I think it's funny that the author says the entrepreneur needs 'a government agency in charge of a budget to finance his or her ideas' in order to accomplish their goals.

Does Paul Kidder not realize that this is what Ayn Rand wanted to rid men of in the first place?

"Disagreeing with style doesn't mean content is wrong though."
Well said.

I'm glad they at least understood the proper premise to challenge. That claim is unfounded on about 8 levels though.

I had one person come back at me when making this argument with "producers are just people and interchangeable because anyone can have an idea given enough time." True story!

It has less to do with Rand specifically and more to do with how modern philosophers are. It's extremely unprofessional and immature.

". . . flaw in Ayn Rand's philosophy by Paul Kidder" --
You must be Kidding, Mr. Kidder .

I get it -- without the rest of the universe (grass, trees, rocks, planets, suns) -- the businessman is "helpless."
(Context Dropping error)

They DON'T DARE attack Ayn Rand directly -- they'd be obvious as the fool .
Thus, they are indirect -- sneers are one such attack attempt .

There are no "former" philosophy minors... apparently.

Yeah, the former philosophy minor in me just makes me go into explicit precision sometimes. Sorry if it was abrasive.

You caught my context exactly.

It depends on the context you are using the words in.

The producer is necessary and sufficient in the creation of the idea.

The producer is necessary but not sufficient in the execution of the idea. (Though even that is arguable, as factors such as time and mass production come into play here. After all, the producer could make one of his product a year without anyone else's help.)

Very good points all, jmlesniewski. It seems to me that the original idea is sufficient. Thereby making the entrepreneur, in that regard, also sufficient. Subsequent to the idea, the rest becomes necessary.
I can tolerate so-called impatient thinking over shallow any day.

Second off, this critique is based on a flawed premise: that the producer's contribution is non-unique in the same way all the other contributions labeled above are non-unique. Yes, the producer can't complete the work with out the contribution of workers, but the workers can be replaced by other non-unique workers. Without the producer, there is no work to be done at all. That is the premise the argument fails to acknowledge.

This philosopher's error is here:

"The fallacy that is at the heart of Rand’s political-economic philosophy is the fallacy of mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient condition...But in truth the entrepreneur, though very much a necessary condition for the production of economic value, is not a sufficient condition...Thus the creators, entrepreneurs, investors, taxpayers, legislators, jurists, workers, and consumers are all necessary conditions for the production of the value that we find in the marketplace; but none of them, including the entrepreneur, is a sufficient condition: none can make it happen alone."

First, I despise the backhanded way in which modern philosophers insult each other. By claiming Rand is making an error of elementary logic, he is indirectly insulting her intellect and philosophical ability. Critique the argument not the arguer.

"I see that Rand does not tolerate the philosopher’s patient tarrying with differing points of view but moves in quickly for the rhetorical kill. She seems to be moved by a passion — the libido dominandi, the desire for control — far more than by the gentle art of thinking."

Yes, Rand wrote differently than most contemporary philosophers. Her style was aimed at rhetorically asserting what she saw as true. Disagreeing with style doesn't mean content is wrong though.