Never try to engage with Ayn Rand’s work in good faith: worst mistake of my life. She and her fanboys are basically the human version of brainy smurf. Even the name, Objectivism, is her bragging about herself. Thus since they are akin to brainy smurf, don’t bother arguing with them because they will claim omniscience. Instead, deal with them as the rest of the smurfs dealt with brainy smurf.
Me: “Oil companies are using their private property to inflict environmental pollution that I do not consent to. Since they are using their property for evil, we should limit their use of a property. This way no one gets physically harmed, not even the oil tycoon.”
Rand’s Response: “This is stupid, how dare you tell someone what to do with their property. Live and let live! It is actually moral to let people use things that rightfully belong to them for immoral reasons.”
Native Americans: “I just want to be left alone please.”
Native Americans: “Didn’t you just say people who own property should do whatever they please with it, and anyone who has a problem with it should mind their own business?”
Rand’s Response: “Ugh, you fucking IDIOTS! Clearly you know nothing about my philosophy of IKnowEverythingIsm.”
Me: “Uhhh…okay. I gotta say, insisting that you are the standing authority on all knowledge is a little dogmatic, it sounds kind of like a reli…”
Rand’s Response: “UGH! RELIGION IS FOR IDIOTS AND IS AN INSULT TO THINKING!”
I genuinely wanted to read something from the right’s POV so I could better understand them, lest I become as dogmatic as Rand here. So far, the closest I got was reading some classical liberal stuff like Plato’s Republic, Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, and some Nietzsche. But it seems like anything further is just full on pompous dogshit. The Chapo book had more depth than this.
No actually philosopher has ever taken Ayn Rand seriously for even a moment. It’s pure :zizek-preference: