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.

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

Most societies today have reached a balance between the two extremes, pure communism (we'll go with "the powerful owe the powerless something simply by their very existence") and pure authoritarianism (The powerless owe the powerful something simply by their very existence). Sure, there's tugging and pulling one direction or another every so often, but any serious imbalances one way or another get evened out eventually through hopefully non-violent (but usually violent) means.

I'd say that I don't think "society" today is actually going in one direction or another (you could make a case for the United States slowly drifting towards authoritarianism), but the forces pulling in both directions are certainly stronger. 

Rand's point goes beyond this.  It's a much more concerned with individual senses of entitlement.  You, DrJBHL, are very successful because you work hard and apply yourself and I, Kantok, am not, because I'm lazy and want to spend my days reading romance novels.  Because of these facts you owe me.  The fact is that I'm not one of those special classes of people.  I'm a healthy 30-something who could work at least a minimum wage job, but I just don't want to.  I want to spend my time reading Danielle Steele.  I am still entitled to your charity, solely because you are successful.

And it goes further.  I can actively disparage you for being greedy, evil, and cruel, despite the fact that you are successful, treat your employees well, and are otherwise a generally charitable person towards me and society as a whole.  Despite this disparagement YOU STILL OWE ME.  I am still entitled to the reward of your toil and your mind. 

In fact it goes even further.  I can actively work to undermine your success and yet you still OWE ME.  

The level of entitlement Rand is talking about isn't the civil safety net.  It's not in regards to caring for those who have otherwise contributed to society or cared for themselves but no longer have that capability. It's about the people who are perpetual takers BY CHOICE and who believe they have the right to take from the successful by virtue,and this is important, of the fact that others are successful and they are not.  Nothing more.  The circumstances of your success and the circumstances of my failure are irrelevant as is my behavior towards you.  

You have and I don't and therefore I am entitled to what is yours.  

People have used Rand's ideas to argue against the civil safety net like you mention, but her argument is against a much baser human emotion.  Jealousy of and theft from those who find success solely because they find success, writ large and given legitimacy by the support of the masses. 

Ah...my bad...no I haven't...but just the same...don't you yourself dwell on anything like this...just saying.

We'll agree to disagree.

You live in a society. You are entitled to certain expectations.

No one has a list of them for you or anyone else. That's where civility enters it. When people are civil, they can sit and discuss things.

If one has to deal with a churl then best not to. When encountering one of these: "Be civil or be gone." is the only approach to adopt. Either they will self civilize and become manageable , or not. In the latter case, one simply breaks contact.

But this is the crux of this entire thread is it not? I see many bolstering their points with talk of civilization, civility, what we 'ought' to do and what we shouldn't. Aren't these merely societal symptoms of the very basic statement we are discussing, not the cause or the reason inherit to the belief for or against the quoted statement above? Am I correct in this at least or am I horribly mistaken?

I'm not sure I agree. I feel like we have fundamental differences in the way we are viewing and approaching this statement.

On an individual level, I agree with Brad.

On a societal level, I don't.   Those who are successful in a society have a responsibility to society.  If that responsibility is abrogated en masse, there are consequences, and is a failure of government.

It's fair to argue over what those responsibilities are, but a government exists for more then just national defense and property rights.

I dunno how these points will fit in here or what Ayn Rand would say about them but here goes:

No matter how you slice it, when it comes to income and wealth in America the rich get most of the pie and the rest get the leftovers. The numbers are shocking. Today the top 1 percent of Americans control 43 percent of the financial wealth while the bottom 80 percent control only 7 percent of the wealth. Incredibly, the wealthiest 400 Americanshave the same combined wealth as the poorest half of Americans -- over 150 million people.

CEO's in The U.S. make 300 times average pay as regular workers. I got nothing against people doing well but that doesn't seem right.

In September I'm losing my job because it's being outsourced to the Philippines. I work for a newspaper. I am in production. In fact for the past 42 years. I'm 61 years old. I'll be 62 in May so I can start collecting Social Security then but I'll have to find some way of getting health care. I could get COBRA but it would cost 1200 dollars a month for my wife and I. I can't afford that. At this point in my line of work there aren't many options. Unless The Affordable Care Act actually does have affordable options we will have to do without health care and my wifes health is not good.

The way it seems to be going in this country is that we are slowly becoming India, China, The Philippines in terms of what the middle class is. The playing field is slowly being evened out so that no longer will the American middle class be the envy of the world. Eventually the manufacturing jobs will come back to the U.S. but only when the workers in the U.S. are beaten down to the point that they will accept the lousy wages, little or no benefits, long hours, terrible working conditions and in general the pitiful state of workers in the so called third world. I believe that this is the strategy in play here. I won't go into the politics of it because I think that it doesn't really matter at this point. The barn door was opened years ago and the horses got loose, goodbye. Ross Perot said it best - "giant sucking sound" when the jobs are gone.

Now I know money does not necessarily buy happiness but it does buy food and provide a roof over your head. If you don't have that then it's hard to live much less be even a little happy.

This has been a recent news item: 80% of Americans near poverty and un-employment. I am one of those Americans. Now those numbers are being debated. Maybe 80% is high maybe it's not. I don't know but I have learned that where there's smoke there's usually fire.

As I said I've nothing against people being successful but I think that we need to examine why there is such a large gap between the well to do and the growing number of people in or near poverty.

The thing I don't like about Ayn Rand is that no matter how her ideas are intellectualized, justified the basic meaning of them is I will do whatever it takes to get all I can and to hell with everybody else. I was not brought up to think like that. That is not what the American way means to me.