[oetnxkdrlgcexu]

I would like to gently suggest that you have probably misunderstood why Rand wrote what she did and communicated it the way she did.

She, in her lifetime, bore personal witness to the rape, slaughter, and enslavement that was not only allowed but encouraged by a moral philosophy that placed the importance of an undefinable "group" above any individual. She spent her life's work trying to take the strongest possible opposition to that philosophy. Her goal was to create moral arguments that could stand in opposition to any of the many tenets of group moral systems. She communicated her ideas brusquely, which is not an effective method of communication, because she was "over that shit".

The driving moral principle behind her beliefs was that the strength of a group of people does not have the moral right to abuse the freedom of an individual person, regardless of their practical power to do so. Furthermore, by respecting those individuals rights, society would be better served by those individuals. Allowing evolutionary competitive mechanisms to operate in social spheres would produce better results overall.

Was everything she said correct? Obviously not. But, that can be said of anyone that ever produced any idea. Her fundamental driving principle, and the way she explored it, are both interesting and useful to think about. Tens of millions of people have been subjected to democide in the last century, as a direct result of group-based moral systems. As it has been said, groups do-not and cannot suffer, only individuals can suffer.

As to your individual points, she might say that nothing so far has resolved the tragedy of the commons, that net-neutrality is only a problem because the government has granted ISP monopolies by force, that right to repair is only a problem because governments have granted IP monopolies by force, that any individual may contribute to OSS if they desire but should not be forced to if they do not desire, and that anyone may contribute to a forum if they desire but should not be forced to if they do not desire. I would personally have different answers for some of these questions.

[Dumblydorr]

Rand is an author who is taken as a philosopher by the libertarians. In my view, her work has spawned some of the least constructive political behavior in modern US political history. Do you agree with the viewpoints expressed by Rand Paul and his father, for instance? Or of trickle down economics and the pull yourself up by your bootstraps fallacy?

Rand's work is like the Bible, fiction that has far more negative than positive consequences on our community-based democratic society. I'd happily debate the deleterious effects of either of these ouvres, not that they aren't "interesting" or thought provoking as you say, but that they're exerting negative consequences on American Life.