PDA

View Full Version : Ayn Rand Fanboy Paul Ryan Now Says He Rejects Ayn Rand's Philosphy



keyser soze
04-26-2012, 02:45 PM
:rofl:


Perhaps finally realizing that praising the cruel, shallow philosophy of a second-rate novelist -- then writing legislation which pays tribute that philosophy -- isn't a big winner in American politics, Paul Ryan (R-WI) and his partners in crime at the National Review now want us to believe he was never an Ayn Rand disciple at all. (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297023/ryan-shrugged-robert-costa)

“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas,” who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. “Don’t give me Ayn Rand,” he says.


O RLY? (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/80552/paul-ryan-and-ayn-rand)

"The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand," Ryan said at a D.C. gathering four years ago honoring the author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."


That would seem to be the opposite of "reject."

Nice try, Paul.

http://crooksandliars.com/blue-texan/ayn-rand-fanboy-paul-ryan-now-says-he-r

dadakarma
04-26-2012, 02:49 PM
:rofl:

Oh noes! Does it conflict with his Xtianity?

keyser soze
04-26-2012, 02:53 PM
How can anyone take these charlatans seriously?!

keyser soze
04-26-2012, 03:42 PM
:rofl:

Chris
04-26-2012, 07:24 PM
So which one of you libs agrees with Ayn Rand's philosophy? Which one can tell us what that philosophy is, and how it's atheistic?

Chris
04-26-2012, 07:31 PM
Why? You got a paper due?

Cute, but by your remarks above, "Why am I not surprised that he knows nothing about her?" you implied you knew something about her philosophy.

Chris
04-26-2012, 07:38 PM
I know more than those of you who do a Wiki drive by, and then post here.

Oh, so when you going to stop coyly talking about talking and tell us what you know?

Conley
04-26-2012, 07:46 PM
I know more than those of you who do a Wiki drive by, and then post here.

If it weren't for Wiki and Google I'd have about a dozen posts here. :undecided:

Chris
04-26-2012, 07:51 PM
You have a paper due? You're a nice kid. You're intelligent, and capable of great discussions.

However, you seem to get stuck in theory every time you have a conversation.

Theory is great to debate, but you don't seem to have the ability to realize that the real world doesn't run on theories.

Shit happens

Apparently you don't know much about Ayn Rand's philosophy or you wouldn't be beating around the bushes with insults.

Don't feel bad, Paul Ryan doesn't really know her philosophy either.

Sorry to have rained on you all's troll parade.

Mister D
04-26-2012, 07:53 PM
Ouch! :laugh:

dadakarma
04-26-2012, 07:56 PM
Hah! Wiki is fine for generalized information, but they aren't a credible source for most discussions.

Google offers plenty of opportunity to find the facts, but sometimes you have to wade through a lot of junk. Especially when the topic is hot, and the first 3 pages are from bloggers.


Wiki is good for things you've never heard of. Then you have an idea what to seek in order to actually learn about it.

dadakarma
04-26-2012, 07:57 PM
Apparently you don't know much about Ayn Rand's philosophy or you wouldn't be beating around the bushes with insults.

Don't feel bad, Paul Ryan doesn't really know her philosophy either.

Sorry to have rained on you all's troll parade.

Don't get Dag started on Rand. Dagny can talk about Rand all fucking night. :grin:

Chris
04-26-2012, 08:03 PM
Don't get Dag started on Rand. Dagny can talk about Rand all fucking night. :grin:

It doesn't seem so.

dadakarma
04-26-2012, 08:04 PM
It doesn't seem so.

Go ahead and engage Dagny on Rand. Hang on to your ass with both hands. :)

Mister D
04-26-2012, 08:05 PM
Don't get Dag started on Rand. Dagny can talk about Rand all fucking night. :grin:

Doesn't seem like that.

Mister D
04-26-2012, 08:05 PM
Go ahead and engage Dagny on Rand. Hang on to your ass with both hands. :)

Looks like he already tried but Dagny isn't up for it.

Chris
04-26-2012, 08:10 PM
Here is Ayn Rand herself explaining her philosophy. You will note there is nothing atheistic about it. There is nothing that says anything one way or the other about God. True, she was an atheist, she talks about it in some videos on the Phil Donahue Show from long ago. But there is nothing in her politico-economic philosophy that is atheistic. Ryan gets that wrong, well, actually, if you read the OP lib hit piece you get that impression, but he doesn't really.

INTRODUCING OBJECTIVISM (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro)
At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:
Metaphysics Objective Reality
Epistemology Reason
Ethics Self-interest
Politics Capitalism
If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

roadmaster
04-26-2012, 10:10 PM
If you like to discuss Ayn then go ahead. I have read the Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged.

Ask yourself this question. If you are riding a bike, stop at a stop sign, and look both ways are you pursuing your self-interest and is this activity selfish?

MMC
04-27-2012, 05:41 AM
:rollseyes:

MMC
04-27-2012, 05:45 AM
:laugh: Chris.....I think we know who doesnt know how to apply things to real life. :wink:

MMC
04-27-2012, 05:47 AM
Perhaps it will break out it's crystal ball again. Althought I wouldn't worry to much Chris. It forgot to mention it has cracks in it.

MMC
04-27-2012, 06:06 AM
Swim faster, burger flipper. You're going under.


Ooooooooh......I wait with eager anticpation. But truthfully you shouldnt make promises you can't keep. :wink: Come on back to Where the Wild things are. I know you like need to draw attention out here. So come on back down. Hell I even offered you a personal invitation.

MMC
04-27-2012, 06:19 AM
Thanks...now can I have some extra ketchup?

C'mon...take off your swimmies, and define selfish.

Or just stay in the kiddie pool, and piss yourself....again.


NP.....besides, that would cost you money, and our policy is we don't give free stuff to bums. :wink:

MMC
04-27-2012, 06:24 AM
S-E-L-F-I-S-H

You can use Google.

Can you clean this table? Looks like someone trimmed the fat from a burger, and left it here.


Why, you can't sit at the table. You have to have money to enter the establishment.

roadmaster
04-27-2012, 06:55 AM
define 'selfish'.

Every time you take a breath are you being selfish? Answer the question.

Chris
04-27-2012, 07:59 AM
See? You don't apply anything to real life. You rely on transcripts, and articles, but you don't own any real opinions.
He chose to dismiss everything about her, due to the fact that she was an atheist. Those wacky Xtians, and their screwy standards.

He agrees with her, but he cannot agree with her, because of his faith.

Uh, dagny, the topic is, in part, Rand's philosophy, which I put out there, and then gave my opinion it's not atheistic, that Ryan got that wrong, and that the OP article got Ryan wrong.


He chose to dismiss everything about her, due to the fact that she was an atheist.

That is incorrect. If you follow the OP link and from there go to the source, Ryan Shrugged (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297023/ryan-shrugged-robert-costa), you will see the OP distorts what Ryan said by cherry picking "“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy...." Just above that it points out, in reaction to Krugman's emotionalism:


These Rand-related slams, Ryan says, are inaccurate and part of an effort on the left to paint him as a cold-hearted Objectivist. Ryan’s actual philosophy, as reported by my colleague, Brian Bolduc, couldn’t be further from the caricature. As a practicing Roman Catholic, Ryan says, his faith and moral values shape his politics as much as his belief in freedom and capitalism does.

So contrary to your opinion, he doesn't reject Rand. He accepts her politico-economic philosophy, but also accepts his faith at an epistemological level. Note two things, one, Rand's epistemology is based on reason, two, Ryan turns to none other than Aquinas who said of natural law it is that much of divine law man can discover through reason. So while Rand says nothing about God, Ryan layers his faith over that. What he rejects is Rand's personal lack of faith, not her politico-economic philosophy.

Chris
04-27-2012, 08:03 AM
S-E-L-F-I-S-H

You can use Google.

Can you clean this table? Looks like someone trimmed the fat from a burger, and left it here.

You need to read Rand to understand what she said, not impose words and then appeal to googled dictionaries or encyclopedias. Point out in her summary of her politico-economic philosophy where she said selfish:


INTRODUCING OBJECTIVISM (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro)
At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:
Metaphysics Objective Reality
Epistemology Reason
Ethics Self-interest
Politics Capitalism
If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

She doesn't, she says self-interest. Google that.

Chris
04-27-2012, 08:11 AM
I'd already read all of Rand's work, before your parents ever met. Now go find someone else to help you with your paper, or find a way to act like an adult.

Do you consider your personal attacks adult-like or child-like? Is your telling people to google something OK but my telling you to do the same wrong? Self-contradiction is irrational.

MMC
04-27-2012, 08:12 AM
Chris, I wouldn't count the coloring books. :laugh:

Chris
04-27-2012, 08:14 AM
Chris, I wouldn't count the coloring books. :laugh:

At least I can stay in the lines. :wink:

MMC
04-27-2012, 08:33 AM
Ah but Dagnabit.....this isn't about me. As to your question. It doesnt Apply.....as I already explained that theory to you Down Where the Wild things were. You forgot you have to go the bigger question. IS the action done so with the deliberate intention of knowing one came there just with that intention to do so.

Being selfish knowing.....that it takes your breath away. :wink:

Chris
04-27-2012, 08:44 AM
What you consider 'personal attacks', I consider a reprimand of an unruly child who is butting into a discussion that he doesn't understand. MMC can't possibly hold his own in this discussion. He's here to be swatted like a gnat. Nevertheless, I offered him the opportunity to join in, but only if he wanted to aid the member who he chose to pat on the back. In doing so, I suggested he find the definition of 'selfish', as the original member refuses to realize that his semantics trap isn't going to work with someone who's familiar with Rand's work.

You, on the other hand, accused me of doing what you do. Googling for some bullet points, and then trying to make the discussion about some generalized data you just found.

If you want to have this discussion, I suggest you follow the thread more closely. Had you done that, you'd have realized that another member introduced the 'selfish' angle, because he thought it would be cute to inject a subjective term into the Rand debate.

Further, if you knew anything about Rand, you'd know why he chose that term at this point in the discussion.

Arrogance is not a substitute for discussion, dag. It's the negative connotation of selfishness you yourself seem to despise. --Another self-contradiction.

People do substitute selfish for selfishness. But knowing Rand, as you claim you do, and you can see what she said about her politico-economic philosophy posted again below, you know she didn't intend it as something immoral but moral. Why do you know this, because she immediately follows her ethics of self interest with a politico-economy of social cooperation.

Again:

INTRODUCING OBJECTIVISM (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro)
At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:
Metaphysics Objective Reality
Epistemology Reason
Ethics Self-interest
Politics Capitalism
If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

MMC
04-27-2012, 08:48 AM
Moreover Chris you read the context right with Ryan and his comments being cherry-picked.

I got to run out for a bit. BBL.

Chris
04-27-2012, 09:15 AM
What Rand intended when she used the term 'selfish', and what others intend when they use the term, can vary.

Thus, when someone asks me a hypothetical question in a discussion about Rand, and they use the term 'selfish', I need to know what they feel the definition is.


It seemed like a pretty simple question.

Shouldn't we be concerned with what Rand meant? We have that stated succinctly by Rand herself.

Mister D
04-27-2012, 09:44 AM
Dagny, Dada assures me that you know all about Rand but you do seem to be stalling quite a bit. It almost seems desperate.

roadmaster
04-29-2012, 12:15 AM
Didn't get back to this one I see. Even though I respected Ayn, she was all over the board and backtracked. She had intelligence but not wisdom.

Peter1469
04-29-2012, 07:35 AM
I also liked her portrayal of the govt. as an incompetent group of idiots, who react, instead of act. Some things never change.
With that said, I would think that you would champion less government.....

Peter1469
04-29-2012, 09:17 AM
Because I don't trumpet the extreme postion that all govt. is bad, doesn't mean that I'm happy with the status quo.

I just realize that there's chasm between theory, and reality.

I don't think that all government is bad, but I do think that our current government has exceeded its Constitutional authority.

Chris
04-29-2012, 10:35 AM
I think any discussion of Rand, ought to delve into basic questions first.

It helps to study her childhood in Russia. Then, her immigration to this country. A highly intelligent 21 year old who fled the oppression of Russia, would have predictable ideals.

Further, it's important to understand that she wrote fantasy. Did she get caught up in those fantasies? I would say so.

Most who follow the 'free market has all the answers' idealogy are living in a fantasy. It's a nice theory, but it has never been successfully implemented.

When you study Rand's works, and her subsequent philosophy, it's important to consider the period of this nation's development. In the 40's/50's, we didn't have the same burden of costly social programs. Likewise, it is helpful to realize that the passage of Fed. Withholding tax law did not sit well with many people.

'Govt. is the oppressor' would be a perfectly normal claim to make in that atmosphere, especially since she escaped the most oppressive govt. in the world in order to find freedom here.

If you keep these issues in mind, and don't read 'Shrugged' as if it's happening in the 21st century, you get a more accurate experience.

Further proof that her philosophy... although valiant... isn't realistic, was her eventual need to take the help from the govt. that she had earned in her years of hard work. Facing bankruptcy from cancer, she was finally coaxed by a long time friend to take what was rightfully hers.

Fantasy.

What I liked the most about her work, was the way her protagonists were depicted. All strong willed, highly competent individuals.

I also liked her portrayal of the govt. as an incompetent group of idiots, who react, instead of act. Some things never change.


I think any discussion of Rand, ought to delve into basic questions first.

Her philosophy, that I have posted, and you ignore, contains her answers to basic questions. Her life, while interesting, and might provide some insight, does not substitute.



Because I don't trumpet the extreme postion that all govt. is bad...

I hope you are not implying by that that Rand thought all government bad, she didn't, and the primary evidence for that is, again, contained in her statement of politico-economic philosophy:
The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders....

roadmaster
04-29-2012, 04:23 PM
Meanwhile, he knew nothing about her. Now he's embarrassed because the nutball Xtian base of his will discredit him for worshipping an atheist.

Worshiping an atheist or just found the book to be interesting? I knew before I read the books she was an atheist and it showed throughout her books. If you read one, they are all about the same as far as her thinking. She knew nothing about God or the Bible. Even LaVey that lied so much it wasn't funny,( he was nothing but a school dropout, no college degree) but then again what do you expect from a Satanist and used some of John Galts writings in his Satanic statements.

Chris
04-29-2012, 06:09 PM
Until/unless you can show that you've read ANYTHING she's written, you can't possibly have an in depth discussion of her life, her works, and how her so called philosophy applies to both.

Which is a perfect illustration of the OP. Ryan, like yourself, took the bullet points from a publication, and then forced his staff to read Atlas Shrugged.

Meanwhile, he knew nothing about her. Now he's embarrassed because the nutball Xtian base of his will discredit him for worshipping an atheist.

At least have the decency to read the Cliff Notes for some of her stuff, and try to come up with your own opinion....for once.

I'm citing words she wrote, dagny. Do you deny what she wrote? You say she said all govt is bad. I show her words that government can be good and serve a legitimate purpose. I think I'll take her word for what she believed, thank you.

Your ad hom is unimpressive.

MMC
04-29-2012, 06:17 PM
I'm citing words she wrote, dagny. Do you deny what she wrote? You say she said all govt is bad. I show her words that government can be good and serve a legitimate purpose. I think I'll take her word for what she believed, thank you.

Your ad hom is unimpressive.

Well don't forget Chris.....Ryans words were taken out of context too. :shocked:

Chris
04-29-2012, 07:03 PM
Well don't forget Chris.....Ryans words were taken out of context too. :shocked:

Almost forgot the intent of the OP was a jab at Ryan, through an article that indeed took his words out of context.

MMC
04-29-2012, 07:11 PM
Almost forgot the intent of the OP was a jab at Ryan, through an article that indeed took his words out of context.

Yeah that tends to happen with.....well you know. :rollseyes:

roadmaster
04-29-2012, 10:28 PM
Intelligence without wisdom is like a mechanic without arms or legs. He knows how but can't fix the problem himself. That's the way I see Ayn. No I don't despise her but she misses many points and ends up having to backtrack which in many ways was confused by her own understanding.

Chris
04-30-2012, 09:02 PM
You don't apply her concepts to real life experiences, because you don't have enough to draw from.

The topic of discussion was not applying her philosophy, it is what is her philosophy. You've been shown here politico-economic philosophy and have yet to say anything about her philosophy based on it. Even now you are merely talking about talking about it.



An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument

Tell us something we don't all know, dag. We find examples of it littered throughout your posts.



you'll continue to speak in hypotheticals

Odd, you just quoted me and I did not use hypotheticals. Perhaps you should google that too.


Lest we forget, her is her philosophy again:


INTRODUCING OBJECTIVISM (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro)
At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:
Metaphysics Objective Reality
Epistemology Reason
Ethics Self-interest
Politics Capitalism
If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

Of course we could apply that to real life to show the the OP hit piece got both Rand and Ryan wrong. But that points been made and stands unchallenged.