This critique is pretty lame, especially for some guy who claims to have been follower or student of AR for a time. He either wasn't paying attention or not ver

This critique is pretty lame, especially for some guy who claims to have been follower or student of AR for a time. He either wasn't paying attention or not very bright. The objections he raised are all addressed in detail by Rand in her writings. For example, the idea that Objectivism is against charity and helping the poor is one of the standard canards and misrepresentations. Objectivism has nothing against charity as long as its voluntary. Taking money by force to support a welfare class is immoral. Him and all his socialist buddies are free to give all their money to the poor if that's what they value. As far as the actually needy, i.e. those who are disabled or unable to care for themselves, they are literally dependent on those who are not needy and their need is not a moral claim -- not a moral obligation to be enforced by the govt. In a free society the voluntary charity would be generous and sufficient for these cases because unlike the ever growing need of a parasite class the actual needy is a fairly small and finite group and thus a marginal, side issue in ethics. Now if these clowns really want to stop AR they should attack her theory of concepts. I'm waiting....