I can accept that.
I feel we really have no alternative, if we do not subscribe to religious beliefs, than to follow Rand's program. But I was curious about her rejection of the "anything's ok as long as no one gets hurt" idea that she criticized libertarians for. I recognize the limitations of that concept, (for example, how do we define "hurt", and who gets to decide) but it does seem to me like an excellent place to start.
The goal is to devise a morality based on logic and reason and consensus.
