Shy Kid,
I’d like to offer some thoughts on your friend’s essay. I hope that your second post was genuine, but you must realize that you don’t win any points for integrity by passing off somebody else’s ideas as your own – especially if you don’t actually agree with those ideas.
Sorcery in Fiction
I can’t speak to Terry Goodkind’s novels, having never read them. (Many on this forum have, though.) What I can say is that there’s nothing wrong with the concepts of sorcery and fantasy in the context of fiction. You can suspend disbelief. In a fictional, fantasy world, concepts such as magic become part of the reality of that world. I’m a big fan of the Star Wars movies. The Jedi often get a bad rap from Objectivists for “trusting their feelings.” But in the Star Wars universe, the Force is a metaphysical reality and a Jedi’s feelings are “sense organs” for identifying and putting to use that resource. But it’s important not to blur the distinction between fiction and real life. Someone who believes they can cast magic spells in real life is prime for a mental institution. It would be wrong to trust your feelings at the expense of reason in this world.
Reality
Objectivism holds that there is a single, objective reality. By that I mean that no-one “decides” what reality is – it’s subject to no-one’s consciousness. You use the term “fascistic” with regard to reality. I presume that to mean that there is some dictator somewhere who decides what reality is. Not true.
There are all sorts of logical loopholes in the “multiple realities” arguments. You suggest that reality is “different for different people” yet somehow we “determine truth by consensus.” How is this possible of realities are different? I think the key point here is to distinguish between reality and perception. People may perceive things differently, but that does not mean their “realities” are different.
There are the textbook examples of the color-blind man and the regular-sighted man looking a red ball. The first man sees a ball of the color grey, the second a ball of the color red. It’s a fact that both men see a ball. It’s a fact that both men see it appear as a color. It’s a fact that one man has a deficiency in his eyes that causes him to see a different color than the other.
Then there’s the pencil in the glass of water. The pencil appears to be bent. But we know it’s not. The reality of the pencil doesn’t change when we put it in the water. Our perception of it does due to the way light reflects through water.
The point is that we are equipped to identify the facts of reality. We’re equipped to know the pencil’s not bent. People disagree because they’ve misperceived reality, they’re misinformed or they’re dishonest.
I don’t know anything about Quantum theory. (Again, there are plenty here that do.) But being a “theory” suggests it’s unproven. Metaphysics is not my forte - there are better minds here to offer some ideas.
Fate and Determinism
Objectivism doesn’t pretend that people have equal opportunities or equal ability. Yes, outside influences have a heavy influence on a person’s choices, but they do not determine them. There’s an important distinction. Objectivism doesn’t reject influence, it rejects determinism. It rejects the claims that it is impossible to rise from the ghetto and that you will become a violent criminal. It does not concede, for instance, that poverty causes crime. It recognizes the fact that individuals are influenced by their environment, but offers them little quarter if they commit violent or immoral acts. Despite their environment, the violent criminal still knows what he’s doing is wrong and is always capable of choosing otherwise, no matter how difficult it may seem or how desperate he is.
Reason
Reason is the non-contradictory identification of reality. It cannot be used to “justify any kind of horror.” Reason identifies that coercive physical force is its antithesis. Therefore any decision resulting in the initiation of physical force is not one based on reason.
There is a distinction between rationalizing and reason. Rationalizing is the process of stringing together false syllogisms in a way that appears logical, without reference to reality. While Nazi Germany had some brilliant scientists and industrialists, their politicians didn’t determine their infamous policies through reason – they rationalized them.
There’s also a distinction between pragmatism and rationality. It’s not accurate to say the Nazis were “coldly rational.” They were coldly pragmatic. They knew what they wanted to get done and they went about it very efficiently. Pragmatism rejects principles to achieve a goal (i.e. “the ends justify the means.”) Rationality is principled.
Altruism
Altruism does not merely mean helping others. Altruism means sacrificing a more important value for a lesser one. It’s very possible to help others without sacrificing. Giving to a charity that’s important to you, if you can afford it, is not altruism. Giving to a charity, out of obligation, even if you can’t afford it, is altruism. An act that genuinely betters your spirit is not altruism. You’re receiving a value - and a better value if you’re bettering your spirit. An act that offers you nothing would be altruism.
For example, my spending time replying to your essay is not altruism. It’s possible I may be fostering another mind for the cause of freedom, even if it’s not you. This benefits me. Regardless, revisiting the basics is still a good mental exercise and worth spending an hour of my time on. It’s valuable – not a sacrifice.
Capitalism and War
Ayn Rand defined capitalism differently to its common usage today. She defined it as a social system of rights, including property rights, where all property is privately owned. The role of government would be diminished to protecting those rights, which can only really be breached by the initiation of force. A capitalist government would not have the capacity to declare wars arbitrarily and, unlike the governments of today, it would itself be bound by the principle not to initiate force.
Force is not the sole means of acquiring wealth. I work for a multinational software corporation that did not and could not have existed 10 years ago. Was the wealth created by this company taken by force? No. Investors and entrepreneurs built on information and resources they was traded voluntarily and created the millions of dollars and hundreds of jobs this company represents. They used the principles of free-market capitalism (trade, reason, productivity, self-interest, the profit motive) even if our society is not a truly capitalistic one. No Indians were harmed in the making of this company.
As mentioned, there has never been a truly capitalist society. Imperialism is not capitalism.
Fascism is the antithesis of capitalism and a variant of communitarianism. Fascism, properly defined, is a social system where property rights are nominally maintained, but their use remains subject to the state. The Nazis (who were primarily nationalists and socialists) adopted most aspects of fascism and then the Nazi characteristics of expansionism, racialism and genocide became associated with fascism.
The ideas of the state over the individual; the nationalization of property; the initiation of force through war and genocide; the collectivism of racism; could not be more opposed to Objectivism. They have more in common with any variant of communitarianism you could name. People often wonder where the Ayn Rand/fascist connection came from. I believe it’s an equivocation on her concept of the ideal man with the Nazi “superman.” Ayn Rand often used Nazi Germany as an example of the ideas she was diametrically opposed to.
I hope this has helped.
Yours in self-interested benevolence,
Glenn
| 
