Since I first read The Fountainhead, and later Atlas Shrugged, I’ve been a fan of Ayn Rand and her philosophy. I wouldn’t call myself an “Objectivist”, but I competely agree with Objectivism’s basic tenets, and Rand’s books and philosophy were, years ago, a huge influence in my life, especially her denunciation of “altruism” and collectivism as anti-life, and the idea that we should see things as they are, not as we wish they were.

However, Rand’s philosophy has been completely misunderstood several times. I’ve written about one of the ways before, but there’s another which I find quite annoying, because its authors simply don’t know any better, and should learn a couple of things before putting their confused ideas in writing.

That error, found in many Objectivist and Libertarian magazines and web sites is this: the defense of Bill Gates and Microsoft. As if Gates and company were Hank Rearden-like heroic capitalists, and all the antitrust suits were simply a case of them being punished for their success – much like the collectivist government in Atlas throws more and more regulations in order to harm Rearden’s business while helping his incompetent – and much less successful – rival Orren Boyle.

Unfortunately, those Objectivist / Libertarian writers don’t work with computers a lot, or maybe they’d know.

To those writers:

• Can you imagine Rearden telling a potential customer that he wouldn’t get a single gram of Rearden Metal if they ever dared buy anything from any of his competitors?
• Can you picture Rearden selling an inferior product, and only managing to sell it through marketing – including marketing designed to inspire fear, uncertainty and doubt in the competitors’ products? In the book, it was Rearden’s competitors who published a report which, without stating a single fact, suggested that Rearden Metal might be dangerous.
• Would Rearden force distributors into a deal where he gets a cut of every piece of machinery sold, even if it actually includes no Rearden Metal whatsoever?
• Would Rearden add a substance to his Metal that corroded any non-Rearden metal that touched it?
• Would Rearden add qualities to his Metal that all the competitors’ products already had for 15 years, and tout it as a “great innovation”, a lie which the ignorant media would happily repeat for him?

I say he wouldn’t. Rearden was 100% honest, and his sole weapon was the quality of his product. Microsoft has little quality, and has been dishonest from the start.

They weren’t almost punished (“almost”, because, like always, the Bush administration prevented anything good from happening) for being successful, or for being rich, or because its competitors were envious, or because anyone wanted to “redistribute wealth” (a disgusting concept). No, oddly enough, the Justice Department was right. Microsoft fought in the marketplace using every trick except one: make a better product.

Bill Gates is no Hank Rearden. He’s more like Orren Boyle, in a Bizarro world where Boyle wins.