Here is a list of his counter-points to objectivism and my list of counters to them: 1) "If [social program] restrictions can make twenty million hungry, then

Here is a list of his counter-points to objectivism and my list of counters to them: 1) "If [social program] restrictions can make twenty million hungry, then destruction [of social programs] could quite possibly starve to death vast numbers of people." This does not prove that objectivism is flawed just that migration to a purely objectivist system would be difficult. The real issue in this case is the populace being accustomed to a certain way of life and then changing it on a dime and expecting them to change on a dime or starve. 2) "The first flaw results from Objectivism's overextension of the correct repudiation of rewarding people for need to the prohibition of even helping those in need." In Atlas Shrugged, Dagny is helped when she is injured after a plane crash by the industrialists that were abandoning society. Rather than view it as helping those in need, think of it as investing in those in need. If you're a leech on society and then you fall on hard times why should society work harder to find a way to save you? It's not pretty, and I'm fairly opposed to it, but it is logical. 3) "Further, by saying he will never live for the sake of another, John Galt and the Objectivists cannot live their lives for Ms. Genovese's sake even long enough to make a phone call." Making a phone call in this situation would be an investment in your community. It would do even an objectivist a disservice to have a murderer running around and perhaps targeting them next. Self-interest would dictate that the crime be reported. What those people went through is something much more to the core of human instinct which unfortunately may or may not follow philosophical knowledge to the tee, even within the objectivist. :) *Concession- I will give the writer this point: I'm not sure what reason an objectivist has to try to maintain the world past his/her lifetime (RE: the OP's environmentalism point). This is something I'm curious about. Is the ultimate idea that other objectivists should work to ensure that this objectivist doesn't screw up their future? [edited typo]