There are many people, like a younger version of myself, who think it wrong to advocate for your own needs and wants. And who are smart enough to realize that every "need" truly is a want when you take a large enough perspective. And that holds them back from expressing themselves. The Fountainhead is essential reading for anyone who thinks in that way.

On the other hand, for well-adjusted folks, taking the book literally, is a recipe for overcompensating.

Ayn Rand's two tomes should be read and then, after some more reading, recognised as simplistic garbage by every teenager.

"It's ok to be greedy/selfish" is a clickbait title for the statement that you look out for yourself first and foremost whether you admit it or not, and you want things innately.

In a well regulated capitalist environment, those drives are yoked in a way that the paths through which you become rich and powerful and sexy are the same paths through which you improve the lives of others around you.

In a poorly regulated one you get dupont and enron, but show me a silver-bullet government theory and I'll show you an unrealistic fantasy.

>A mindset of "greed is good" and "it's okay to be self" does not even try to understand the difference between "need" and "want"

You're assigning that. Honestly I don't think most of Ayn Rand's critics have read her books.

The "well regulated capitalist environment" of which you speak is the fantasy. It has never existed.

What could exist is a world based on economic democracy, where no one becomes rich or powerful and everyone has to work together because society is structured to prevent anyone from taking power for themselves.

An economy where the stock corporation is replaced by the worker cooperative -- still an independent business operating in a free market of goods and services, but governed democratically by its workers -- would be much closer to that reality. No one would be able to amass much personal power. And any power amassed would always be held in check by the democratic structures that granted it. A world like that would do a much better job of preventing the accumulation of personal wealth way beyond need.

An economy that strangles the one overarching thing it needs for its very success.....incentive.

You don't need "get tons of power" as an incentive. Most people are plenty motivated by the "make enough to live a good life" and "have meaningful work". Plus, in a democratic socialist economy, the average worker would have much more incentive to get creative than they do in the current economy. Because they own the business and directly reap the benefits of their innovations. In the current economy, the average worker has very little incentive, by comparison, to innovate new efficiencies. They won't benefit. At best they'll get a promotion or a bonus, and not even that is guaranteed.

You're just using different words to describe socialism, which I frankly don't think needs any further arguments against it besides pointing at it's attempted implementations.

No, that's not socialism. Socialism is "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole" (from dictionary.com). dbingham is proposing something different - vesting the ownership and control of enterprises in the workers at those enterprises, not in society as a whole.

I think the closest to this, in current practice, is the German model, where workers have at least a say in the direction of their enterprises (not sure about ownership). It seems to be working out really well for them.

Can you name an example?

I can't give you a specific example. The kind of thing I was talking about is called a "work council" (or, let's see if I can get German in here without mangling it, "Betriebsräte").

It is, technically, a form of Democratic Socialism - you could also call it Free Market Socialism, but it hasn't been tried anywhere. Only state socialism has been tried.

Ayn Rand was a deeply flawed person who would have been aided by having more empathy for others. But she does make a few fantastic points that unfortunately tend to get lost in her ancap fervor.

Namely, that people tend not to think for themselves and slavishly follow social convention for no reason. Not for things like, "should I take all this money?" But rather for things like, Does doing this thing actually bring meaning and joy into my life? Or, Do I actually find deep value and beauty in consuming this media? Or noticing how often we adopt opinions of others for our own, without reflecting on whether or not we actually agree, and whether or not we actually care about what this other person thinks.

And then apply these thoughts to your own creative potential. How often have we not created something because others would not have appreciated it or preferred it another way? When was the last time we did something without consensus or approval, on our own, because we wanted to? How many things are we hanging on to because that's what everyone else does and we don't want to be cast out?

I find that those points are good and necessary ones, but can be had outside the wrapper and nudge in the direction of being blindly selfish and to ignore the suffering your pursuit of desires wrecks upon others.

Much of Bhuddist thought addresses the same concepts, but the goal is reduction of suffering.

What word would you use to denote the concept "to know what you need and advocate for your needs, to take care of yourself"?

What is the difference between "need" and "want" and why is that difference important?

Consider Ayn Rand as someone who had everything taken from her and her family in the name of absolute collectivism/communism, and that the articulation as a reaction to that.

So it's like a reactionary book ... it's existence might makes sense in historical context.

Though not a fan myself.