i saw the documentary, "Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life." it was interesting to learn about her history since i didn't really know very much, other than that she was born in russia. i didn't know she was in the movie business (lucking out and meeting cecil b. demille when she first got to hollywood) or that she had actually been a recurring guest on a bunch of tv shows (such as donahue and that guy from 60 minutes). a main thesis of hers was that rationality is the highest good, and irrationality the most fundamental evil. i can appreciate the importance of rationality but i'm uncomfortable with the idea that anything which is not purely rational, and therefore is irrational, is simply evil. i believe her argument would be that since man must use his rationality to properly and fully live in objective reality, it is suicidal to allow any forms of irrationality into the picture. this seems awefully limited to me. completely discounting anything which is not purely rational is discounting a large range of experiences which are, in my mind, worthy. can there be times when rationality is either less equipped to handle things, or simply doesn't apply? i think of scepticism as a reasonable approach to such issues: believing that there is much we do not fully understand, and yet looking for a rational understanding of the phenomena rather than resorting to an irrational relationship with such events. objectivists seem to require clear cut evidence to alter their ways, and they do not consider possibilities and possible consequences. specificially, i am thinking of environmental concerns, where it is clearly debatable to what extent our actions are altering the earth and how detrimental those alterations may be. it seems to me that objectivist philosophy dictates that until we have conclusive evidence that we are causing damage and problems, we can merrily continue to consume resources and expell waste into our own habitat. taking the sceptical approach, it is reasonable to me to err on the side of caution when there isn't sufficient information available to draw absolutely final conclusions: the potential consequences of pollution and over production are not complete unknowns, and it would be irrational to discount or ignore that data. i guess the more interesting questions are how objectivism responds to issues of corporate behemouths in effect encroaching on human rights since ayn valued both individualism and laissez-faire capitalism. it seems that in reality, money and greed are the bottom line when it comes to the free market, even if it is supposed to be the case that laissez-faire policies would allow us all to vote, as it were, with our dollars - that if the audience were enlightened enough, they would be the drivers of industry, rather than the passive consumers. shopping is politics in it's most important form today. the argument for privatization of public resources has always been to reduce costs and improve overall quality. more bang for the buck. believing that cost is the most important measure of a system's performance, that it's always preferable to spend less rather than to consider what the extra expenditure brings, is a fundamental problem with our society. someone once said that laissez-faire capitalism is the most democratic system since it gives people what they want, even if it turns out to be a planet owned and operated entirely by, say, Mitsubishi. "you shouldn't have bought their products" they will admonish. well, realistically, the laissez-faire system seems to allow those who are focused on money and who disregard environmental, political and moral issues (unless they can be coopted to drive sales) to gain the real power and control, thus undermining human rights, including those so highly valued by rand. she said something to the effect that if the conclusions you draw are problematical, if they are broken, if they do not match reality, then you need to reexamine your axioms and the reasonsing employed. it strikes me that it is clear that our current capitalist system is in dire need of such reexamination. of course, one can poo-pooh away all of these feelings and opinions by simply stating that pure laissez-faire capitalism has never existed and that the somewhat regulated markets we have are bastardizations and obviously fraught with problems. this is the point at which one could regard rand's beliefs as irrational: just how realistic is it to believe that pure laissez-faire capitalism could ever exist? that economy is her fantasy, her platonic ideal. i found it ironic that the film stated rand's belief that everyone should utterly own the product of their own labour while showing scenes of workers in steel mills and quarries. with respect to money it is in the best interests of employers to keep labour cheap. it is therefore debatable just how much of a labourer's work (in the form of money) is in the end owned by themself, or by the company which employs them. it seems to me that constructs such as coops and profit sharing schemes lend themselves to a more fair distribution of wealth than the stereotypical multinational and heartless conglomerate. it is quite apparent that in reality there is a struggle along a continuum for wages, and so the concept of the right to all of one's own work is negotiable. true, you don't have to enter into the contract of employment, and thus you can keep all your work for youself, but once again that is an extreme and only remotely realistic option.