Rand’s sad personal history does not betray the truths in Objectivism. My main objection is to her atheism.

Moreover, minimal Government is not anarchy. We support a more-efficient less-intrusive Government that protects lives, property and the rule-of-law.

Rand supported individual rights and free markets. Liberty is better than living under Government tyranny. We want a firewall between Government and business like the separation between church and state. Protecting/preserving property, life and liberty is enough to allow us to pursue happiness. Free market capitalism best preserves individual liberty.

Rand supported the US Constitution. We demand that the US Constitution be enforced (the whole Bill of Rights), and no more and no less. Let the people decide, not Government, the ACLU, and activist judges. Absolute equality under the law for everyone, without exception and without preferences, is good enough. It’s what the Constitution demands.

Finally, freedom of religion is not freedom from religion. People have the right to worship publicly and privately if they choose. Your offense is notwithstanding. Rand’s atheism is meaningless as well.

I'll repost my response to this argument since you repeated it.

But minimal government is not what Rand was arguing for. Once you admit that we need the government to provide certain services then you are just bickering over which ones.

Moreover I think a lot of people might argue that a pretty large government is a "minimal government" it all depends on which things you value.

You support a more-efficient government? I am glad you took such a controversial stand against those who support a less efficient government.

You support the protection of lives property and the rule of law? Its a good thing you are contrasting yourself from those hated Republicans and Democrats who don't support those things.

Liberty IS better than living under tyranny! Wow the ethical tautologies just keep coming!

You want a firewall between government and business? Why single out business? Clearly you value people's ability to not have their property stolen, if a business builds a toxic waste dump on the property adjacent to my cabin haven't I had my cabin "stolen" in some sense?

You demand the US constitution be enforced? Funny that is how the government is currently run!

You want the people to decide? Funny this is one of the most democratic nations that has ever existed!

You are already living in the state you long for. It is not the state Rand longed for, but what she longed for is impossible. A state where the majority is unable to enforce its opinions on a minority (Rand insisted even a minority of 1 was enough). Such a state is simply not going to function, people's preferences are not that compatible. It would lead to a state with so few rules it would border on anarchy.

Smores:

...

Rand supported the US Constitution. We demand that the US Constitution be enforced (the whole Bill of Rights), and no more and no less. Let the people decide, not Government, the ACLU, and activist judges. Absolute equality under the law for everyone, without exception and without preferences, is good enough. It’s what the Constitution demands.

Finally, freedom of religion is not freedom from religion. People have the right to worship publicly and privately if they choose. Your offense is notwithstanding. Rand’s atheism is meaningless as well.

The progressive income tax is also part of the US Constitution (16th Amendment). I bet Rand did not "support" that. Perhaps you don't either.

And you feel it's wrong for Americans to insist on fair application of "The whole Bill of Rights"? If not, then what's wrong with the ACLU working to that end?

"Freedom of religion" is a meaningless buzz-phrase if it embraces the notion that Americans are somehow required to support Correct Religious beliefs and practices. To put it a little more plainly, freedom of religion DOES include freedom from religion. If your religion requires the elaborate props of Big Government, it's a weak sort of religion indeed! (And that's one point on which Ayn Rand and I would agree wholeheartedly).

If Ayn Rand was "mostly right" then we ought to see at least one successful nation in the world which is governed by her principles. Good ideas survive and thrive because THEY WORK.

If an idea is fading and dying, we can be quite sure it doesn't work very well. Apparently the principles of socialism which keep creeping ever more steadily into our lives are what work, while libertarianism works best as a buffer or brake rather than a central guiding principle.

"We want a firewall between Government and business like the separation between church and state."

Yeah, because de-regulation (that firewall) just worked out so well. Let Wall St, banks, and mortgage brokers just do whatever they want without any regulation...and that leads to? an enconomic failure of epic proportions.

Your main objection is to 'her atheism'? Oh, ofcourse. Who is the royal 'We' here? as in "We support a more-efficient less-intrusive Government that protects lives, property and the rule-of-law." and "We demand that the US Constitution" you and (?)

1. I support living in a racially diverse, liberal, open-minded, accepting society; however, I also support absolute equality under the law, without preferences and redistribution. I support increasing legal skilled immigration from everywhere, but limiting unskilled illegal immigration.
2. The basis of my philosophy is that the world is fair (excluding socialism, fascism, stateism, collectivism and communist systems). I support minimal Government, economic liberty and unalienable private property and unalienable civil rights, because free individuals who work hard will earn their wealth.
3. All individual Americans deserve life, liberty and to right pursue happiness without Government intervention. Some groups do earn more wealth than others, because those groups have cultures that stress education and work ethics, and those diverse results are fair. Diversity of outcome is liberty. Equality of outcome is oppression.
4. Government should do NOTHING to promote racial or economic equality, besides enforcing the law equally. Basically, in a free market economy, the economic distribution patters are always fair, and redistribution is always vile (distortive and oppressive).
5. Government should do nothing to prevent business failure. Furthermore, Government should neither grant favors nor pick winners. Bankruptcy and reorganization is the market solution. Corrupt business should fail. Government is our most corrupting element. Bad management is punished by the free market, but bailout and Government distortion allows bad managers to stay in place. The free market insures that bad managers are soon without a job. The free market continuously insures that better business practices replace worse.
6. Once a Government becomes too powerful, then people are powerless to prevent tyranny, so encroaching Government power must ALWAYS be limited! We are currently on the Road to Serfdom where Government is usurping power, and violating the U.S. Constitution, which I consider to be the greatest political document ever written.
7. Capitalism, coupled with civil liberties, best combats poverty while preventing tyranny: The free market solution for the poor - in a free society - is to work hard, gain skill, become educated, save capital for investment and move up an organization based on merit or invest in your own business. Additionally, free markets lead to free minds and free peoples. Free markets also create mutually beneficial wealth and prosperity, while free trade promotes peace and understanding.

Provide any evidence that deregulation as opposed to Government collusion, corruption and distortion caused the economic crisis.

For example, US Joint Economic Commission: <link> -Government serves many useful functions, including some economic ones. The findings here support the view that the growth of government in newly emerging nations and economies tends to increase output. Presumably this reflects the reduction in transactions' costs and the improved environment for investment associated with a rule of law and enforceable property rights. At the same time, in modern times relative American federal government spending has expanded rapidly, reflecting sharp increases in transfer payments. The evidence suggests that large transfer payments in particular have negative consequences for growth. The results for the federal government are confirmed for state and local governments and several other countries. The findings suggest that a federal budget strategy of constraining spending growth below output growth, with particular attention paid to constraining transfer payments, would have positive effects on economic growth.