I think a person can be part of a group based on self intrest and empathy for others without a loss of individualism.
Seems to me that describes exactly the conditions of Galt's Gulch. In which case, you and Rand would be in complete agreement.
Much is made of Rand's self-interest and to an extent she was responsible for some of that by the picking of the title of one of her non-fiction books: "The Virtue of Selfishness". It was a bit of a tweak at altruism. I'll let her explain:
To the Glory of Man - The Virtue Of Selfishness
But while the explanation would be evident to anyone who read the book, that is not what critics do toward those people whose ideas are contrary to their own. What they do is just take the title out of context and without the context that is given in the very first pages and just say: "Rand believes selfishness is a virtue" (using their own definition of it). And just like many do these days - not listen to Rush, but only listen to what the critics
say about Rush; or for the other side, don't listen to Obermann and only listen to what the critics
say about Obermann - they form opinions of Rand, not on what they have read of Rand, but what others have said about Rand. (not that someone who
has read Rand, couldn't disagree with some of her concepts, of course but that's different than characterizing her concepts in a way that she clearly rejects.)
[
and 'justncredible', I'm not saying you fit in either category - I'm just pointing out a common misconception of Rand's concept of rational self-interest and how it is misconstrued.]
There is not an ideological movement that hasn't had it's splits - think Trotsky, Luther, Henry the 8th, McCartney
(well, he went solo first) and the same was true with Objectivism. There is more from Rothbard than there is from Rand on that split. So Rothbard's comments are usually cited without much response, unless you're on the newsgroup:HPO (humanities
hilosophy
bjectivism) where I spent a few years. No need to argue those points here.
The David Kelley split is best summed up in his book "Unrugged Individualism" where he takes Rand's words and shows the 'rational' aspect of Rand's 'rational self-interest,' where it isn't in one's self-interest to be... well, 'selfish' - iow, acting for your interest without regards to others or even at the detriment to others. In fact, that last, if it violates a 'right,' she would
absolutely not condone such actions. And the reason that isn't 'rational self-interest' should be self-evident! Kelley makes a convincing case citing scenarios in the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged (some familiar with both or either should be able to actually cite such scenes themselves) and other non-fiction points in her books.
While I do support the Atlas Society and I could mention the
ecig movement to them, the CATO institute may be a better venue as they are in contact with members of congress and other gov't agencies more so than the Atlas Society but next chance I get I'll pass along this info. I really am not in communication with anyone at either place on a regular basis. Another group would be IJ (Institute for Justice) which is the libertarian counterpart to the leftist ACLU. Unlike the ACLU which just focuses on violations of the 1st amendment (except for political correctness, of course ;-) .... the IJ takes on all violations of rights including 2nd amendment, and 3rd, 4th, 5th (ACLU doesn't touch the 'taking's clause'), etc. But it must be against gov't not private companies or individuals.
I'm almost certain that all these groups already know of the situations with the FDA - there's a lot of smokers there - esp. Objectivists - see Rand's quote below that I recently posted. But again, I'll contact each of them with a short outline of the situation just to see if, in fact, they are aware of what is happening.
Rand quote: (just checked... it was an email but here it is on a cut and paste with a bit more than Rand):
Rand:
"I like to think of fire held in a man's hand. Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips. I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking. I wonder what great things have come from such hours. When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind--and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression."
And she was not the only one who looked at it along those lines:
"Sherlock Holmes sat silent for a few minutes with his finger tips still pressed together, his legs stretched out in front of him and his gaze directed upwards to the ceiling. Then he took down from the rack the old and oily clay pipe , which was to him as a counselor, and, having it, he leaned back in his chair, with the thick blue cloud-wreaths spinning up from him, and a look of infinite languor in his face."
Holmes again, to Watson:
"It is quite a three pipe problem, and I beg that you won't speak to me for fifty minutes."
Or, we can remember the case in which Holmes needed a pound of the strongest shag
tobacco to resolve the problem and stayed alone all the day smoking, and Watson found him in a sort of trance, in a room that "was so filled with the smoke that the light of the lamp upon the table was blurred by it and my first impression as I opened the door was that a fire has broken out".
himself). [My point here is not that Objectivism is a flawed philosphy or that Atlas Shrugged isn't The Great American Novel (it is, you know), but that the genius author had some quirks (don't we all) and that others formed a cult around her.]
