Prosperity is based on production, trade and enjoyment of surplus usable goods and services. Making more, with less, so more can enjoy is the basis for happiness. Making less, with more, is the recipe for misery.
Taking from one to give to another is thievery, no matter how pitiful or deserving the recipient is.

1) Norman Borlaug was not some kind of "Gaia mystic", but a PhD agronomist, and Nobel laureate;
2) The "Green Revolution" was Borlaug's technique for vastly increasing crop yields, so millions of people wouldn't starve, an "in-your-face" to the neo-Malthusidans, such as Stanford's Paul Ehrlich ("The Population Bomb"). Has nothing whatsoever to to with the "Green Movement", a bunch of trust-fund lefty tree-huggers and professional trouble makers.

Try again, sport...

I feel the same way, I lost interest quite quickly after reading "had the great misfortune of reading Atlas Shrugged"

Mr McElwee truly is the Bertrum Scutter of the HuffPo. There isn't a single coherent thought in his diatribe against AS. His "appeal to authority" for credibility is to call into play the name of some Gaia mystic (Norman Borlaug, father of the "Green Revolution"). The Green Movement is nothing more than an attempt to play on the guilt of humans for actually living and destroying the purity of mother Gaia. And he wants to have to power to assign guilt and redistribute the wealth of the producers. The Global Warming/climate change industry is a fraud perpetrated on capitalism by the statists. It is the exact same guilt trip Ayn Rand describes when Philip Rearden hits up his producing brother, Henry, for money so he can give it to the "Friends for Global Progress". If the facts don't match the story, they just change the facts and ignore objective reality. Sean can objectively described as a fool. A is A.

Below is what I posted to this piece:

Apparently you have greatly confused Atlas Shrugged and Elysium. In fact it seems as if you only perused the Cliff Notes of Atlas Shrugged in order to spew the blatant inaccuracies you have poured forth in this piece. It seems like you are intentionally casting yourself as a real life Wesley Mouch (from Atlas Shrugged) but you will likely be unable to understand how great an insult that truly is. I only pray that your political goals utterly fail before things get as bad as they are portrayed in Atlas Shrugged.

I read a quote last month and I wish I knew who wrote it. "Freedom comes after you quit crossing oceans for people who wouldn't jump a puddle for you."

This is what the main characters in AS come to realize. It's what going on strike means. Some socialist acquaintances of mine were ridiculing me about going off somewhere as the movies talk about. They explained that there were laws to prevent it. I told them their anger proves they are in the wrong. If all the socialists in the US moved away from the taxpayers, the taxpayers would give them a going away party. The socialist response is to pass laws preventing the taxpayers from moving.

Right. There are probably many complicated reasons for why the world is how it is. My complaint with the author is he focuses on such a narrow group of people who didn't create the problems, have no clear way to fix the problems, and are often trying to do something about the problems.

the part of the world that barely has enough to survive is ruled by despots or controlled under an anti-capitalism structure. Widespread poverty exists because there is evil in the world.

here was my comment on the article:
"The errors in this article are so apparent and numerous that it's amazing it ever got published. Here are just a few of them. Rand did not celebrate the wealthy. For example, a main character in Atlas Shrugged, James Taggart, is very wealthy and a villain. There are several characters with no wealth, including the hero in Atlas Shrugged. Much like the false narrative the author is trying to set up regarding Ayn Rand, "social Darwinism" tries to set up regarding Capitalism. The suggestion in Social Darwinism, is that iin a capitalistic structure, there is no cooperation among individuals. However, a key foundation to Capitalism is voluntary trade among individuals, which is most certainly cooperation.
Another false narrative is the so-called vital role government has played in innovation. However, the government's own studies have shown that most emerging technologies are invented by individuals or small start ups- hardly the wealhiest and NOT government. http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs3...
Ayn Rand celebrated creators, including inventors, and producers and in no way suggested people should not cooperate with one another. Please read Atlas Shrugged before you write articles mis-characterizing the novel."

Wow - he's got a rather warped view of AS, doesn't he? Mr EcElwee has the foundation of the book completely wrong. The book isn't about the glory of a few rich people making money and society's utter dependence on them. It's about society and government thinking they essentially own people, thinking they have a "right" to simply take anyone's production if they declare they have a "need" for it. It's about the immorality of that viewpoint, and the lesson that this system only works because the people being taken advantage of keep playing along.

Mr McEllwee is the real-life Bertram Scudder when he says things like "To justify their wealth, the titans of industry must make themselves the center of economic progress and society..." Notice the presumption that those with wealth need to justify their ownership of it to the rest of society? You didn't build it, it's not yours, and we expect you to use it for "good" or we're going to label you evil.

The rich don't use their money for good, as defined by Mr McEllwee. We have a problem.
Mr Gates gives away 30 BILLION dollars, and....in Mr McEllwee's morality, that is not "good" enough.
"Imagine the good we could do with the fortunes of the rich...."
Read between the lines there. He wants to take it ALL.
He lays out a moral justification for doing so: you didn't build that.

"Once great men created fortunes; today a great system creates fortunate men."
This is the same liberal attitude that justifies progressively higher taxes on high earners out of the belief that they have effectively "won a lottery" by getting their job, rather than actually obtaining it by effort.
You have created a successful business? Good! Did you attend public school? Well then, you didn't build that. You owe us whatever we decide to take because you clearly didn't make it on your own.

"Private space flight is only imaginable because the government went there first." Really? Mr McElwee really ought to read a biography about Robert Goddard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Godd...). He's got it completely backwards.

Memorize his face, people. If he's standing around you some day, guard your wallet.

What nonsense. It's crazy to think level of wealth determines if you're a "maker". Having wealth doesn't make you industrious or not industrious. We certainly hear of people inheriting wealth and becoming decadent, but plenty of them use that wealth to generate tenfold that original wealth. Plenty of poor people are lazy and decadent, and plenty of them work their tail off. It's just nonsense. It's the wrong question like "Are Italians lazy or industrious?" "Which is better antibiotics or blood pressure meds?"

How about this quote: "The Randian vision praises hedge fund managers, even though most hedge funds underperform the market " Which Randian vision praises people for underperforming?

How about this one: "It seems almost axiomatic that no good person has ever done something great merely for a profit." Axiomatic means something you accept without any evidence. I agree with quote: Yes, the author is not using evidence.

Regarding the stuff about Peter Singer, I agree. But if you read Singer's book, he talks about how much of the world has barely enough to stay a life while a billion people have cameras and other toys. Why focus on one wealthy person? Why not ask this question of the billion human beings who have way more than enough? I think it's a fair question, but I don't see why we only ask it of Bill Gates. The hundreds of millions of us who have a significant positive networth control way more wealth than "the richest "0.01%" he talks about.

I couldn't finish reading that tripe.