This bit
of news can’t wait.  I’m suffering from a serious state of shock and
indigestion.  The Wall Street Journal, that paragon of flagrant
capitalism, suggests that Ayn Rand is bad for the market.

Hmmmm.  You don’t know who Ayn Rand is?  Or. . . was?  The WSJ used
these niceties: “Many conservatives shrank from what they saw as her
toxic blend of atheism, absolutism and ruthless individualism.”  The
NYTimes does it better: To be an Ayn Rander is to be “angry” and
“vulgar” about those who loot and mooch and consume public funds.

In contrast, the more thoughtful conservative organizations note
that free markets are ultimately the best way to “help the poor and
disadvantaged.  Rand’s insistence on the folly of altruism, however,
tends to overshadow and even invalidate this message.”

Those who regularly read my blog occasionally see bits and pieces of
moderate libertarianism seeping out.  I tend to move more in the
direction of David Brooks’ libertarianism, but occasionally my
perspective on  human community and altruism holds me back.  I’ve never
seen a completely unified, philosophical (or theological) and cogent
approach to the meaning and purpose of life.  And I’ve struggled
philosophically and theologically and sociologically with those issues
most of my adult life.  I lost my need for great certainty half a
century ago.  Inconsistencies are part and parcel of being human.  I’m
OK with that.

‘Nuff said.  Here’s the article:  Ayn Rand.