Isbskins1 vs Osborn on Rand

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: Ayn Rand is my idea of the quintisential example of an extreme over-reaction to a real wrong. Just because what she was against was truely dangerous, does not mean her solutions or ideals in reaction are correct. I would liken Objectivism to advocating amputation of the head to cure the brain tumor. The tumor may be fatal, but so is the cure. But this would be a topic for another discussion.

This was your statement.

My points of debate follow:

Just what "real wrong" is Ayn Rand the quintessential example of over-reaction to? What is this "real wrong"?

What was she against, that you admit was truly dangerous?

Why aren't her ideals or solutions correct, in your opinion?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready This was your statement. My points of debate follow: Just what "real wrong" is Ayn Rand the quintessential example of over-reaction to? What is this "real wrong"? What was she against, that you admit was truly dangerous? Why aren't her ideals or solutions correct, in your opinion?

The real wrong was the Soviet oppression she expierenced first hand. She was against the results of that system. In my opinion, her ideals and solutions are not correct because she developes a system that is just as extreme in it's demands for ideological purity, just on the other end of the spectrum. Humans are social animals, and as much as they need freedom to reach their own potential, they also need the group to sustain and protect them. There is a reason why we don't live like Cheetahs and Grizley Bears. We are equiped differently than solitary predators and that is the ethic she promotes. It will not help or sustain us anymore than the opposite extreme helps us.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: The real wrong was the Soviet oppression she expierenced first hand. She was against the results of that system. In my opinion, her ideals and solutions are not correct because she developes a system that is just as extreme in it's demands for ideological purity, just on the other end of the spectrum. Humans are social animals, and as much as they need freedom to reach their own potential, they also need the group to sustain and protect them. There is a reason why we don't live like Cheetahs and Grizley Bears. We are equiped differently than solitary predators and that is the ethic she promotes. It will not help or sustain us anymore than the opposite extreme helps us.

Firstly, Which of my multiple points of debate were you replying to? I assume the question about "what was the great wrong?"

Secondly, that is entirely subjective, lacking evidence or logic to back your opinion, and seems like an emotional cop-out.

I would like to itemize my reply, but would still like to see you address all of my original questions in the first post.

Isbskins said: The real wrong was the Soviet oppression she expierenced first hand. She was against the results of that system.

I agree, she experienced the backwards mentality of government in the Russian communist experience, firsthand. If you are referring to communism in the Russian sense as the great wrong, then I would agree to see that point.

Isbskins said: In my opinion, her ideals and solutions are not correct because she developes a system that is just as extreme in it's demands for ideological purity, just on the other end of the spectrum.

Because something is extreme, is it wrong, or logically unsound?

I understand you disagree with Rand, I am trying to deduce on what logical grounds you do so.

Isbskins said: Humans are social animals, and as much as they need freedom to reach their own potential, they also need the group to sustain and protect them.

This is patently false, as we are each born into a "group" to sustain us, called a family, which is a VOLUNTARY collective. Government has no responsibility in providing collective outside the family, to supplant, replace or provide where the family leaves off, or in cases where family does not exist.

Isbskins said: There is a reason why we don't live like Cheetahs and Grizley Bears.

This is an absurd statement, as if I was alledging, or arguing that I in some way said we should live like animals. Where have I said this?

Isbskins said: We are equiped differently than solitary predators and that is the ethic she promotes.

Please provide evidence of this, or it will be summarily dismissed.

Isbskins said: It will not help or sustain us anymore than the opposite extreme helps us.

Proof, logic or reasoning?

[lsbskins1]

Osborn- Lets not be difficult here, you asked me 1st what wrong was I speaking about, I responded that it was the Soviet oppression, you asked the same question again, so I figured I did not need to respond again. Then you asked me what she was against and I responded that she was against the results of the Soviet system. Then you asked why she was incorrect "in my opinion". I answered that, very specifically, with MY OPINION. Now, you are complaining I did not itemize in a fashion that suits you and that I gave you my opinion. I don't want this to turn into something stupid. Do you want to discuss this, or do you want to be an ass?

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: Osborn- Lets not be difficult here, you asked me 1st what wrong was I speaking about, I responded that it was the Soviet oppression, you asked the same question again, so I figured I did not need to respond again.

Correct, and I accepted that answer as the "great wrong" which you were speaking about.

Isbskins said: Then you asked me what she was against and I responded that she was against the results of the Soviet system.

Not only that, but it is really beside the point, since you answered the first one as you did.

Isbskins said: Then you asked why she was incorrect "in my opinion". I answered that, very specifically, with MY OPINION.

Yes, you stated an opinion, with no backing or explanation of how you reached it.

Isbskins said: Now, you are complaining I did not itemize in a fashion that suits you and that I gave you my opinion.

I expected, and respect your opinion as an opinion...... before I can respect it as "reason" however, I have to know how you formed that opinion, don't I?

Isbskins said: I don't want this to turn into something stupid.

Great, then please post what logic and reasoning you used to form your opinion as "you described it". Is that "stupid" to ask?

Isbskins said: Do you want to discuss this, or do you want to be an ass?

I want to debate why we are so different on this issue, and many other issues related to this issue. I can't do that if you don't provide the reasoning, and logic used to form your opinions.

So I ask you, would you like to participate?

[lsbskins1]

I would love to participate if you can back off on the immediate snippy attitude. If you want clarification, ask for it. Don't imply I did not answer exactly the questions you asked, as you asked them.

I responded to redundant questions (what wrong -against what) with a redundant reply. Not my doing, yours.

And again, I would be glad to share what informs my opinion, but you didn't ask that question and you blast me constantly for "assuming" and "anticipating" and "responding to questions you do not ask". I answered what you asked and nothing more, as you usually "require" and now you are not satisfied. You need to make up your mind...am I supposed to use my functioning brain and respond to what is implied, or am I supposed to respond only to the exact words on the post? Your choice, I can go either way.

Would you mind asking nicely what you would like me to clarify? Even if you have already asked, I can respond with quote if you ask me again without having to sort through the snippy stuff.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: I would love to participate if you can back off on the immediate snippy attitude.

I don't know what you "perceive" as snippy, so I think hopes for that are slim, since I hadn't intended to be "snippy, snide, harsh, rude" or anything else but direct so far.

Isbskins said: If you want clarification, ask for it. Don't imply I did not answer exactly the questions you asked, as you asked them.

This isn't a course in manners, it's a debate. Either debate, or don't. You said you would debate the topic and explain your comments if I started the thread, so here is the thread.

Isbskins said: I responded to redundant questions (what wrong -against what) with a redundant reply. Not my doing, yours.

Fair enough.

Isbskins said: And again, I would be glad to share what informs my opinion, but you didn't ask that question and you blast me constantly for "assuming" and "anticipating" and "responding to questions you do not ask".

Seeing as how this is a limited interface debate forum, with only the written word, one would expect people to back their "opinion" with a logical line of reasoning, wouldn't you think?

How is questioning such things "blasting" you?

Isbskins said: I answered what you asked and nothing more, as you usually "require" and now you are not satisfied. You need to make up your mind...am I supposed to use my functioning brain and respond to what is implied, or am I supposed to respond only to the exact words on the post? Your choice, I can go either way.

How about just speaking your opinion, with some reasoning, and valid points of logical disagreement with Rands positions?

Isbskins said: Would you mind asking nicely what you would like me to clarify?

I thought I already did. I will try again.


You said:
In my opinion, her ideals and solutions are not correct because she developes a system that is just as extreme in it's demands for ideological purity, just on the other end of the spectrum.

I asked:
Because something is extreme, is it wrong, or logically unsound?

I understand you disagree with Rand, I am trying to deduce on what logical grounds you do so.

I am asking you to name one or more issues where Rands methods are "extreme" to the point of ideological purity, and explain why you think so, showing contrast with what you feel is "better". I am trying to identify where our differences are, and at what point, in your words, "extreme" disagreement begins.

you said:
Humans are social animals, and as much as they need freedom to reach their own potential, they also need the group to sustain and protect them.

to which I replied:
This is patently false, as we are each born into a "group" to sustain us, called a family, which is a VOLUNTARY collective. Government has no responsibility in providing collective outside the family, to supplant, replace or provide where the family leaves off, or in cases where family does not exist.

Here I took your issue of claimed human abilities, needs, etc, and disagreed completely, because we are 100% in disagreement here. I showed the logical reason why I disagree with you, hoping you would respond attempting to show me, logically, where I am wrong.

Isbskins said: Even if you have already asked, I can respond with quote if you ask me again without having to sort through the snippy stuff.

"Snippy Stuff"?

[lsbskins1]

In fairness, to be that detailed, I need to do this at home. I will respond later, from home.

But let me say this briefly: What you claim to be "false" in my response and "logical" in your own are simply expressions of your own opinion . I can, and later will, support the fact that the vast majority of humans organize themselves into vastly larger and more complicated social structures than family units.

[Jason]

Should this be a special debate?

[Osborn F Enready]

Hi Jason. It was intended to be a special debate, but I didn't know I had to "re-input" User ID's after hitting preview post.

No big deal to me, etiher way.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I don't know what you "perceive" as snippy, so I think hopes for that are slim, since I hadn't intended to be "snippy, snide, harsh, rude" or anything else but direct so far.

What I "percieved" as snippy was the fact that you said I did not answer your questions, when in fact I had. It is snippy to "need" someone to reply in a format that suits your expectations when all questions asked were answered directly.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready This isn't a course in manners, it's a debate. Either debate, or don't. You said you would debate the topic and explain your comments if I started the thread, so here is the thread.

And I did what you asked. Then I broke it down.Our debate can be civil and that is what I hoped for. There have been times in the past when you took me to task for not "behaving", but then when I take you to task in the same manner, you take issue with that. You want to be able to be accusatory yourself, but bristle when the same attitude is returned. Either we can both be smart-asses or neither can be. You can not dictate my behavior but not hold yourself to the same standard.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Fair enough.

This was another example of "snippy". Not saying "fair enough", but getting pissed that I was redundant is response to redundancy.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Seeing as how this is a limited interface debate forum, with only the written word, one would expect people to back their "opinion" with a logical line of reasoning, wouldn't you think?

And I have no problem with expecting logical backing for reasoning. I do have a problem with the idea that in one post, you complain when I elaborate on issues and follow them to logical extentions and conclusions and in the next, you complain that I do not. You asked my opinion, I gave my opinion with nothing "extra" because in previous exchanges you have taken issue with any "extra".

Quote by: Osborn F Enready How is questioning such things "blasting" you?

The "blasting" refered to previous exchanges, not the fact that you wanted futher explaination. My problem was that instead of simply saying "Well, what makes you think that way?", you went a little postal.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready How about just speaking your opinion, with some reasoning, and valid points of logical disagreement with Rands positions?

See, another example. A civil version of this question would be, "What leads you to disagree with Rand's position?" You would get the information you seek, and not come off as "snippy".

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I thought I already did. I will try again.

Thank you.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready You said: In my opinion, her ideals and solutions are not correct because she developes a system that is just as extreme in it's demands for ideological purity, just on the other end of the spectrum.

I asked:
Because something is extreme, is it wrong, or logically unsound?[/quote]

No, something extreme is not absolutely and without expection wrong or logically unsound. It just almost always is. And it is in this case. I say that because of her insistance that any sacrifice to the common good is a negative. I quote:

"Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."

This is an over-reation to the converse insistance of "collective" ideal that the group is that which should be the ultimate end. My logic tells me that there are times and situations where the good of the many is tantamount, and times when the oppisite is true. She developes a mirror image of the wrong she was harmed by in such a real fashion. The world is not black and white. Sometimes, the real danger IS selfish pursuit of your own happiness, that which she claims as man's highest moral obligation. This is what I refered to when I said she advised a "solitary predator ethic". That works for grizlies and cheetahs, but not for people. People organize in social groups. They survive by pooling resourses, specialization and collective protection. That demands instances of surrendering the good of the one to the good of the many. Without that, the grizlies and the cheetah's would have picked us all off one by one ages ago. Do you REALLY dispute this fact? Do you really believe that the family unit is the highest order? Look at the turmoil in socities that have emphasized that ethic. The Scottish clan system was dominated and controled by the English, who fought for "country" and not family. The Arabs, who organized under clan and family groupings were and are always so busy killing each other that they were and are dominated by Western powers.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I understand you disagree with Rand, I am trying to deduce on what logical grounds you do so.

The above constitutes a major logical ground for rejecting her philosophy.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I am asking you to name one or more issues where Rands methods are "extreme" to the point of ideological purity, and explain why you think so, showing contrast with what you feel is "better". I am trying to identify where our differences are, and at what point, in your words, "extreme" disagreement begins.

I also take issue with her insistance on "pure" capitalism. The fact is, more people are better served by a mixed economy. But, that is not the "fact" she cares about. She cares about maximizing the potential of the individual. For her, it is an accepted (but in no way proven) fact that it is better to allow one very "talented" (by her definition) individual to get everything if he(or she) can, than to restain them in any way. The "fact" that this would probably lead to the destruction of the majority is of little consequence in Objectivist World.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready you said: Humans are social animals, and as much as they need freedom to reach their own potential, they also need the group to sustain and protect them.

to which I replied:
This is patently false, as we are each born into a "group" to sustain us, called a family, which is a VOLUNTARY collective. Government has no responsibility in providing collective outside the family, to supplant, replace or provide where the family leaves off, or in cases where family does not exist.[/quote]

In an Objectivist philosophy, this would be postulate. It is not fact. Though family is an important, ne vital, grouping - it is not the only grouping of consequence. Nor it is the grouping that holds the key to human survival. We are well beyond that now. As proof of this, take your family and declare war on Syria and see how long your family survives. Then see how long Syria survives a war with one of the real power social groupings in the world.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Here I took your issue of claimed human abilities, needs, etc, and disagreed completely, because we are 100% in disagreement here. I showed the logical reason why I disagree with you, hoping you would respond attempting to show me, logically, where I am wrong.

I have just done so.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready "Snippy Stuff"?

I am ready, if you are, to let this go. We do not need to argue over whether or not you were "snippy".

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: What I "percieved" as snippy was the fact that you said I did not answer your questions, when in fact I had. It is snippy to "need" someone to reply in a format that suits your expectations when all questions asked were answered directly.

Aren't you doing the same by asking me not to be "snippy"?

Isbskins said: And I did what you asked. Then I broke it down.Our debate can be civil and that is what I hoped for. There have been times in the past when you took me to task for not "behaving", but then when I take you to task in the same manner, you take issue with that. You want to be able to be accusatory yourself, but bristle when the same attitude is returned. Either we can both be smart-asses or neither can be. You can not dictate my behavior but not hold yourself to the same standard.

Ditto.

Isbskins said: This was another example of "snippy". Not saying "fair enough", but getting pissed that I was redundant is response to redundancy.

???? Did that make sense to you when you typed it? After reading it, I have to say it doesn't make sense to me.

ISbskins said: And I have no problem with expecting logical backing for reasoning. I do have a problem with the idea that in one post, you complain when I elaborate on issues and follow them to logical extentions and conclusions and in the next, you complain that I do not. You asked my opinion, I gave my opinion with nothing "extra" because in previous exchanges you have taken issue with any "extra".

Are we over this now? Are we actually going to debate now, and be done with the debate over how to address one another?

ISbskins said: The "blasting" refered to previous exchanges, not the fact that you wanted futher explaination. My problem was that instead of simply saying "Well, what makes you think that way?", you went a little postal.

Should I have offered to hold your vitrtual hand, when I posted? Give me a break, I in NO way went "postal", and that is an insult to the term postal to use it that way. Ask a dead postal worker.

ISbskins said: See, another example. A civil version of this question would be, "What leads you to disagree with Rand's position?" You would get the information you seek, and not come off as "snippy".

Once again, I am not here for lessons in courtesy, posting etiquette, or tips on "how to be Isbskins buddy". I am debating, or was trying to, until we got sidetracked on all of this emotional touchy, feely crap about how you feel "blasted",victimized or "put upon" by other peopls posting styles.

Isbskins said: The above constitutes a major logical ground for rejecting her philosophy.

NO, it doesn't, and nowhere is there a logical line of reasoning to show why you draw your "subjective" opinions about Rand, or how you arrive where you do on Rand.

Isbskins said: I also take issue with her insistance on "pure" capitalism. The fact is, more people are better served by a mixed economy.

You say that factually, as if you have some backing for this. Do you?

What is "more people"?
What is "better"?
Where is the information you use to make this assertion?

Isbskins said: But, that is not the "fact" she cares about.

Its not a fact. So far, in this thread, its your assertion, which has no backing.

Isbskins said: She cares about maximizing the potential of the individual.

And for a logical reason. All collectives are made up of individuals, and if all individuals maximize, or are ABLE to maximize their potential, all people have the ability to be productive, provide a way of life, and able to support themselves and a family if they so choose. Their intrests drive them, because they can pursue those intrests, as does their own gain, rewards, notoriety, recognition for work well done, etc.

Isbskins said: For her, it is an accepted (but in no way proven) fact that it is better to allow one very "talented" (by her definition) individual to get everything if he(or she) can, than to restain them in any way. The "fact" that this would probably lead to the destruction of the majority is of little consequence in Objectivist World.

Once again, many assertions, little backing, no proof, no citation of example, no tie directly to her work, her words, her philosophy......only your take on her philosophy, filtered through your perception.

[lsbskins1]

I notice you just ignored the body of the post that addresses the topic of the debate. Want to address that?

And...

I am glad that we are agreed that neither you or I need to give each other courtsey lessons. I expect no futher griping about my style from you. As long as you don't - I won't.

And...

And how do you fingure that this:

"And for a logical reason. All collectives are made up of individuals, and if all individuals maximize, or are ABLE to maximize their potential, all people have the ability to be productive, provide a way of life, and able to support themselves and a family if they so choose. Their intrests drive them, because they can pursue those intrests, as does their own gain, rewards, notoriety, recognition for work well done, etc."


...is any more logically supported than this:

"No, something extreme is not absolutely and without expection wrong or logically unsound. It just almost always is. And it is in this case. I say that because of her insistance that any sacrifice to the common good is a negative. I quote:

"Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."

This is an over-reation to the converse insistance of "collective" ideal that the group is that which should be the ultimate end. My logic tells me that there are times and situations where the good of the many is tantamount, and times when the oppisite is true. She developes a mirror image of the wrong she was harmed by in such a real fashion. The world is not black and white. Sometimes, the real danger IS selfish pursuit of your own happiness, that which she claims as man's highest moral obligation. This is what I refered to when I said she advised a "solitary predator ethic". That works for grizlies and cheetahs, but not for people. People organize in social groups. They survive by pooling resourses, specialization and collective protection. That demands instances of surrendering the good of the one to the good of the many. Without that, the grizlies and the cheetah's would have picked us all off one by one ages ago. Do you REALLY dispute this fact? Do you really believe that the family unit is the highest order? Look at the turmoil in socities that have emphasized that ethic. The Scottish clan system was dominated and controled by the English, who fought for "country" and not family. The Arabs, who organized under clan and family groupings were and are always so busy killing each other that they were and are dominated by Western powers."


What part of my posting is Illogical, how is the logic faulty, what is incorrect in my statement. Point out how and where your support for your points are surperior to mine.

[Osborn F Enready]

I have to ask, did you modify that post that I replied to? (not accusing, asking)

I ask because I didn't see portions of that post when I responded, but it could have been my fault, as I was pulled away while posting.

I will now reply to your reply post.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I have to ask, did you modify that post that I replied to? (not accusing, asking) I ask because I didn't see portions of that post when I responded, but it could have been my fault, as I was pulled away while posting. I will now reply to your reply post.

Not beyond correcting spelling or adding a word that I forgot to type...within no more than an hour of the original post.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: I notice you just ignored the body of the post that addresses the topic of the debate. Want to address that?

That may be my fault, and if so, I apologize as I explained above.

Isbskins said: And... I am glad that we are agreed that neither you or I need to give each other courtsey lessons. I expect no futher griping about my style from you. As long as you don't - I won't.

Fair enough.

Isbskins said: And... And how do you fingure that this: "And for a logical reason. All collectives are made up of individuals, and if all individuals maximize, or are ABLE to maximize their potential, all people have the ability to be productive, provide a way of life, and able to support themselves and a family if they so choose. Their intrests drive them, because they can pursue those intrests, as does their own gain, rewards, notoriety, recognition for work well done, etc." ...is any more logically supported than this: "No, something extreme is not absolutely and without expection wrong or logically unsound. It just almost always is. And it is in this case. I say that because of her insistance that any sacrifice to the common good is a negative. I quote: "Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life." This is an over-reation to the converse insistance of "collective" ideal that the group is that which should be the ultimate end. My logic tells me that there are times and situations where the good of the many is tantamount, and times when the oppisite is true. She developes a mirror image of the wrong she was harmed by in such a real fashion. The world is not black and white. Sometimes, the real danger IS selfish pursuit of your own happiness, that which she claims as man's highest moral obligation. This is what I refered to when I said she advised a "solitary predator ethic". That works for grizlies and cheetahs, but not for people. People organize in social groups. They survive by pooling resourses, specialization and collective protection. That demands instances of surrendering the good of the one to the good of the many. Without that, the grizlies and the cheetah's would have picked us all off one by one ages ago. Do you REALLY dispute this fact? Do you really believe that the family unit is the highest order? Look at the turmoil in socities that have emphasized that ethic. The Scottish clan system was dominated and controled by the English, who fought for "country" and not family. The Arabs, who organized under clan and family groupings were and are always so busy killing each other that they were and are dominated by Western powers." What part of my posting is Illogical, how is the logic faulty, what is incorrect in my statement. Point out how and where your support for your points are surperior to mine.

Ok, I now will address the issues you have raised above.

The statement I made, is fully legal, inevitable, and expected in a society in which people are recognized as individuals, responsible for their own well being. Our nation was founded on that underlying set of principles.

The stance Rand takes, the same one I take, is that if we ARE individuals (which we are, biologically, regarding thought processes, opinions, values, tastes, ideology, religion, etc.) , as individuals, as recognized in the Constitution, BOR, and fundamental principles with which our objective law rests, we are responsible for our life or death, our wealth or poverty, our health or sickness, our educational and labor choices. Rand does NOT say that people CANNOT be charitable, nor does she say people can't choose to donate time, money or efforts to causes they deem valuable, but those causes MUST and DO originate within the self, not the society collectively, or at the behest of governments.

You criticize Rand, because of her opinion, but in no way does Rand prevent you from making your own choice on whether or not to be charitable. She has a right to her opinion, and that is what she provides, based on objective law, her objectivist position, and relationship between individual and society. In no way does she postulate laws that should FORCE people not to be charitable, whereas your arguments revolve around "assumed guilt" by society, that you alledge should empower government to FORCE society to live by a code they may not ascribe to, believe in, value, care about or in any way feel any obligation due to lack of direct cause and effect, to alter.

So let me be specific.

You quote: "No, something extreme is not absolutely and without expection wrong or logically unsound. It just almost always is. And it is in this case. I say that because of her insistance that any sacrifice to the common good is a negative."

So, it is fair to say you and she were ideologically opposed on the issue of charity, whether voluntary or forced? Notice she didn't strive to put in place laws to punish people who took part in charity to the public good, whereas, on the other hand, you strive to emplace laws to punish people who DON'T partake in acts solely for the supposed "public good".

She clearly doesn't beleive in using force to reach her goals, whereas you and your expressed views, do, which is one of the points I am trying to make about "which view is more moral" to ALL of those affected.

So yes, she feels charity is a negative overall, but she takes no steps to put that "subjective opinion" into law, in a way that would use force against innocent individuals, to conform to her point of view, via the hands of government, BASED ON the individual rights which underpin our law, society and government, overall.

You feel, or your stated views imply, charity is "so good" that it should be mandated by government, non-action punishable by force of government, and that all people have some "inherant" sense of duty to their fellow man, regardless of creed, color, nationality, yet that "duty" is never shown a logical path of deriving responsibility, you claim exists.

Not all people value life the same way. Rand acknowledges this, I don't think you do, nor do I think your views allow views that contradict yours, since you attempt to, and imply that government force should be used to "back" that action of charity, duty, or whatever you call it. That is the opposite of tolerance, the opposite of your own claimed intentions of the public good, since you advocate the use of force by government against those who have no valid recourse, when the government is the "force" that is being levied, unjustly.

You quoted: This is an over-reation to the converse insistance of "collective" ideal that the group is that which should be the ultimate end. My logic tells me that there are times and situations where the good of the many is tantamount, and times when the oppisite is true.

It is these "times" you speak of, that I and many others fear. Who decides these times? Who defines these times? What derivative line of logic is used to show the necessity of this attitude?

You quoted: She developes a mirror image of the wrong she was harmed by in such a real fashion. The world is not black and white.

Responsibility is black and white, as is cause and effect as the basis of objective law.

You are railing against objective law, because it precludes your ability to use force of government to silence, manipulate, punish and imprison those who don't share your narrow view of "inherant duties and/or responsibilities".

You quoted: Sometimes, the real danger IS selfish pursuit of your own happiness, that which she claims as man's highest moral obligation.

Yes, sometimes, but that does not give government the right to outlaw selfish pursuit, negate individual rights, or objective law.

You quoted: This is what I refere