Ayn Rand was Russian.  Her family lost everything in the revolution.  She was well aware of what happened under forced collectivism.  So I think that those experiences freaked her out a bit.  She was a very determined, confident woman who probably wasn't nearly as bright or well educated as she believed herself to be.  But I think she came by her nutty opinions honestly.

That's right; and why, like many popular but misguided thinkers, she endures. I grew up in a culture where socialistic values were endemic. Personal achievements, success, wealth ... were all regarded by the ruling elites - socialist, liberal and high Tory - as vulgar or products of luck or things to be quietly ashamed of or embarrassed by. Rand is a kind of gut-level response to this, an assertion that some people are actually better at some things than others, and need not feel ashamed or guilty when their own abilities and talents are rewarded. There is a little Rand in my referring to the income-rich as the "successful" rather than as the wealthy - because I don't hold that personal achievement is morally suspect.

It is a form of injustice to deny individuals this success, or to denigrate and disdain it. But for me, the drop shadow to this truth is Christianity. And so I see no reason why someone should feel guilty for being talented or hard-working, but still believe that this kind of success is not the highest value. I do not mistake material worth for moral achievement. And it is that philosophical move - to give worldly success and achievement ultimate moral standing - that leads Rand astray.

Which is why, of course, Rand held religion and Christianity in such contempt. Which is why the current Republican coalition - between self-described Christians and Randian objectivists - is so inherently unstable and incoherent. It seems clear to me that objectivism got the better of the deal. You had to transform Christianity into Christianism or American exceptionalism to make sense of this fusionism at all.

Another reader defends Rand: