There is so much wrong with this article, that it's really hard to even know where to start. > Ayn Rand’s philosophy suggests that average working people are “

There is so much wrong with this article, that it's really hard to even know where to start. > Ayn Rand’s philosophy suggests that average working people are “takers.” Ayn Rand glorifies working people, like the engineers on the Taggart line, the foremen at Rearden Steel, and Dagny's assistant Eddie Willers. Her villains are mostly crooked rich businessmen who collude with crooked politicians. It's hard to believe Paul even read Atlas Shrugged. His claim is a blatantly dishonest one. > In reality, those in the best position to make money take all they can get, with no scruples about their working-class victims, because taking, in the minds of the rich, serves as a model for success. It's deceptive to simply say "paying less taxes" == "taking." It's true that if corporations pay low taxes, it's not fair for the middle class and small businesses to pay high taxes. But why jump to the conclusion that we need to raise corporate taxes, instead of lower everyone's taxes? (I'll leave answering that question as an exercise for the reader.) Why are Paul Buchheit's ideas about how to spend _my_ money, more valid than my own? If I had money to invest, I'd put it in scientific and entrepreneurial ventures that _I_ deemed most worthwhile. If Paul is going to make those decisions for me, I'd rather just not contribute to a (rigged) social system in the first place.