Neither is better. This is not an intelligent or properly represented critique: http://www.esquire.com/features/gore-vid...

Let me make this very easy: which is better, the critic who misrepresents Ayn Rand, or the one who doesn't? When you investigate something new, do you seek out an opposing viewpoint? I do, and I think if people could look up Gore Vidal's critique they'd come away with a more accurate view of Rand than their going to get from most other opponents.

I haven't read Hari, but that's a false dichotomy. I don't choose either. And I didn't repeat the thread title.

Why do you just repeat the thread title? Is this supposed to be a reply to what I wrote? Most left wing intellectual critics of Ayn Rand actively misrepresent her ideas, Gore Vidal didn't. What he wrote maybe wasn't particularly insightful, but I think he deserves credit for treating his readers with more respect than the likes of Johann Hari grant theirs. Of the two, which would you prefer?

*When you reference anything by Gore Vidal, you should know something is wrong.

On the contrary, Gore Vidal's critique of Ayn Rand is worth steering people towards, it deserves to be read. While his evaluation of her is completely negative, but he doesn't misrepresent her. Compare what he wrote to what comes from the likes of Johann Hari to see my point.

Desperation drives people to accuse others of the crimes that they themselves are guilty.

Yet another communist--a hater of the wealthy disconnected from the reality of who pays him.