Ayn Rand was a poor philosopher

To discuss if Ayn Rand was a poor philosopher, you have to answer the question: Compared to whom?This is simply not true. The criteria for what makes a good philosopher exist abstractly, coded in the logic of our language and our understanding of what makes an argument coherent, insightful, and justified. Also, I made the argument last round of Ayn Rand’s lesser complexity compared other Western philosophers. Ayn Rand defended above all freedom, that you have the right to own property, and that includes your body. No one has the right to use coersion, and you have the right to defend your rights. For Rand, the use of force is immoral, and the only moral way is by reason and voluntary cooperation.I had the burden last round of constructing a negative case, but I was hoping that you might bring this point up, as it shows a critical deficiency in Ayn Rand’s thinking, particularly in her unjustified assumptions and tendency to think only in extreme dichotomies. I want to specifically examine the relationship of “coercion” to “freedom.”To believe in the value of freedom is an unwarranted metaphysical assumption; simply stating its value, as Ayn Rand did, does not prove its value. Other philosophers circumvent this problem and attempt to demonstrate freedom’s value by either appealing to the existence of God or conceiving of a social contract. Both, however, force you to give up something in return for moderate freedom: taxes, your loyalty in case of an invasion, your acceptance of a religion, etc. Ayn Rand believes in the value of her moral proclamations without actually legitimizing her moral positions. To infer the value of freedom from the simple idea of “existence exists” is just silly, and if you can’t see why this is an improper inference, I will explain in detail next round. Even if Ayn Rand touted laissez-faire capitalism as a kind of social map, she does not understand that an economic disposition is not a coherent political or moral disposition. These two are necessary conflicting, and to think they are the same is a categorical confusion. Let’s examine this issue in context of “coercion.” In laissez-faire capitalism, the government does not regulate financial markets, environmental pollution; it cannot ban poisonous products; it does not collect income tax (and by the way, ANY tax is coercion, though Ayn Rand only rules out income tax). Corporations exert violence and force in far subtler ways than individuals or governments. If a corporation pollutes the air in your town, are you not coerced to breathe that pollution? If a company knowingly dumps toxic waste in public waters or near a residence, is that corporation not committing violence against consumers? If continuous pollution causes global warming, have corporations not coerced other people to feel the effects of its pollution? As I stated before, the reason why we have labor laws and regulators like the FDA or EPA, is because profit motive falls short of respecting human dignity. Just look at the entire history of the Industrial Revolution and the labor movement for examples. Altruism is the sacrifice of yourself for the "greater good", and that "good" is dictated by someone who has the power. It's the root of all religions and all systems of control. Altruism gives a "immoral" reason to force submission. When somebody believes he is altruistic, he is lying to himself and others. There are no one that isn't individualistic. When you give something, without asking for anything in return, you may illude yourself to think that you are being altruistic, but you are wrong. Usually that ilusion leads to disillusion, when the person you gave something for "free", doesn't act the way you expected, you will feel betrayed… Then, slowly, you begin to lose your ambition, and when you notice, you don't know who you are anymore, and you become a sacrificial animal for othersAltruism isn’t a theory or identity; it’s giving an hour at a soup kitchen even though you’d rather see a movie, and it certainly doesn’t turn you into a “sacrificial animal.” Ayn Rand’s version of altruism is a prime example of her tendency toward melodrama and extremes at the expense of rational argument. Altruism can occur whether someone takes pleasure in helping others or begrudgingly helps them. As I said in the last round, altruism is an idea in context of larger theories and philosophies, and to pinpoint altruism as the the root of ALL systems of control is the most laughable and lazy assertion I’ve ever heard any philosopher make. This idea alone shows why Ayn Rand is indeed a poor philosopher. Nazi Germany, for example, committed violence against millions because of racial ideology, not because of altruism. In fact, a stronger altruistic impulse might have prevented them from doing so. In Kantian philosophy, people participate in “altruism,” if it can even be called that, because they believe that human beings should be respected, dignified, and treated as ends in themselves. This is why violence is strictly prohibited in Kant’s philosophy. Also, people can commit violence or exert control in the name of God, an ideal, or because they are sociopathic. None of these items need altruism as a justification; none of these items demand and allegiance toward or sacrifice for other human beings. ConclusionYou did not answer any of my arguments last time, so I extend those. I would also like to point out that you have not demonstrated an affirmative argument that shows Ayn Rand is a good philosopher. Repeating her positions does not show me why her positions are reasonable, insightful, or justified. I maintain that Ayn Rand was a poor philosopher because she doesn’t understand how to construct an effective philosophical argument, infers incorrect conclusions from premises, does not offer insightful ideas, and borrows heavily from a Western tradition she doesn’t understand.