Former Libertarian Begs Sam To Take Ayn Rand Seriously

The reason Sam doesn't care about the difference between Libertarians and Objectivists, and thinks it's "Sociopathic Mental Masturbation" is because he's not RATIONAL, he is NOT a philosopher, he's never thought through first principals, he doesn't care about defining his values or stating premises. He's a Leftist Political Commentator, but he doesn't even know what that means, he's just being provocative for ratings*. What the caller is TRYING (and failing) to say, is that CONTEMPORARY LIBERTARIANS used AYN RAND's philosophy to legitimize their immature concept of "freedom", but by REVERSING the very concepts and values she developed. Rand RATIONALLY THINKS that people should be REWARDED for their MERIT, and she would define "merit" as being good at whatever 'job' you choose to do. Thus, for RAND those who are good should become wealthy by EARNING payments through free (fair) trade. Today's LIBERTARIANS reverse Rand's ethic, they BELIEVE that those who have WEALTH must have MERIT. The problem is, of course, most rich people, who use these libertarian arguments, did not EARN their money. Most rich people get their money in one of three ways: THEFT (or fraud), INHERITANCE, or MARRIAGE. Thus libertarians think that the rich have MERIT, which Rand would think was false, she would call them thieves and/or parasites (children/spouses).  The reason that SAM and EMMA don't like BOTH Objectivists and Libertarians because neither likes TAXES or REGULATIONS. The political LEFT believe that taxes and regulations are NECESSARY to balance OUTCOMES, but the Libertarians believe that "taxes are theft", taking from the productive to give to the unproductive, and Objectivists think that taxes and regulations limit FREE (fair) TRADE (contracts) between people (such as unions and governments). Reversing the relationship between "MERIT" and "WEALTH" in a meritocracy is not trivial, it is fundamental to our government and way of life. Understanding this would help the LEFT be coherent and achieve political power by uniting those Objectivists who are Enlightened, and Rational. The first step is coming to a commonly agreed definition of MERIT. I define MERIT as MLK Jr. did, as the content of one's character and the quality of one's mind, and I would add hard work and persistence. Does Sam's argument have merit? No, he doesn't care.