Just a few suggestions: there are some concepts you should really develop a more sophisticated understanding of before you begin to make large claims about them. Such concepts include: freedom (you use it in an incredibly uncomplicated manner, meaning in a way that assumes no other definition of the concept than the one you learned from your bourgeois individualist education–and that is a VERY inadequate one, as countless politicians, philosophers, artists and probably even miniature golfers could tell you, probably even with very few big words; you should really begin to develop a deeper understanding of the relationship between and the different functions of ‘individual’ and ‘collective’–one of them is a logically empty category, a fact which bourgeois ideology must constantly hide–wanna guess which one?–also: this is precisely why you need the dialectic in order to understand everything starting with the formation of consciousness; and lastly: please spare us your uncritical and unintelligent Cold War propaganda (which, quite fittingly, has always been as hostile to complicated thought (big words) as your post is–anti-intellectualism has always been a great player on the team ‘non-progressive status quo’)–to this end I would like you to AT LEAST differentiate between communism, socialism and Marxism and keep your McCarthy-Reagan definitions out of a debate that strives to actually look at the underlying logic of things–’communism has failed’ has as an historical, philosophical and political argument almost as much meaning as saying ‘the world is flat and now we’re all middle-class.’

cerebraljetsam:
big words and complicated sentences do not make you smart, in fact they obscure your meaning and confuse your intentions. Do you have to explain your explanation? The art of communication is not in perplexing your audience. Claiming your verbal superiority over another merely makes you one who seeks superiority and power…is that not something which you stress (incorrectly) as a fault and poison of objectivism?

All:
What we are all getting away from in this topic of debate is freedom. angelina jolie may act in whichever movie she sees fit, adopt however many children she sees fit from whatever 3rd world country. You claim hypocrisy…this implies that you know her and her driving factors; surely you are dreaming. You cannot make the logical connection between her actions, however since no one here (so far as i can imagine) is god, omnipotent or any other form of all-seeing deity, what credential do you claim to judge a person that you do not know? After all, we are all just schmucks writing on a message board…really, thats it.

condemning my choice to live in an objectivist fashion is wasteful and silly, because you won’t change my (or any others) minds. Those with so flippant an opinion that can be changed by message boards are really those who we as objectivists seek to overcome. those who seek popularity, those who live through others, those who have no self. Objectivism is not an outcry against establishment, government and society…you are right, these things are essential for the successful existence of people in close proximity…objectivism is a reclamation of the self and the right to pursue interests that we find enjoyable, spiritual or for whatever reason worthwhile to pursue. Our happiness as we define it.

Ayn Rand did think in simplistic terms; since when has complexity determined the worth of anything? I struggle with the concept of objectivism being ugly. Do you truly feel that I should pursue anything other that my own happiness? Do you feel that pursuance of happiness is something that should be quelled for and forbidden?

Taking pleasure in the deconstruction of another human being and their goals should be considered the highest order of evil.

The movie will be terrible. Despite the best of intentions, 1200 pages bad or good cannot be forced into a 2 hour time slot. There is a reason why Rand opposed the creation of this movie while she lived. Don’t be an idiot, don’t boycott it because some coot on a message board told you to. Don’t be an idiot, don’t see it to profess your ever dying love for objectivism. See it if you would like to, take from it that which means the most and move on.

Had you taken even a moment to read the book and have any idea what you’re talking about (which you don’t), you would have learned 2 important things.

1. You are a looter.

2. The amount of Humanitarian work that’s been done by those 2 20 million dollar movie stars, those capitalist pigs from whom you would take a handout in a hot minute, have accomplished more for other people and other societies than your impotant coffee house rants could ever hope to. The amount of people employed by “Branjalena” is in the thousands. Hardworking people, who in my 12 years of making movies, support for the philosophies in “Atlas Shrugged”; hard work, ambition, drive, motivation and not the sniveling “NEEDS” of those who are to lazy to DO. “Need”, “social duty” and “objectivism”… words that thieves use to steal, but only if given permission from the competent.

I can’t believe I just wasted 30 seconds of my life on a coffeehouse crybaby who will just never get it.

Have fun today? It certainly was a time…

Best,
Heather of PFC