You picked up on a problem with Rand’s view point but calling it fundamentally wrong is an over reach. She did illustrate the need for community so she wasn’t against it. Like you said the success of their community was partially the result of voluntary association. But it also rested on each person’s rational, honest self-awareness so that relationships and transactions were based on understanding of relative worth of contributions. No one is forced to exchange. Without that foundation in a community, human nature will introduce politics which leads to someone trying to capture more value from the community through some means other than a free exchange.
Government seizing property from one group of people and giving it to another cannot in anyway shape or form be considered Christian charity. In fact, it robs the giver and recipient of the benefits intended by God from the act of giving. Voluntary giving to help another brings a joy to the giver and reinforces the giver’s gratitude and dependence on God. Accepting charity should be with humble gratitude to the giver and God. Knowing that someone else, with a face, sacrificed to help you is uplifting and inspiring to better your own condition. A government entitlement destroys most of those benefits.
Government transfers of property are the result of people shirking the virtue of charity and wanting someone else to help others so the don’t feel guilty when they don’t do it themselves.
“She did illustrate the need for community so she wasn’t against it. Like you said the success of their community was partially the result of voluntary association. But it also rested on each person’s rational, honest self-awareness so that relationships and transactions were based on understanding of relative worth of contributions.”
Substitute Sinclair Lewis for Rand and ‘boosterism’ for ‘community’ and you would have a fair comparison of the two styles.
You masy have a bit of trouble with the motivation angle, though.
Thnx