Well, she tries to cover all her bases by predicting which questions would be asked. The problem here is that in order to do so she has to redefine what A) Love IS, and B) what love of money, in particular, means. After building this paper tiger it is then knocked down without ever addressing the real issue. She does not understand what the passage of scripture in Timothy, which someone else has quoted above, even means or is getting at. It is dealing with the human condition of greed and selfishness. And, as usual, Ayan Rand is great with circular logic, which is why she turns me off. :O
I am not a purist capitalist, though I am a capitalist. Whether you want to accept it or not, your local Fire Department or Police Department is paid for by your tax dollars. That is socialism (Little "s" if you will) The money of the community (communi- root, get that?) is used to pay for these services. So you could say that for the ability of a society/community to funtion effectively and look out for each other a little socialism is neccesary. (Little "s", is good).
Don't freak out on me now or misunderstand me at all. I am saying there must be a balance in the order of things. When the pendulum swings to far to either the right or left (the conservative or liberal) or to the north or the south (authoritarianism or libertarianism) then things are out of balance and their are violent reactions to correct the balance.
The greed of the corporations during the peak of the industrial revolution is well documented - where di we get the child labor laws? Or would you defend the working conditions imposed upon children by the corporations during that era? The laws that were made to protect children and the laws that were made to stop human abuses, etc. were passed by "liberals" of that era. Though just about everyone who even calls himslef a conservative today would agree that those laws were neccesary (with the exception perhaps by some of the busting up of monopolies?). So where do we find ourselves today? Agreeing with something that back then conservatives opposed and the big corporations opposed.
Why? Why? for "Love" of money, as defined by Rand? Not at all. But by greed of the human heart. It is the evil that man is capable of that must be guarded against. One only need look at the events of September 11 to see that this is so. In the minds of those who carry out inhuman deeds against their fellow man, there is always a justification in the mind of the perpetrator that what he is doing is "right". But that doesn't make it so. Certainly not from the viewpoint of the victim(s). Rand is a humanist and the pure humanism as reflected by many purist capitalists/objectivists that I know or have talked with is as close to the definition of evil-greed as Rand's definition of what is measnt by the scripture in Timothy is NOT.
By the way, I love to have money to spend and make my life better and be able to pay my bills on time. The issue that Timothy is addressing is covetousness and a condition of the heart. When Rand makes it out as if money or "loving it" is the real issue, she misses the WHOLE point.
Study the history of mining camps during the various gold rushes of the 1800's just as an example, and you will see a magnified example of what the lust for gold did to men. They coveted it to the point of murder and theft. And THAT is an equation that Rand cannot address and is why she must build a straw man to knock down.