The opposing ideas here, as I see it, are:
A. Reward the producers and creators and let the slackers starve vs. B. Government as Momma.
Both ideas have merit, IMO, and both can be horrible if taken too far.
I'll even venture a political comment here: The perpetuation of Democrats vs. Republicans in the U.S. helps keep either camp from going to far. Bleeding heart liberal vs. hard-core capitalist. Certainly not an original thought on my part, but I think it makes sense.
One other Achilles heel of Objectivism is monopoly. Monopoly is fine according to Rand as long as you didn't get there through unethical means. Do you think there should be any governmental controls on monopoly?
Whenever you involved government in something you are, in effect, hoping for the best while giving them a blank check. You hope they don't spend more than you can afford--but, their track record is such that they've already spent all you'll ever live to earn and are working on spending all your grandchildren will ever earn. If you think that's okay---well, be careful what you wish for.
As far a MONOPOLy is concerned, think about this.
The premise of a Monopoly is that it is the natural consequence of a free and unregulated marketplace.
Yet, the only places monopolies can exist at all is under the intervention of a government which INTRUDES into the free marketplace.
How does Government intrude into "free market" and create a climate where a monopoly can flourish?
1.Granting of "special privilege" of one corporation over another granting advantages in place of competition.
2.Franchises, subsidies which close entry of competitors into a given field.
3.Legislative action.
The necessary precontition of a coercive monopoly is CLOSED ENTRY to all but a select few. Government bidding on contracts in Afghanistand and Kuwait and Iraq is a good example. Haliburton gets preferential treatment.
The prices on goods and services are set by Haliburton and are considerably higher than in the open market.
Now, look at how a free market works.
You have a choice of where to buy the same goods and choose the least expensive or the best quality or the finest service among competitors. But, if there is only one vendor you are allowed to buy from--who sets the policy on price, quality and service then?
The beginning of coercive monopoly in the U.S.A. began when Congress cut special deals with the railroads and oil companies to grant advantages. Once certain companies obtained advantages they cut out competitors quickly by drowning them in taxes, regulations and government red tape.
Government is not the best and brightest working in an enviornment free of temptation. Far from it. When you rely on government to look out for you---you are inviting the wolf into the flock to watch over your sheep.
It isn't conspiracy so much as it is the worst of human nature at work when power is involved when spending other people's money.
Look at Anti-trust laws and how they so bind a company with restraints (which only the government can interpret as they please) many are forced into bankruptcy.
1.If a company charges prices "too low" they are accused of "unfair competition".
2.If a company charges prices "too high" they are accused of "profiteering."
3.If he charges the same price as competitors he can be accused of "collusion" or "conspiracy".
The businessman takes the blame for the evils of government in this instance.
Remember, corporations forced to pay higher taxes only pass those taxes on to the consumer in higher prices.
When you force "penalties" on to corporations by taxing their "profiteering" they don't pay it--YOU the consumer pay it.
Lobbyists only exist because businesses aren't ALLOWED by government to play fair in the open marketplace---they are FORCED to pay congressment to obtain special advantages, loopholes, tax easements, etc.
Government is the CAUSE of monopoly by intervention.