Atlas Shrugged isn't a perfect book by any means, however it is something that should be read - particularly by the bleeding heard lefties that abound in our society at the moment.

There is another message that the book espouses that the author of this article doesn't mention: Personal responsibility. In our paternalistic society, with tax churns like baby bonus', family tax rebates, child care rebates and all the others, personal responsibility is sadly lacking.

However this book goes on and on about it, and that's the single most important reason to read this book - so that readers can get a feel for what happens if you take the reigns of your own life.

This has been done: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1154

I know I get a bit pedantic but The Shock Doctrine explains exactly how capitalism---Ayn Rand's "unknown ideal" works.

1. http://www.naomiklein.org/schock-doctrine

The politics and anti-"culture" that Rand promoted was that of the hard edged loveless heart and her "god" was the god of the hard edged machine---a machine which inevitably and relentlessly reduces everything to rubble.

These references describe the inevitable results of the anti-"culture" of competitive individualism or extreme social darwinism that she promoted---the war of all against All and everything.

1. http://www.ispeace723/youthepeople2.html
2. http://www.coteda.com/fundamentals/index.html

I tend to agree with the analysis here, though I'd argue that there are fundamentalists in any belief set, including free market theory, so there's no stupidity in calling a spoon a spoon.

Capitalism is of course a far better system than socialism, though pure capitalism wouldn't be ideal at all, as the author mentions. Some however, do try and push this line, and I'd certainly categorise these people as fundamentalists.

I read two of Ayn Rand's books including Atlas Shrugged when Malcolm Fraser was in power as he attributed much of his then philosophy to reading her books. His Road to Damascus "conversion" occurred, I believe, after he was appointed to the Eminent Persons group which investigated conditions in aparthied South Africa.
One thing I recall from reading Rand's books was that she thought that smoking was noble behaviour.
Having worked close to leaders in industry I know that major company controlled businesses are not capitalist or free enterprise in the sense described by Adam Smith. They are political bureaucracies out to manipulate and keep the top eschelons in power. Bill Gates and Microsoft in the formative years were entrepreneurial but have now been shown to have become anti-competitive as have Amcor and Visy. I think I have always been interested in fair play and as a consequence have gradually move to the left in the sense that I don't rate brains, cunning and greed all that highly against physical effort but then in my youth I worked in the physical and hot end of heavy industry while earning my tertiary qualifications.

Whether or not capitalism is 'naturally' a better system than socialism is questionable. Neither a 'pure' market nor a Stalinist command economy provide the necessary social protections and economic liberties. For a 'good society' we need to strike a balance between individualism and collectivism. Liberal social democracy or liberal democratic market socialism - seem better concepts to entertain.

If Rand's selfish template can be seen as feeding into the neo-liberal nightmare that has struck the US, and which led to social catastrophes in countries such as Chile - then she has a lot to answer for. Social and economic rights and political liberties need to find reflection in law, popular culture and identity. Individuals should enjoy the right to invest capital; but they ought also enjoy a social wage provided for through progressive taxation, and have their economic rights provided for through labour market regulation. See my earlier article in On Line Opinion:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4944

Not only does Rand reject collectivism - she embraces selfishness as an ideal: an ideal that undermines society to its very core; and which rejects compassion 'on principle'.