We should be explicitly working towards the advancement of human civilization instead of working for rational self-interest.
Her books make the case that individuals working in their own self interest are the best thing for "human civilization." Disagree if you will, but you'll have a tough time coming up with a definition of "advancement of human civilization" that everyone can agree on. In the end you fight for your own vision of what the world should be and ignore the rest.
Might is right. Ignore that at your own peril. Especially if you're in a startup.
No, I think it's easy, we've got a great way to measure progress. We call it "power." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
Even if we let them live, Kardashev, brilliant though he may be, has hardly come up w/ a universal set of values that everyone is, should, or will eventually strive for.
The best you can do is to absorb his ideals, spread his word and create technology that furthers his goals. And in doing that you become an Ayn Rand follower.
Only if we can use them as fuel.
:P
Political disagreements stem from philosophical disagreements. If two mathematicians were arguing about geometry and one assumed that parallel lines never met and the other assumed they did they would not have a meaningful conversation. The problem with most conversations is they mostly deal with surface issues. Clinton or Obama. Bush or Kerry. Blah or Bleh.
Amen to Hacker news for getting to the heart of the matter. And to the the non-Rand-ers, apologies for our intensity and contrarian views. But this conversation will be good for everyone...
And of course, her primary error is that humans are rational beings. We're not. We're evolved animals, and one of the things we've evolved is the ability to rationalise behaviours that stem from thoroughly irrational sources. That a whole bunch of bright self-made and aspiring individualists who prefer doing to theorising have a lot of time for someone who essentially gave them a way to feel just great about both means and ends which have caused pain to other people+ is hardly surprising; but it's correlation, not cause. Indeed, I suspect that the people who readily accept Rand would basically have thought and acted that way anyway, but would have found an alternative, less satisfying, justification for doing so (for example, the economical justification of the Austrians). The importance of Rand to such people is the moral justification she crafted for them.
+ Note, I'm not passing moral judgement here; what makes us feel guilty about our actions is the combination of empathy with knowledge of the pain we have caused someone else - but we can alleviate that guilt if we can convince ourselves it's for a greater good; and there is no greater good than to have done what is morally right.