Can someone explain me, why is it bad to think about yourself? This book teaches you, how to first think about yourself, than others.

She(or Nathan) wrote, that if you do something with “I want this, so I do this” manner, that isn’t great. The formula should be “This should be done, because of some rational reasoning, so I’ll do this”. If you are not involving others right to think/live/freedom.

This book teaches you, how to first think about yourself, than others.

No, it doesn’t.

In a world of Ayn Rand everyone also works together. She wrote, that people should work with each other. They will benefit from this. One person is not capable of doing everything. However, you can choose who to work with. You would always want to work with someone who does everything right and in time.

All people are not equal, and that is a fact, but in rational world they can work hard to be noticed by another rational person. You don’t judge by the look of their skin, cloths or fortune. You judge by the way they think. There would be no slaves, those who worked hard would earn more.

The machines are built by workers, but who made the blueprint? They sold it or shared it to make life more comfortable for themselves, thus making the progress. You will end up with better and more goods. This is one of the reasons you must value yourself.

Money is virtue, because it’s one of the least thing people agreed on as equal value to something. I really don’t want to barter for the new phone, to be honest.

It’s a problem, that you are not getting paid enough, but that’s not problem of the money, that’s people who are paying less are a problem.

Communism isn’t equal too. You, in fact, would get paid the same amount as everyone else. What’s the point of doing better and more, if you get paid the same?

So I still don’t understand to be honest, are there other explanations? With all my pleasure, if everything is shared, I do not want to share my woman with someone, who needs it more. Share my workplace with someone who needs it more, but I will give it to someone, who’s better than me. Share my payment, because someone needs it more. If I want to, I have some surplus and I won’t need it, than sure, I will share. I won’t do it mandatory.

Ideologues reasoning in a void again.

Sir, this is the real world. There has never been a world of Ayn Rands, and there never will be. Ideologies that fail to take reality into account are fatally flawed at the root.

Don’t worry, commies aren’t after your wife. That’s not what the end of “private property” means. First off, wives aren’t property, but even if they were, they’re not the "means of production’ socialists want to seize.

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the 1917 revolution was marked by a series of rapes like a lot of conflicts around the globe, but it was never about “stealing” (🤮) the wives of the bourgeoisie.

Sorry, by saying “in a world of Ayn Rand” I meant her philosophy. That’s my mistake and I will try not to do it again.

Well, the true communism is achieved when everything is everyone, all are equal in their, including people. You can have sex with whom you want. If someone, doesn’t matter who, can sex with another person, so can you. I maybe mistaken, but book “we” explains it greatly.

Few people earn all their surplus honestly, and I am sure you have nothing against those. Others who don’t(stole, lie, decieve) to achieve fortune are not objectivists. They are one of many reasons people hate capitalism in fact and I agree with this.

I do have a problem with all kinds of exploitation, because I try to be ideologically consistent. Even if the exploitation is done by “socialists”. You won’t see me advocating for stalinism under the pretext that it’s nominally socialist.

The problem with Randism is that it’s building a post-hoc folklore around the real-life concept of private property, that acts as a moral justification for exploitation.

There’s no analysis about how concretely private property is accumulated in the real world, and it shows its disconnection from reality quite blatantly.

Sorry, I didn’t understand your take about private property. You saying, that we can’t built our philosophy on top of this concept, because we don’t have scientific research on this matter?