> Advocacy is not a crime and arguments are not invalidated by conclusions Of course; I just wish that the writer had mentioned this at the top so I could have

> Advocacy is not a crime and arguments are not invalidated by conclusions Of course; I just wish that the writer had mentioned this at the top so I could have given the arguments context. I've read Rand and personally don't find her useful so all that reading led to... nothing insightful (for me anyway) :) There was a lot of use of "The fact is" - this is just bad rhetoric. I didn't feel these sections were well enough argued/presented to constitute a solution to the questions posed earlier in the piece. Ultimately I just felt the conclusion was poor - the article posed a lot of questions and never really addressed them, except to say read Ayn Rand.