No. It's a big wide world out there. 

Money can't buy love or happiness.

True happiness comes from within. True happiness can't be given, bestowed, or otherwise precipitated from outside influence. This kind of happiness can be fleeting, temporary, and isn't true happiness.

I know of rich people who are very unhappy.

I used to work for a couple, cleaning their expensive cars, washing the windows in their expensive house.

A Dr. and an Atty. They were miserable. Marital problems, etc. All kinds of unhappiness.

They are now divorced. Money does not bring true happiness.

Thanks Kantok!  I had no idea what Brad was trying to say in his OP.

I am a generally happy person. My wife, is not.

I used to think I could "make" her happy. No. She will have to find happiness for herself, as I did. Took me years to learn that.

I found my happiness by spending 3 years as a homeless, low life, bottom dweller. Then coming back from that through venues I won't speak of for fear of making this a religious reply.

I came back, my wife (former) did not. You all know where I am now. The former wife? In prison for murder 2.

I truly believe that happiness is a choice we make.

As a child, I was afraid of my abusive father. A man who had raped a few of my siblings. As a child, I was sexually molested by my older brother. Until I was old enough to stop him. I could go on....

All this led me to choose to be unhappy, to drink and drug my way through life in an attempt to either find happiness, or cover the unhappiness. Happiness eluded me.

Then, I met wife 2. Had two kids by her. Had them taken from me due to her past, then caught her in bed with my "best friend". But, as stupid as it was, I stayed with her.

But I let her take me to the point where I no longer cared, about anything. My spirit was broken. I literally ceased to care.....barely existing.

3 years of that and I somehow found my way back, because from the bottom, all there is is up.

After some counseling, and a few weeks in a mental hospital, I fought my way back. Created a relationship with my two sons, remarried to a wonderful woman, who can't seem to find true happiness.

I choose to be happy. I won't go back to the "dark side".

My father in law says that one of the best things about me is that no matter what is going on around me, I find a way to enjoy my day. (Be Happy)

In my world, happiness is a choice I make. YMMV.

You have this exactly backwards.  Rand was talking about those who are "Takers", those who do not contribute to society but live via handouts and welfare, insisting that THEY get respect NOT MATTER HOW THEY ACT.  In the story those who are productive members of society, be it "great men" like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, or simply those who work day in and day out and take pride in doing a good job (a train engineer, a mechanic, etc) are increasingly NOT respected.  They are expected to continue to produce and be taxed by those who do not do anything productive.  Those who do not even attempt to support themselves (like Rearden's brother) want to be financially supported by those who are productive while also being able to demonize the producers.  You are successful and good at what you do, therefore you are greedy and selfish and evil, but despite the fact that I call you greedy and selfish and evil and that I try to steal your inventions without compensating you I expect you to go pay my bills for me so I can continue to sit around and talk about how evil you are rather than working.   

The story is about the takers getting bolder and bolder until they essentially expect the productive members of society to work for nothing but to go on being productive members of society and carrying (supporting) those who do not want to work.  That's where the famous quote by John Galt (one of the books main characters) about the men of the mind going on strike comes from.  In the story the heroes are inventors, engineers, great artists, scientists, etc.  They go on strike and tell society that they refuse to support it anymore without getting respect in return.  

The idea is that the takers, those who live by charity, demand respect from those who support them despite the fact that the takers do nothing but demonize and steal from the ones supporting them, not that the rich demand respect because they are rich. 

I wouldn't read too much into a single sentence regarding "niceness".

The phenomenon I've seen during the rise of social media is the belief that if you have power over someone, you have a duty to take criticism and abuse from them without responding in kind because of the disproportionate positions each hold with respect to the other.

The most common, visible example I see online is the way users will talk to a forum moderator. You don't have to be some sort of successful business person to witness this kind of attitude.

To quote your response which nails it:

I have had many debates with people on this topic and it has become very clear to me (and it took awhile because I just couldn't bring myself to believe that they actually felt this way) that their philosophy is that the successful owe the less successful something simply by virtue of being successful. 

There is a real divide in our society now based on this. This was really highlighted in the Phil Fish drama of this weekend where people, even journalists, felt free to personally attack him in the most vile ways but if he responded in return, well then, that was somehow crossing a line. Because, after all, Phil Fish is a famous, successful person and the people attacking him were disproportionately less so. 

It is now considered unfair, when arguing some point, to remind people that they are more accomplished than they are. It's "bad form". Or it's "punching down". 

A good example of that mindset is people who will use social media to try to harm my livelihood but will cry foul if I observe that they work for a company that we are a customer of and respond by telling him that we will be thinking twice before buying stuff from his employer.

To quote Rearden:

This quote can be applied far beyond charity. It can be applied to any scenario where the person doing the "spitting" seems to have forgotten that there is a disproportionate relationship between them. That applies whether we're talking about some foolish college student "indie developer" complaining to a co-founder of Epic online to some troll on a forum believing he can mouth off to a moderator with impunity by virtue that the moderator has the power to ban them.

So someone telling Phil Fish how he *should* behave or what he *should* do is likely rankling to someone like him because he feels like he has to keep the kid gloves on with these people. Because after all, who the hell are these people to tell him what to do? That frustration builds.

Rich people sure love Ayn Rand

I think this idea is probably THE central divide in our society now.  It's not always in the headline, but it seems like every major political controversy or disagreement has this issue bubbling beneath the surface.  Without trying to get too political, I think the last half decade has seen a surprising upsurge of incidents where this divide is clearly evident.  I can't count the number of times my wife and I have been discussing some current event over dinner and remarked how the event seemed like it was pulled from the pages of Atlas Shrugged.  

I took me a long time after reading this book (many years ago) to really consider that Rand might have been right about some things.  I'm certainly no objectivist, but I think she understood human nature and how human nature would affect the course of industrialization better than she's given credit for.  

Telling someone they are wrong about something, even technical (non-subjective) matters gets much the same reaction.  All perspectives must be considered, regardless of their merit.  

One of the best lines in the book.  It's something that I feel like our society is losing; that appreciation towards those who are the ones being charitable.  

While I don't disagree with the overall sentiment of this thread I think that how an individual processes thoughts/emotions etc. is inextricably linked to one's current status in life.

It is easy for the non-addict to forget that the addict's mind doesn't make connections and process thought like that of a non-addict.

It is easy to forget how the pressures of day-to-day living can suppress the ability for calmer rationale when viewed from a more comfortable place.

It is easy to feel attacked by those of a different position and not so easy to remember where they might be coming from.

I am not saying that a 'culture of entitlement' doesn't exist.  It most certainly does.  But I think it does in all walks and on all levels of life.  I think it does everyone a lot of good (in all dealings with people on a daily basis) to try harder to empathize than to criticize.  Of course that is infinitely harder to achieve in practice......and so the world turns.

I don't know about "love". I don't think her philosophy "objectivism" is any more realistic than any other utopian ideology.

But I will say this - if you want to be successful (however you define it) then it probably isn't a bad idea to look at the habits and philosophies of people who are successful, particular if they started out with very little.

Nailed it on the head.

Edit: was late yesterday and I have not even read the book 
but to the case moderator and how some people talk to them online I wanted to say something.


Well in real life you have a person that is facing you and that doesn’t stop some from having a bad tempered conversation.
So it can’t be really expected to have a customer with a problem ( normally if customers don’t have problems you will not see them or hear from them until something does break )and even then you can’t expect them to be polite in the virtual world if he is basically just typing text into a box. 
You can’t expect this common real world social behaviour to merge virtually if there is no visible connection to the person that the text is directed at, be it a person that has a digital pyramid status like moderator or not.

I do understand your point –but I’m trying to explain that it is better to separate that perspective into two.

Hope nobody is offended by this-part since it’s not directed at anyone specifically it’s just my view of a customer meeting a moderator.
A Moderator is Human as is the consumer the "digital status “Moderator” has no real value at that point / well to a tiny amount since her/his job is to try and talk to the person, integrate them or help even if they are grumpy (the real person behind that status "moderator" can be precious in real life and of course is essential in the virtual world ) but when confronted to a support threat with a customer, the “moderator status” should "not" stand above the status of the consumer/customer and should not “out lift” them neither should the benefits that come along with such a status be abused. Some Mods do their job amazingly well - others abuse that digital status. ( But that’s something off topic )

I guess the main problem/thought of most tempered virtual folks is, that in real life the consumer is “King” therefore it has to be the same or should be equal virtually as well, no matter how they act.
From that point of view a Moderator is *sorry* just a tool to help them ( yeah that’s harsh but they don’t see you – what they see is an avatar)
SO this is the King view : power

While the Moderator is to help you, integrate you into the community or to make you disappear if you can’t behave,
some expect you to be kind because of this digital status while it is party just a “title that comes with certain rights followed by rules”. Kind of like a tourist guide with a virtual pumpgun. Power and responsibility

*2 sides different perspectives / to a certain amount unequal powers in real to virtual world.

I don´t understand that some people expect to receive help, if they start insulting a person that possibly has the power to help.
They would not act grumpy and insulting in real life to keep their “image in public” but they abandon this thought in the www, however they should behave virtually as they do in real life, but that’s mostly not the case because there is no physical connection to it or visible. 

Either side should be treated with respect but in the web as Business you have to tolerate temper since most folks think “King” 

I’m also one of these guys that think the way, that if your wealthy enough your able to look around and give back to the less fortunate, but that does not make me act insulting against the people, since it’s their decision to take if they do or not, for me at least giving back to the less wealthy plays a role or is being social and I’m not rich, but if you are and you don´t what are you?
Certainly not a model to look up to or to be worthy to imitate -at least not for me. 
Still that is no reason to go and insult - but for me a reason to avoid contact. .

This even can be compared to the real life system, with power/wealth comes responsibility and as someone in that position it should be your personal goal to display a “role model”  which can be looked at proudly, but if abused…or driven by greed and ignorance- well look around. 
If you don´t care about what is happening around you if you simply ignore you will radiate exactly that and are more likely to get confronted by angry folks.

Yep ....

Yes. However, it isn't only the poor or the recipients of largess who act poorly. Power and entitlement can be and are part and parcel of many social interactions, and it is the boor who exercises them. Civility is the mortar of society. Respect and courtesy are not foul words. Indeed, if they were, we'd probably see them used far more often.

Odd that this was said during ancient times: "If we are forced, at every hour, to watch or listen to horrible events, this constant stream of ghastly impressions will deprive even the most delicate among us of all respect for humanity."-Cicero

Very interesting what some have said here and what their viewpoints reveal. *shrugs* It has been an intriguing read so far.