I often hear people calling Rand's philosophy "Nietzshean." I think the only thing she shared with Nietzsche was perhaps a rebellious attitude toward the status quo and a reverence for what human beings are capable of.
Well, it wouldn't be accurate to say that Rand disliked Nietzsche. She disliked certain aspects of his ideas, and admired certain others. If memory serves, she had either a semi-favorable reference to him in the forward to or rough draft of The Fountainhead.
Sure it would be voluntary - otherwise someone would have to be forced to support it, which would violate Randian principles (and her psycho-epistemology, which calls for all human actions to be made through free choice). People, according to her, would need to freely choose government. Whether or not it's necessary is beside that particular point. As he black maid once famously said: "All anyone's gotta do is die."
I don't recall her specifically addressing graduated income tax (though she probably did somewhere). She would consider it to be an abomination, of course.
Well, he would (or did) call himself an Objectivist, I think.
There's a very problematic issue here - namely, how would a 'voluntary government' achieve and maintain its existence, and Jimbo, among many other like-minded individuals, acknowledged that problem in his debate with me and others.
Well, some would argue that truly "voluntary taxation" as Rand and other libertarians advocate isn't truly taxation at all - that the defining characteristic of taxation is its involuntariness.
I would be one of those who argue that. By the way, I had a VERY long argument with Jimmy Wales (of Wikipedia fame) on this subject, which concluded with more or less acknowledging that his and Rand's position amounted to "anarchomonopolism" (that is, an anarchistic society where government evolved through natural economic processes to dominate the marketplace).
But I won't attempt to rehash that extremely detailed and long-winded debate here.
Discussions between "liberals" and "conservatives" usually go like this. On one hand, conservatives stereotype liberals as being woolly-headed dreamers who care nothing about hard economic reality, while liberals characterize conservatives as being miserly, uncaring SOB's who would recommend selling their own mother-in-laws for a profit. (Well, maybe they got the last part right ).
But what is usually overlooked is that the true debate is about justice. Conservatives (of some stripe) believe that forced sharing is unwise if not immoral - therefore they oppose welfare in general (though often not consistently - opposing welfare to the poor while favoring it to the rich); liberals, on the other hand, tend to believe that forced sharing (via taxation and other regulations) is just, and that suffering or poor people should be helped, even if the help must be compelled.
Again, it's really an issue of differing concepts of justice. It's not that liberals "care too much or foolishly" - it's that their concept of justice allows them to believe that their caring should be implemented via force. And conservatives aren't necessarily "uncaring" or even "miserly"; it's that their beliefs regarding political justice don't permit them to advocate some forms of welfare (again, they tend not to be at all consistent in that regard).
I recently had a debate with several people that began when I claimed that Rand believed taxation is theft. They countered that she had never said that. I pointed out that it is an inescapable logical consequence of her beliefs (and various statements; I quoted the one above among others).
By the way, Conrad, I've read pretty much everything Rand ever wrote. Just FYI. By another way, there's a new documentary about her that I think you might like: "Ayn Rand In Her Own Words."
At first. But then the most prosperous economy that has ever existed would follow, and we'd all be howling with joy and grinning with gold-filled teeth.
A couple of issues are being conflated here, it appears to me: 1) the state of big business in this mixed economy; 2) the status of big business or any voluntary organization regardless of its size in a free society.
Since we don't live in a free society (if one defines "free society" as minimal or no government interference in rightful economic activities - that is, activities where there are no rights-violations), big business/corporations routinely exploit the power government to their own ends (bailouts, subsidies, eminent domain, and so on). If you poll business magnates about their stand on a free society you will find that the vast majority of them do NOT favor a free society (as partly defined above). The vast majority of them favor a welfare-fascist state ("fascist" in the traditional sense of a collaboration between business and the state).
These individuals and their organisations do not deserve a vote of confidence or support from those who love liberty. In abstract, sure, I would support the right of all individuals to organize themselves as they see fit, make as huge profits as they can via consensual sales absent any form of special privilege, pay their employees in any way and in any amount they wish, etc.
Would I recommend, then, taxing them more or whatever? Not at all. But if we're going to reduce taxes, then fairness requires that it be done across the board. If some dude who's making billions isn't paying taxes then I don't want to pay taxes, either.
Sure, let's reduce taxes to zero. And while we're at it, let's eliminate any form of subsidies to big business (and everyone else, for that matter).
That's the libertarian way. At least this libertarian's way,
Well, there's one thing that is guaranteed to happen when you attempt a Reader's Digest condensed book summary of Rand; you will fail to accurately capture her ideas.
Ray, you may have honest disagreement with Rand, but in order to determine how you actually disagree you will need to first accurately and fair-mindedly summarize her views. You have failed magnificently to do so with the above.
For me, the test of a person's belief in liberty is whether they will defend the rights of those they dislike doing things they don't approve of. That's a belief in liberty *in principle.*
My point being that Rand does in fact believe in government controls, contra Anon's claim. (I believe she does so logically inconsistently, but that's a whole 'nother subject!) If she didn't believe that the government should control *something*, in other words, she would be an anarchist.
I'm not going to try and find my post, but I wrote something along the lines that "there are stunning parallels between the US that Rand portrayed in Atlas Shrugged and our current state of affairs."
Ambrose2007 Forum Posts (8,881)
(Well, maybe they got the last part right 
America the Free????
The "Patriot" Act is socialism at its finest, Con.