Yes, I see your point. The question is whether Republicans believe in the ammoral concepts of Rand (i.e. that self-serving greed and deregulation is best).
Rand would get rid of government entirely. She's more of an anarchist.
How was Rand wrong? Of course people operate off of self serving greed. You play games you like for yourself; you eat food you like for yourself; etc. You want the money of those who earned it for your benefit, out of greed while calling those who want to keep what they earned greedy.
When Mother Teresa died she barely received news coverage, and then the fucking Princess died and Holy Shit, who gives a fuck about a person who actually lived there life completely selflessly serving those no one wanted to even be around. Even when people do something nice, they usually have greedy incentives. I think these debates, more than anything, show how fucking retarded everyone is. Everyone, but themselves should lead a life of selflessness and their actions should benefit all mankind, as they post on a site dedicated to a greedy activity that is a frivolous waste of money. But all of us playing crpgs, we have proved beyond a doubt we enjoy greedy, self-serving, money-wasting activities that benefit no one but ourselves. People are extremely greedy, and Rand’s philosophy (which cannot seriously be considered without reading far more of it, just as Marx’s philosophy, or anyone’s) is proved every second of every day by not just us here on this site, but by the aggregate actions of humankind. Humanity is synonymous with self-serving greed, and it has been hardwired into by evolution.
Watch or read any information on why people are attracted to each other. Greed is our hardwired MO. No one performs selfless acts like marrying the diseased fatty with the bad genes and heart of gold if you have better-gened alternatives or the fatty is loaded and would help you live your greedy life the way you want. Notice how people are always strong supporters of the rights they believe in? How about when people suddenly change their more “enlightened” opinion of subject X, when X is threatening to encroach on their backyard.
Before you condemn her philosophy, read about it, and find out what the goal of it was.
Also, what is an amoral concept? Are you saying in a supposed free society there is moral agreement? Ethics is no longer a school of philosophy? Please articulate on how her belief’s were immoral.