NON-FICTION: What so many still ignore about ayn rand

The false dichotomy of (Christ I hate to even have to mention it again! ) selfishness vs. altruism was neatly dealt with quite a while ago, by Ayn Rand, among others. I recently started thinking about Objectivism again and checked out whats being written about her in the news. I found that, as in the past, her idea of rational self-interest is related as advocacy of mere self-interest or selfishness, a super race, as opposition to charity, as advocacy of greed.

A recent NY Times articles starts with this description:

For years, Rand’s message was attacked by intellectuals whom her circle labeled “do-gooders,” who argued that individuals should also work in the service of others. Her book was dismissed as an homage to greed.

Here we see a successful attempt to leave the reader with a conclusion by pointing around its edges. The implication is that she or her ideas were opposed to doing "work in the service of others.", since that's what her attackers believed. The key in this statement is the meaning of serivce. "Service of duty" is different than "Customer service" or "Serving your fellow man"

It would not be as rhetorically effective to clarify that she was not opposed to doing things for other people or dedicating your energy to the benefit of other people, rather, she was merely opposed to being forced to do so against ones will, and the notion that this was moral.

Stated that way, her opposition to "service of others" is not at all shocking. Then why don't people just say Ayn Rand believed that everyone should follow their selfish interest as determined by rational thinking? I think, part of it, is the general peer-approved dismissal of certain individuals or ideas that most people engage in to varying degrees, but its also a sense that Rand, or her ideas, are bad anyways, so to resort to inaccurate description of those beliefs is justified; because she's one of the bad guys(or she's shamefully masquerading as a real intellectual/philosopher.)

In regards to including the primacy of reason in Rand's philosophy when mentioning her morality, the Conservative Voice comes closer: They use the term "rational", but only in reference to their “Rational Christian Response to Ayn Rand." Avoiding the use of her own descriptions they offer a somewhat agile (in terms of organization) refutation of her morality.

There is a difference between selfness and selfishness. The first involves proper Biblical love and care for oneself as God intends. The latter is based on ego and pride. Christianity is not against legitimate self-interest. We are created in God's image so, of course, God would want us to love ourselves as well as to love others.

Of course, then, God would want us to love others against our own interest, except that if we do what he says, we are supposed to get to go to Heaven- according to most Christians - so then it is in our interest to follow God's plan of salvation. Furthermore, God only dislikes illegitimate self-interest, and since that magic word is readily understood by all humans, instantaneously and without need of contemplation, then who would oppose Christian morality on the grounds of self-interest. Oh, I see, they might oppose Jesus's doctrine of self interest, yeah, but only if they believed in .....
illegitimate self-interest. But why would Rand do that? "Illegitimate" means its wrong!

Obviously its good etiquette to utilize clarifying clauses when employing synonyms of "right" and "wrong," this prevents one from sounding like a proponent of Orthodoxy over Heresy. Even better would be to replace such terms with words that relay the content of your evaluation or standards for judging what you are discussing.

For example, Rand's consistent emphasis of rational individualism and rational morality communicate that she holds morality to be subject to thinking and decisions of humans. These statements do not relate the content of her notions of rationality, but they do allow anyone and everyone to understand that she was not an advocate of 'just doing whatever or you want;' a phrase often repeated by heavy hearted, responsible moralists, who are offended at the idea that being good could have anything to do with selfishness. Instead, they know very well that loving our neighbors and doing whats right by our fellow man is naught but altruism.

Anyways, its been about half a century since Rands ideas (Objectivism) first started spreading. And, to this day, there is still the same tendency to dismiss her by using statements of her beliefs which are not at all accurate.

But I'm so negative that I didn't mention that other articles i read (all mentioning Rand as related to Greenspan) were pretty neutral: A Cameo for the Maestro? and

A cryptic look back, and a shot for Bush

I am not an Objectivist and find their overall system stifling, but I am annoyed by the lack of clarity and simple honesty that so often has dominated in the assertions of Rand's opponents. If we are clear enough on our opponents errors, we should be able to state their beliefs in their own words, without fear that our audience will be persuaded to their side. I am passionately opposed to many ideas, such as property rights, the state, capitalism, hierarchy, heroism, etc. But I hope I am beyond the need to hide beyond slander and misrepresentations of those beliefs.