I dislike Ayn Rand, I was reading something about her on a friends blog and decided to rant my responce to such:

I just got blink from Zooba, how exciting. I love that new book smell.

While one can hardly argue with the tenents of Rand in such observations about sexual interaction, her objectivist argument I feel is flawed fundamentally. Be careful not be so taken with a view of human nature that is askew from that which science represents and presented in a mere fiction novel.

Rand attempts to argue that the only productive human action is by nature in pursuit of personal progress. Those who do not follow this pursuit, are what she deems dependent, and society as a hole is divided by those who are dependent and those who are productive. Her treaste for the book is that if the productive citizens ‘shrugged’ the whole world would feel it, however I feel that this is not in accordance with science.

Populations throughout time have proven to be most successful when functioning in successive cooperation, building upon the ability of specialized production. This principle is illustrated in life numerous times and it is the highly evolved compartmentalized aspect found throughout nature.

The organelles of the cell, plebeians and the patricians, the lion pride, even a bee hive..Think of all the behaviors in society that would be proved impossible if practiced universally. The engineer, the novelist, the farmer, all occupations based upon societies and economies of scale. Capitalism is based in complex organizations home to vast inequalities existing between the productive and the less so.

Societies will always be composed of inequalities, and to write as Rand does that lassiez faire capitalism is in the highest accord with human nature, and then to follow with a theory so contradictory to such claims in my humble opinion is difficult.