“[Ayn Rand's] exclusion from the conservative community was, I am sure, in part the result of her desiccated philosophy’s conclusive incompatibility with the conservative’s emphasis on transcendence, intellectual and moral; but also there is the incongruity of tone, that hard, schematic, implacable, unyielding dogmatism that is in itself intrinsically objectionable, whether it comes from the mouth of Ehrenburg, or Savonarola, or Ayn Rand.”
— introduction to American Conservative Thought in the Twentieth Century by William F. Buckley

Ayn Rand was not a conservative, she was a broken woman who wrote books for teenaged misfits to latch on to and gain a false sense of power (that’s why admirers of Rand are so ubiquitous on the Internet.) A true conservative would never embrace the values outlined in her books.

ps. the two terms “ultra conservative” and “rights of the rich” are perfectly clear unless you’ve been living under a rock since 1969. They’re the antithesis to the terms “far left” and “welfare queen enabler”.

Rand was far from being perfect as a human being, (a trait shared by ~100% of the politicians those who hate her admire so much), but her central “sin” was not being “mean”, but having the annoying habit of constantly pointing out that all ideas have foundations — and that the prettiest and most beguiling idea in the world is simply an airy-fairie castle in the clouds, if the premises that it is based on are false in reality.

In the abstract, Rand is hated most because she had a very annoying way of asking “What’s behind that curtain, over there?”, or “It’s a lovely statue of a horse, but has anyone thought to ask why they gave it to us, or why it has a trap door?”

Rand, on questioning:
“The moral cannibalism of all hedonist and altruist doctrines lies in the premise that the happiness of one man necessitates the injury of another.”

“Freedom is the first requirement of ‘the public interest’…achievements rest on that foundation—and cannot exist without it.”

“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”

“Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun [compulsion] begins.”

Like somebody else mentioned i read Atlas Shrugged before Fountainhead* and think it is more rigorous(in character depiction) of her ideas and principles than Fountainhead and would recommend that.

* — I haven’t read anything outside. Did try reading Anthem but gave up.

** — because this comic is a year old, no other insinuations intended

You also state “In a Randian world there should be no police.” You couldn’t be more wrong. Ayn Rand frequently spoke about what she considered the 3 proper functions of government: the military, to protect our rights from foreign aggressors; the police, to protect our rights from internal (criminal) aggressors, and a judicial system to settle disputes, both criminal and civil.

The quote used here is to illustrate determination and perseverance in the attainment of your legitimate goals – not your illegal ones. Misinterpretation is a risk when a quote is taken out of context. Still, the degree of malevolence exhibited in your comments, in an effort to denigrate Ayn Rand and her philosophy, makes me suspect that there is more to your grossly inaccurate statements, besides a simple misinterpretation.

However if I go the randian path and take what I need, I’m a criminal. If I break into one of those wealthy homes, rob them of their wealth, sell it for the surgery that I need, and spend the rest on others who need it, I’d be arrested. However I would simply be doling out what was done to me, and by Rand it would be fine. I would have the will, the resources, and nobody’s going to LET me loot their places, the family itself would have to STOP me… which is why I’d go for the place when nobody’s home. Hey, by Randian law it’s their own fault, if they cared about their belongings, they should have invested in a security system worth its’ salt. By that token the police should be fine with me if I got away with it- in fact in a Randian world there should BE no police. You want compensation for what you do, and if my means are not enough to compensate you, I would seek the means to do so from those who can not defend their wealth. And yet when I pose this idea the moneyed sort in the area get all cagey, saying “That’s not the Objectivest way”. Ah, so it is only the objectivist way when you already have the power and funds? Interesting, interesting.

But the kicker? The most down and dirty socialist place I’ve ever lived? The most rotten commie-imitating corner of the globe? The most disgusting nanny state ever to rear it’s pinko-liberal-hippie-tree-hugger head? That? Would be the military base I spend a good chunk of my life on. You had a house, you had food and clothes you could afford, you had schools and public works and community events out the wazoo. You never needed to fear being sick- and the doctors weren’t the “I’ve spent a million dollars, so I’m right about whatever I say” sort, they knew they were human and fallible. You were also expected to have your house neat, obey laws which were downright stupid in some cases, and had less choice in the discounted products brought to you.

Strawman indicates that the argument has no merit. Well tell me, for it to have no merit then I’d be able to take the wealth I need from others if I still couldn’t find a better-paying job. Or who among the moneyed class would give me the 2500$ I need in return for the work I’ve done, and for the work I’d do to repay them?