I have to concede ignorance of Kant. I just dont know enough about him from his own works to say anything. If what Rand said is true Im no fan. It's mostly the extreme altruism that I'm not for.

Randroids.

Atlas Shrugged is synonymous with Christ Squirmed. I cannot tell why Christians have any support for this author.

I think you(nulli) misunderstood what he(prothero) was talking about. He didnn't say that the those types of mental endeavors you mentioned are inferior or no-exsistent.

In fact those examples are what prot was talking about in terms of the superior way of doing science and thought.

Your argument looks like this to me.
(I:Individual, G: Group)
(Prot) I > G
(Null) I< G because the I > G. Its a contradiction.

In terms of what else you said about Atlas Shrugged, it's one of those books that you have to agree with the authors view point for it to be a pleasant read.

Another example like that is the bible. Lots of people like the bible but I hate hows it written. I'm an athiest who doesn't like most of whats said in the book. So me reading it is like getting teeth pulled.

I thought it was one of the best books I've ever read and I know no substitute. If you no any other books or thinkers who promote egoism, selfishness, capitalism, atheism, and the like; point me in their direction. So far Anton Lavey is the only one who fits all of that without being an objectivist.

Egotism and selfishness are on display in Max Stirner's The Ego and His Own, capitalism is defended by thousands of other writers from Adam Smith to Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek, and likewise atheism has several defenders, like J.L. Mackie in The Miracle of Theism.

To be fair, she was trying to protect the brave, the intelligent, and the industrious, from the fearful, the less intelligent, and the slothful.

To be fair, socialism has the same aims.

Isn't that strange? And they both have a point. At this point in history, capitalism is becoming a sort of evil socialism. (?) The banks get billions and billions of tax dollars. Of course Rand would have hated that. But the deeper problem is to make a god of this abstraction money.

Instead of having a sort of common sense attitude that every law abiding working member of the "tribe" should have access to necessities, we make a god of the invisible hand. (?) But this is of course hypocrisy. What is the proportion of "welfare" given to the rich as compared to that given to the poor? Let's not count the old, for that is another issue. Tax dollars to corps versus tax dollars to the poor. I suspect the rich get more than poor. Hell, that last bailout may have given the rich a lead for centuries. The idea is what? That we must or it will all fall down. Hmm. I wonder how long that excuse has been in the works. And if it's true, that's even worse.

But I'm no expert on the matter.

Rand demonizes the poor and the powerless and paints them up as so many bloodsuckers when in fact it is the rich and powerful that are the parasites. In Atlas Shrugged, Rand co-opted the General Strike and made it elitist and anti-socialist. The trick was to take the socialist critique of capitalism and invert it into a capitalist critique of socialism. Her fiction turns the world upside down and turns social justice inside out.

I have to say Ayn Rand exaults capitalism over socialism, and individualism over collectivism and considering her background it is no surprise.
Although individual acheivements always occur in a social context, and one is never completely free of the influence and contributions of others, predessesors or teachers, I think the notion that major breakthroughs in art, in music, in literature, are often the result of the vison and energy of individuals (not committees and groups and governments) is a valid point of view. Buildings built by committees rarely have the inspiration and beauty of those designed primarily by a man or a woman with a vision.
Rand salutes the individual who remains true to their vision, their inspiration. Of course we are all indebted to others, to those who have gone before and to those who encourage and support us but individual acheivment and vision is not to be dismissed as a factor that can change the world and accomplish great things.

II'll shut up now. I don't have a solution. Like so many other humans, I can imagine what I cannot deliver, a world where no honest person who is willing to work has to worry about the availability of food, shelter, medical care. All this technology and still so much squalor and desperation. I know the problems are not just political, but "spiritual."

In the end one has to judge political and economic systems by their actual results not by their theoretical intentions.

Socialism and communism were intended to equalize opportunity and to more fairly distribute the wealth of a society; a noble goal with the best of intentions. Unfortunately such systems are based on false premises about the reality of human nature and of the physical world.

We may all be equal before the law. We may all deserve the opportunity to compete and succeed in our respective cultures and societies. We are not however all equal in our energy, our ambition, our vision, our willingness to work, or our ability to innovate. We are also not equal in our mental or intellectual abilities or our physical attributes. We are also not equal in our home environments, our neighborhoods or our personal relationships. No amount of government intervention or planning can ever create "equality and fairness" and equality of opportunity and a fair game never results in equal achievement (equality of results) The sheer size scope and extent of a government which could or would attempt to create fairness and equality would create tyranny; not a utopian world of equality and fairness.

Markets (and I mean real markets not the oligopoly or collusion monopolies we currently have) have historically been the greatest generators of wealth and prosperity of any economic system. Markets (theoretically anyway) are based on the free decisions of both consumers and producers and thus represent a sort of idealized form of economic democracy. We have done the centrally planned economy, we have done high marginal tax rates, we have done government redistribution and support programs. Nothing has lifted so many people out of abject poverty, and created so much wealth, as markets. Look at the effect of market reforms on China and India, more people escaped poverty in the last twenty years than in decades of government enforced equality and fairness and planned economies.

It is true we have the technology and we have the wealth so that ideally there would be no starvation in the world, people would have basic clothing and warm dry shelter, and access to at least basic effective medical care and family planning. There is no scientific or technical barrier to this utopian ideal. The barriers are political (primarily bad government) and as you indicate spiritual (lack of will). The solution to this problem though is not more government, larger government, more government welfare, government redistribution or government planning. There is role for government; it could break up monopolies instead of creating, sustaining and bailing them out. It could identify and educate its best and it's brightest (regardless of race, culture, neighborhood, religion or sex). It could set the ground rules for a fair game without trying to fix the game (assure a given outcome). Those political systems and economic systems which harness the power of their individual citizens and allow them the freedom to innovate, to create, to prosper and to be rewarded for their efforts; in the end create more wealth, more prosperity, more freedom than attempts to use government to make everything "equal and fair".

The sad fact is we are not all equal. The sad fact is people will not put forth their best efforts without reward and incentive. The sad fact is there are more than a few who lack motivation as much as opportunity and who are more than happy to let others work while they share in the rewards. I actually support government efforts for full employment, minimum wages, social programs to eradicate hunger and homelessness, access to basic medical care, etc. It is just than in the end the notions of individual responsibility, individual achievement, individual effort, individual freedom and self reliance are valuable ones. You can in fact tax and regulate the incentive and innovation out of a political or an economic system. This is a fact and one that the advocates of government as the solution to all social and economic problems seem to forget. In the end free individuals pursuing their own enlightened self interest are the most effective and most efficient way to make progress and allocate resources.

The real question is not if we need government regulation but how much and what type. The real question is not if the distribution of wealth should be equal but how much disparity and inequality are necessary to incentivize and motivate and thus maximize wealth generation and general prosperity, In these reasonable informed people can disagree.

In Ayn Rand's view it is government interference with individual vision and freedom which is both immoral and which results in lack of creativity, effort and achievement. In this I think she has a point and I think actual experience (as opposed to utopian theorizing) supports her.

YouTube - The Means of Innovation (by Jeffrey Tucker)
This video does good to question that bit about genius types coming up with things