I didn't say that! I don't think any of it is operated fairly. I say, get rid of it all. Laissez faire. We would all be better off if the government were not a third partner [the one with the gun] in all of our affairs.Okay, then. That's fine.
But we can't have it both ways... We can't have the government out of our affairs while at the same time having the option of crying to them for help. There is such a thing as balance.
The way things are now, many big businesses don't want government helping out the "little people" by supporting them, yet those same big businesses and their CEOs have no compunction about appealing to the government for help for themselves... apparently they know themselves well enough to know that THEY can be trusted with assistance. *rolling eyes so much it hurts*
This is exactly the opposite of what Rand wisely argued for. She said in effect, "Yes. It's a jungle. And it SHOULD be. For EVERYONE... even big business."
I, however, believe in focusing more on the spirit of fairness inherent in that statement, rather than in her specific conclusions, regarding equal insecurity for everyone. I say that whether we choose laissez-faire or mutual support, that rule must be enforced for everyone... We can't have people ACCEPTING help, while throwing a Nellie Olsen-style temper tantrum about reciprocating that help back to others, which is what many CEO's and big businesses have been doing for a long time now.
I am glad to help floundering businesses, so long as a system exists whereby they circulate that same degree of assistance back to those who help them... But what I see is a clever scheme to defeat that healthy circulation, while the periphery of the national and world economy develops gangrene.
Personally, I have seen that this evolves naturally, even in your most laissez-faire of systems. Even in total dog-eat-dog, people form support systems and alliance networks that amount to cooperative socialism.
And yes, even Objectivists and SOLOists -- despite all their talk about the nobility of individual struggle -- band together in private groups and cliques to grant special favors to each other, and lay down rules of mandatory cooperation (socialism), lest the non-cooperative individual face excommunication from the group.
The only significant difference that I see between Rand's own "collective" and any socialist society, was that she gave compelling (albeit sometimes questionable) rationalizations for conformity and allegiance to the group, whereas many socialist governments rarely bother to make such good faith efforts at all.