TIL: Margaret Anne Cargill was a philanthropist born into one of the wealthiest families in the world. She gave away more than $200M during her life, always anonymously, and provided that after her death all her wealth go to charity. In 2011 her assets were liquidated, resulting in a $6B donation.

You can't just cherry pick one argument you like and say that's objectivism lol. You are missing a lot of what Rand is really driving at. I don't disagree that you should be wise in your acts of charity, but that's not the part I'm concerned with (or that is offended by these kinds of donations). Check out my first comment on this article. I think it's ashame she didn't have an heir who she felt she could trust to reside over her donations so that the money might continue to grow and be used wisely.

There are major holes in your argument. How is admiration not "good for oneself"? Admiration translates into power, which I'm sure you will agree Rand saw as a valuable asset. To clarify my previous comments... she's soft on the "charity" and vehemently opposed to the notion of "altruism". Her exact words since you didn't bother to read my link:"It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others—a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal." Being generous, I might say that she's making some semantic argument, but that's invalid because most people (apparently including yourself) don't see a distinction between altruism and charity (without intention of personal gain). Even if her argument against altruism had any rational grounds it would still stand that a majority of humans will never see a problem with charity for charity's sake (if done wisely). That's kind of the point of society and the "social contract". If you don't think her discussions of objectivism are damning enough you might want to research Ayn Rand the person. Start here http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Edward_Hickman then check out the things she's said about native americans. It'll shed some light where in her philosophy she doesn't make herself so clear.

PS before you accuse me of not going to the source... I have read Atlas Shrugged twice and used to be a big fan. I now see shortcomings in her work that are far too easily exploited by sociopaths (and pissed off teenagers) who wish to minimize the value of a social contract and strongly she suspect that her philosophy arose out of an attempt to reconcile her own inability to relate in empathic ways. If you missed that Atlas Shrugged is a critique of government enforced social contract, then you either didn't read it or you don't understand Rand. The social contract is the philosophical root of all charity in this country. It is her own life and actions (and yes her fan base) that have soured me on her works... to which I would otherwise be very indifferent.

IN SUMMARY one quote where she kinda sorta doesnt totally diss charity doesn't undo all her other writings, words, and actions that vehemently oppose altruistic acts of charity.

/r/todayilearned Thread Link - en.wikipedia.org