I think you're misreading critics of Rand. Please don't assume that people only disagree with Rand because they don't understand Rand. > The vision wasn't anti

I think you're misreading critics of Rand. Please don't assume that people only disagree with Rand because they don't understand Rand. > The vision wasn't anti-labour, it was anti-redistributive-policies. I won't comment on whether Rand's intentions are anti-labor, but intentions are irrelevant. Her vision was anti-labor because her vision is harmful to laborers, regardless of intentions. The problems were fairly obvious even at Rands time, and have continued to be borne out since. > But the idea was never that the rich should dominate by virtue of being rich; the philosophy was that people should become rich because others agree that they are creating wealth. You're conflating wealth with value. Rand believed that people should become rich (obtain wealth) because others agree that they are creating value. The problem is, Rand deliberately eschewed all attempts to ensure that this system actually works, ignoring the problem with the free market which was well-known even at that time: Some means of producing value (land, machinery, institutional knowledge) have a high entry cost, so only those with wealth can obtain those means. In this case, those without wealth are robbed twice: 1. If the poor wish to produce value they must go to those with the means of production. This means that only the rich get to participate in the agreement of who is creating value, and the poor must accept whatever wealth the rich say the value produced by the poor is worth. Of course the poor can find another wealthy person to produce value for, but the wealthy have no incentive to give up more wealth than their competitors as long as there is enough value being produced by the poor to go around. It should be no surprise that the wealthy choose to reward the poor with as little wealth as they can, no matter how much value the poor are actually producing. 2. If the poor wish to obtain value they must go to those with the means of production. This means that only the rich get to participate in the agreement of what value is worth, and the poor must give up whatever wealth the rich say their value is worth. Of course, the poor can find another wealthy person to obtain value from, but the wealthy have no incentive to accept less wealth than their competitors as long as there's enough wealth from the poor to go around. It should be no surprise that the wealthy choose to reward themselves with as much wealth as they can, no matter how much value they are actually producing. All this means that once a person has obtained adequate ownership of some means of production, that person no longer needs to produce value in order to obtain wealth. Rather than those who produce value being rewarded with wealth as Rand idealized, the poor produce the majority of the value and the rich are rewarded with majority of the wealth. Redistribution of wealth isn't based on the belief that the rich are less moral than the poor. On the contrary, the reason so many poor are on board with Randian economics is that they believe they can obtain wealth and then behave the same way as the wealthy. Redistribution of wealth is based on two beliefs: 1. Those who produce value should be rewarded with wealth, and 2. Those who wish to produce value should be enabled to do so. "Free" markets oppose both these beliefs, because 1. They allow those with wealth to amass more wealth without producing value, and 2. They allow those with wealth to determine who is allowed to produce value.