I'm not sure whether you agree or disagree with the philosophy of rational selfishness. Maybe you don't care and are only interested in attacking other people.
But her philosophy was a very important part of American conservatism. The old conservatism anyway. Are you saying that conservatism is not a capitalist ideology?
huh? Rand wasn't even a published auther until well into the 1930's. Clearly the political/economic policies of Taft, Coolidge and Hoover influenced Rand not vica versa.
Sorry, I meant "modern" American conservatism. From wikipedia: "In the United States modern conservatism coalesced in the latter half of the 20th century, responding over time to the political and social change associated with events such as the Great Depression, tension with the Soviet Union in the Cold War, the American Civil Rights Movement, the counterculture of the 1960s, the deregulation of the economy in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the overthrow of the New Deal Coalition in the 1980s, and the terrorist threat of the 21st century. Its prominence has been aided, in part, by the emergence of vocal and influential economists, politicians, writers, and media personalities. While conservatives were once significant minorities in both major parties, the conservative wing of the Democratic party has all but died out and most conservatives today identify themselves as Republicans. In 2000 and 2004, about 80% of self-described conservatives voted Republican."
True..... but since she and her family were of the merchant class she was much more influenced by the Revolution in 1917 and watching and living the wholesale stripping of her family's possessions for the good of the state and the ensuing the civil fight for mother Russia with the Reds and Whites/Bolsheviks and the Provisional Government than she was Taft or Hoover for love of god. See Dr.Zhivago.....my namesake...
By your stating that capitalism and rational selfishness are one and the same, one would infer that you also believe that socialism is "unselfish". This is of course the spin that socialists would like the public to believe. Capitalism is simply the freedom to own the means of production. It has nothing to do with whether one is selfish or not. As I already stated, I believe it is socialists who are selfish, and if one looks at socialist countries it is easy to see. The objective of the average worker is to do as little as possible and get as much as possible from the government. That, in my book, is selfishness. It ruins countries and it ruins companies where it is applied. (unions) Whenever you see countries or companies flourishing over the long haul in a free market, you will note an absence of selfishness by labor and management. When either one is acting selfishly, whatever success they have will eventually stop. However, a capitalist making a lot of money is not in and of itself selfish.
Just goes to show that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think U2 are more relevant than the Stones ever were. The Stones are iconic but they haven't done anything except make a few billion over the past 20 years. I'd pay to go see U2 but I would never pay a cent to see the Stones do their karaoke thing. Who's in the Stones these days anyway? Darryl Jones on bass, who else? Pabst mentioned that U2 would be essentially forgotten had Bono not been in the public eye due to his activism. I have to disagree. Their record 'How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb' was received pretty well, I thought, and showed that they still had the ability to craft a million selling pop song. U2 have showed remarkable staying power. The only band that is more surprising in those terms is the Chili Peppers, who are still massive, worldwide.
jb suggested that it's essentially jealousy that causes this absurd reaction. You responded with the comment 'deep analysis'. Seems like the same type of reaction you have to any commentary. Actually, it's a pretty accurate analysis. Can you attempt to argue against it? It's only people like you with their faith-based view of the world, people whose reactions are drawn from a shallow pool of doctrinaire thinking, who would question a billionaire's efforts at activism on the grounds that he is a billionaire.