Those damn elephants are always trying to run “the children” over. I was hoping this was a joke site until I saw them Club for Growth said the author was serious. This almost makes me want participate in a good old fashioned book burning.
I always see people making comments that Ayn Rand’s theories would never survive more than a generation because there is no room for children. However, there *are* children in Galt’s Gulch, and I think Objectivism is actually very child-friendly because it encourages individual to only have children if they would enjoy the experience of raising them as the reward in and of itself. Sure, there would be a lot less humans, but they would all be born wanted to willing parents, which alone would solve a whole lot of social problems we have today.
Objectivism does not encourage individuals to do the what is right according to some moral standard. And following Ayn Rand’s examples of compassion, could very well having you do less for one of your children than another. And what do you do with a disabled child? Rand regards them as having a very low value to society.
In my opinion much of her philosophy is just a modernized version of Social Darwinism of the 19th century.
I would declare that objectivism in the *absence of any moral system* would not produce one and that the individual as human cannot live without dependence on another even if it is to bring his life into the world and nurture until adulthood.