I am one who believes in moderation in all things. Of late, the focus of most public discussion has been of the extremes. Rationalism is also out of favor in favor of ideologues. To the extent that Ayn Rand supported the individual above all others, the philosophy (if one can call it that) is fatally flawed. Humans are, by their very nature, gregarious. While there are "lone wolves" amongst us, they are, by definition, not the norm, but the exception. While Americans tend to idolize the "individual" that is really a con. It's kind of like being in a group of anarchists. Let's all rebel together. The reality is that Americans, like every other society on earth, are social creatures, and denying that is irrational.

I am not a big believer in, or truly versed in, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, so my response is necessarily general. I'm not sure that the modern Republican party is even close to that position, however, because it doesn't have much a cohesive philosophy at all, other than being non-Democratic. I have to admit, however, that her commentary to the GOP (cited in the original post) is fundamentally sound (and a good message for modern "conservatives"), but her absolute rejection of any kind of "social"ism is, I believe, completely irrational.

Last edited by NW Ponderer; 01/02/08 04:22 AM.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich