I think it's somewhere in there. Possibly a D.
A) seems a pragmatic life philosophy, I don't know whether is is a good one. Might depend on one's definition of vices. Say you are going to live a simple, healthy, frugal lifestyle free of vices per se. What would be the point of trying to profit/exploit from others vices? What would be the point of accumulating wealth if not to spend it on your own vices? Possibly depends on if you consider a desire to live in some degree of luxury/comfort a vice. Doesn't Buddhist philosophy sort of revolve around this concept? Give up material wants and live a simple life seeking enlightenment. You're not exploiting anyone by doing so in that case.
B) I might remove the word regrettable. It's just reality. Most people are going to act in their own self interest. It seems a reasonable thing to do. I might rephrase the philosophy as: minimize the opportunities for others to profit from you, maximize your opportunities to profit from others. That's not as bad as it sounds. Almost every business (and employee thereof) is trying to sell something to somebody so they can make profit to then buy things they personally want. So it's always going to go both ways to some extent.
C) It's probably a partial truth. Again, adding the word objectionable is neither here nor there (it implies there is some objective standard for judging morality). Another complicating factor is that in that many cases, things that benefit the collective (i.e. society) also benefit the individual members. Things like law and order, socialized education, socialized medicine etc. There is a cost to the individual, but the benefits returned may outweigh those costs. So it's not every man for himself all the time.
When I was thinking of A, B, C as responses to the original statement I was trying to think of viewing it as positive, neutral, negatively, the manner in which I phrased the responses was meant to convey, in each case, that there is a degree to which is it, or can be, objectively a fact.
The source is from the fringe of the nineties militia scene, a sort of vicious objectivist philosophy, coloured, no doubt, with a sort of social darwinist outlook.
The thing is not so much the losing your vices / dependencies, that's fine, and I've thought about that, why it seems less of an issue for me than the second part, about exploiting other peoples vices.
Perhaps you could frame that as being simple self-interest, I'm not so sure, it sounds to me a little more predatory in character, at the very least, if you are being an apologist for this position its a case of that old saying about you "should not wish someone to die but neither expend energies to keep them alive" but that's about the best you could do. It seems cruel, callous and wicked.
Anyway, like more than a litte of the libertarian philosophies of that era it seems like the philosophy or guiding principles of a hill billy meth pushing motor cycle gang.
