others. That she had different standard than you do about how one determined who else one should be concerned about does not mean she was a sociopath.
I should probably state that she was perfectly fine with being the Mary Sue to the psychotic of her dreams. The man raped her, but that was all okay in the end.
Ayn Rand's treatment of her own husband suggests how often she applied this in real life: not very.
"Malignant narcissism" is a term I see applied a lot to Objectivism. It's sort of like the clever insult someone overheard and repeated, and now everyone is using it. Define "malignant narcissism," and we'll go from there.
It's a medical term, essentially combining the aspects of sociopathy with narcissism. It's not in DSMV but if there's ever a model for it it's Ayn Rand. Desperate need for praise, inability to handle criticism, and no regard for even the man she married to.
Here's a hint: There is a reason she called the philosophy Objectivism and not Egoism.
And it's about as tied to reason as any other mad ranting. That she claims it is does not make it so.
(Bold emphasis added by me.) Do you mean in light of the fact that she would object to you or anyone else calling her a libertarian? Yeah, I think it is more than fair to say Rand was not a libertarian. She would have rejected with disdain any attempt to put her in that category. And given her authoritarian leanings, I'm happy to leave her out of libertarianism. So yes, I deny that Ayn Rand was a libertarian.
You didn't add the quotes, though. Before I looked it up I thought she was referring to Chomsky. He has more claim to the title of Libertarian than you do, as opposed to the anarcho-capitalists who took up the term.
She cultivated authoritarianism about herself, her philosophy is supposedly the diametric opposite of it - you are your own person and your only regard for the needs of others should be if they for some reason can further your own interests. It's amusingly hypocritical but probably works out for her in some insane Rand-logic.
Address why people wrongly believe that libertarians are somehow against cooperation? Okay. Most people who wrongly believe that do so because they fail, either through lack of trying or lack of desire, to bother to get past the knee-jerk alarmist nonsense that people use to demonize libertarianism. They see that Rand wrote a book called The Virtue of Selfishness and then they see others, who generally haven't read more than a few quotes, insist over and over it's "malignant narcissism." Why bother looking any deeper? Who wants to read about malignant narcissism? Nobody.
Well, you haven't told us which branch of libertarianism you follow.
You're certainly not a left-libertarian of any sort. Which rules out libertarian socialism, progressive libertarians, environmental libertarians, etc.
That leaves the various right-libertarian movements. But even there we have a lot of variations.
- You say you're not an objectivist. Okay. Some non-objectivist branch of individualism?
- Anarcho-capitalist (the libertarians she was apparently referring to in your quote)?
- Geolibertarian? That may be too far left for you.
- Conservative libertarian? They're the ones responsible for equating libertarian=Rand follower.
- ....there are others, of course.
Point being, there are a lot of branches of libertarianism. Some of them, yes, are very progressive. Some of them are borderline insane. Some of them -are- insane. We might disagree with which ones are insane, but I'm sure you think some of them are.
That's kinda funny coming from you. Anything you write as a reason for a position has to stand on its own legs, rather than just because you said it. So when do I get to see you actually address what she had to say? And no, the core of her philosophy, as she explained it, is rooted in objective reason, or at least what she considered objective reason.
And again, just because she considered some something so does not make it. The idea of happiness being contagious and friendships being built on favors is an entirely alien concept to her - so alien that she set her philosophy against it by declaring that altruism is setting oneself as a slave (!?). That isn't normal. It is normal for people to react and consider themselves a part of a group, however isolationist.
To be perfectly clear, I am not an Objectivist, and I have a lot of problems with Rand's reasoning and her complete rejection of things like altruism. But my objections have to do with her ideas, not with labels other people want to slap on her. Saying Rand was a sociopath is easy. But saying it doesn't make it so. There are people in the world who say she was correct about everything. But saying it doesn't make it so. If her ideas are wrong or right, they stand or fall on their own merit, not because someone slapped a label on it.
I call her a sociopath because that is what her philosophy espouses. It's what the heroes in her novels were. Howard Roark did not have the ability to consider others. No empathy. A person only matters as far as what you get from them. The rules of society don't matter, only you do. No sense of remorse or guilt.
It's pretty clear-cut, to me. Autism may be an alternate explanation, but that really doesn't mesh with her attitude or sense of self-aggrandizement. ("The three A's?")
If you want to prove they're wrong, then feel free to start any time.
If you want to prove me wrong, feel free to start at any time. You routinely dodge challenges to libertarianism. I don't expect you to stop dodging, but it would be nice if you did.
If all you're going to do is keep repeating "sociopath" and "malignant narcissism," then I can only conclude you have nothing of value to add to the discussion.
As if I have nothing better to do for this place, apparently.