Thank you for acknowledging the error.
But my statement of "Rearden Steel must run on magic" and Ayn Rand being delusional, stands.What exact pathology did Ayn Rand suffer from? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion
Did she hold idea resistant to evidence? Yes. That idea is objectivism.
I'm fine with you disagreeing with objectivism as a philosophical system. If it was 100% correct I think more people would be aware of it and follow it. I'm not fine with you making statements that imply a prolific writer without a history of mental illlness is somehow delusional because you happen to disagree with their assessment of how we as a species might better ourselves.
As to Rearden Steel running on magic, I'm not even sure what you're saying here.
In my opinion, you and objectivism would be better served by stating simply that you disagree with the general principles of objectivism, though given how this started I think it's really libertarianism you disagree with. I don't mind if you like the taste of brussel sprouts, that's your opinion. I do mind you saying that brussel sprouts are an animal.
I disagree with say Conservatism, it isn't delusional. I disagree with it, but unlike Objectivism, it doesn't require
beliefs inconsistent with reality.
Objectivist beliefs inconsistent with reality:
-People with power and money will not use unethical means to accumulate more power and money, including the influnce over courts
-Laws can be arrived at Objectively. The need not be a system in which these are actually decided.
-Infastructure will be developed without a governmental body
-Control of information as a commodity will not end up with a populace who cannot make informed or reasonable
decision in the marketplace, as the majority would be illiterate.
-If "each individual has an inalienable moral right to act as his own judgment directs and to keep the product of his effort" that Courts, Police, and Military(the only portion of government allowed to exist) could function without funding or a body deciding what their mission and limitations would be. Furthermore, without a governing body...currency itself could exist.
And fundamentally Rand or her rabid fans never seem to understand, either in Objectivism or Atlas Shrugged, that a power vacuum would be created and consequently filled.
I'm not saying that it wouldn't be a bad for a lot of our legislators to take a few of these ideas and apply the "do we really need this" test in the spending and law making decisions.