One question about Ayn Rand:
Where are the children?
Where are the pets?
I'm an Ayn Rand fan with kids and grandkids, and I think your question is incredibly, bizarrely, outrageously inane, let alone irrelevant. Rand put out an ENORMOUS amount of work; A.S. alone took 12 years of 16-hours-a-day intensity, and she explained that, since such productivity was her goal, that it would have been unwise, let alone unfair, to have kids in the face of all that.
I believe that she has brought over 4 million Americans (including myself) over from the Dark Side -- (and W. would have lost if she hadn't). So DO try to develop a little realistic perspective, and appreciate the positive, won't you?
Children are not inconsistent with Objectivism.
There are many rewards that come from having children-- financial, emotional, spiritual. They are an investment that pays off over time, and then a whole bunch at maturity. It is not a totally safe bet, but people will continue to try- we are wired that way.
Now, Ayn Rand and Objectivism would certainly have a problem with the Looters taking someone's money to pay for someone else's children. But as long as each family is taking care of their own, there is no problem.
I also do not see a big problem between Objectivism and charitable giving, as long as it is freely given. Religion is also outside of the realm of her philosophy.
Just because Ayn Rand was a childless atheist that had some big personal issues does not negate her basic philosophy which holds that man should not be coerced at gunpoint to give to others.
There where children in Galts Gulch.
Read the book (again).
Regards,
They were all subjected to Galt's two hour long soliloquy and died of boredom.