> One remaining difference was that Marxism was at least well-intentioned, whereas Ayn Rand basically turned enjoyment of other's suffering into a philosophy.
Irrespective of what you think she said, her core point was that "If a man lives for anyone but himself, he will be a deeply, deeply sad man".
Ayn Rand herself get that question asked to her whenever she did something which your misconception about her idea would lead you to believe that it should be a contradiction by her philosophy to act in such a way. For instance she supported her husband's art venture for a while, and the interviewer asks her why would she do that, and she explains the same thing. [1]
Clearing of this misconception DOES NOT mean that you agree with her, I'm just saying that your point of disagreement isn't what you think it is.
Her philosophy doesn't think (which was made clear in Galt's speech) that a mother buying food for her kids by forgoing to not buy a fancy hat for herself is a 'sacrifice'. She values her children's wellbeing more than the hat.
The problem also does not come in when Bill Gates gives up majority of his wealth to a charity as long as he truly does want to do that. The problem comes in when society takes 99% of these 'non-sacrificial actions', creates a moral scale out of it and asks everyone to follow it.
It translates to two levels of action:
Individual level: "I don't really want to become a doctor but my mom and dad would get upset if I didn't so I will".
Societal level: "Sure you don't want to pay for poor people's healthcare because you'd rather buy an XBox, but you must make this sacrifice for society's sake".
Rand's core philosophy of Objectivism says that both these paths to individual (like Peter Keating in Fountainhead) and societal unhappiness (like any socialist/communist society out there).
Irrespective of what you think she said, her core point was that "If a man lives for anyone but himself, he will be a deeply, deeply sad man".
Ayn Rand herself get that question asked to her whenever she did something which your misconception about her idea would lead you to believe that it should be a contradiction by her philosophy to act in such a way. For instance she supported her husband's art venture for a while, and the interviewer asks her why would she do that, and she explains the same thing. [1]
Clearing of this misconception DOES NOT mean that you agree with her, I'm just saying that your point of disagreement isn't what you think it is.
Her philosophy doesn't think (which was made clear in Galt's speech) that a mother buying food for her kids by forgoing to not buy a fancy hat for herself is a 'sacrifice'. She values her children's wellbeing more than the hat.
The problem also does not come in when Bill Gates gives up majority of his wealth to a charity as long as he truly does want to do that. The problem comes in when society takes 99% of these 'non-sacrificial actions', creates a moral scale out of it and asks everyone to follow it.
It translates to two levels of action:
Individual level: "I don't really want to become a doctor but my mom and dad would get upset if I didn't so I will".
Societal level: "Sure you don't want to pay for poor people's healthcare because you'd rather buy an XBox, but you must make this sacrifice for society's sake".
Rand's core philosophy of Objectivism says that both these paths to individual (like Peter Keating in Fountainhead) and societal unhappiness (like any socialist/communist society out there).
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQVrMzWtqgU