Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism

[bennyboy]

No, what you're saying is that if people don't struggle the way you think they should, then they aren't living properly in some sense, including feelings. You don't get to determine that for anyone but yourself. Don't create a false dichotomy. Everyone feels differently and enjoys differently.

Okay, then they will define quality of life differently.  Which means that our quality of life is not intrinsically better, though that's what you were arguing with your book reference-- that we are objectively better off than before.  I disagree with this, or at least with the idea that this can non-arbitrarily be called truth.

So let's get back to the OP.  If someone takes pleasure in dominating others, in hoarding resources, in following their own dreams without regard to the effect on others, shouldn't they?  Is each man his brother's keeper, or is each at liberty to follow whatever legal recourse suits his nature? Is there something intrinsic to the social contract that demands successful people serve as a stepping stone for those who are less successful?

I'd argue yes-- since the betterment of those around me should enrich my life as well.