> who's only crime is to produce value I feel like this is the leakiest abstraction in an other-wise sound market capitalism story. Produce value for whom, and

> who's only crime is to produce value I feel like this is the leakiest abstraction in an other-wise sound market capitalism story. Produce value for whom, and on what time scale? Selling fizzy sugar water at maximized production creates value in the short term, but is a clear loss for public health in the long. (Not arguing for or against soda; it's an example of a generalized pattern of wealth creation on paper, which actually represents destruction of real wealth in the actual world.) Of course, a similar pattern re-occurs in politics (representatives capitulate to the wealthy on issues A, B, and C in order to earn the political capital to attempt something good with issue D). The liberal conceit of electing a Good Guy to fight the Bad Guys doesn't necessarily hold up to scrutiny, either. There are plenty of points to disagree with about Ayn Rand's philosophy, but I come from the school that says you should understand deeply that which you dispute. The author clearly does not understand what Rand is trying to say. > only to hand that money over to another set of people whose only claim is that they need it One last point: there is an important distinction to be made between moochers and infrastructure. I oppose giving people (for instance) free education simply because they want it. I instead support free education because it maximizes economic production and reduces crime, which makes my dollar go farther and my life better. Should we find a way to accomplish the benefits of commons through entirely voluntary means? You betcha. But until that utopia arrives, the rule of law is paid for with coercion. The same force that says that someone with a gun can't just take all your stuff, requires someone with a gun to instead take a large percentage of your stuff. Cry me a river, hippie. ;)