Rand is "outside of the mainstream of philosophical works," said David Sidorsky, a professor of moral and political philosophy at Columbia University. Objectivism, he says, is more of an ideological movement than a well-grounded philosophy, which explains in part why it isn't more widely taught, he said.
"I can understand the fascination exercised by Ayn Rand's work on some people," said Harvard professor of philosophy Philippe Van Parijs, who gained some renown for his proposal that every person, regardless of productive output, be paid a "Universal Basic Income" by the government. "But academic recognition is a matter of intellectual strength, depth and rigour, not of more or less ephemeral and local fashion." (TimesArgus.com, 05/15/05.)
Read David Sidorsky's article, The Third Concept of Liberty and the Politics of Identity, and see if you could grasp his "well-grounded philosophy"...
I wonder if you could call Mr. Parijs's idea of an "universal basic income" a work of "intellectual strength, depth and rigour." It sounds more like a rehash of socialism, egalitarianism, and a big chunk of sloppy thinking. Who should pay for the guaranteed minimum income? How could you demand to have a certain amount of income, without creating a value?
[Editor's note: I am crossposting this post to the Egosphere.]