Governor Christie is addressing a major disaster emergency in his state on a similar scale (though not involving terrorism) as 9/11. Though not perfect he has shown courage and character. In major emergencies there is a potental break down of social norms similar to what happened during the Rodney King race riots in LA two decades ago. Strong leadership that Christie has shown can thwart this. I'd forgive Christie for not undersanding the fine economic points about the price system and "price gouging" but the mistake is common, even among those leaning toward free enterprise. In her "Ethics of emergencies" Rand wasn't opposed to different rules in emergencies, although this doesn't square with sound economic reasoning. So I wouldn't go too hard on Christie.

We say exactly that to the Patent and Trademark office almost daily-but to what are you referring to here?

I disagree that this was the key passage to Rand's essay about emergencies because this applied generally altruism and helping others rather than to the specific topic of emergencies. In my judgement the key quote was:

"It is important to differentiate between the rules of conduct in an emergency situation and the rules of conduct in the normal conditions of human existence. This does not mean a double standard of morality: the standard and the basic principles remain the same, but their application to either case requires precise definitions.

An emergency is an unchosen, unexpected event, limited in time, that creates conditions under which human survival is impossible—such as a flood, an earthquake, a fire, a shipwreck. In an emergency situation, men's primary goal is to combat the disaster, escape the danger and restore normal conditions (to reach dry land, to put out the fire, etc.)." And continuing a paragraph later: "It is only in emergency situations that one should volunteer to help strangers, if it is in one's power. For instance, a man who values human life and is caught in a shipwreck, should help to save his fellow passengers (though not at the expense of his own life). But this does not mean that after they all reach shore, he should devote his efforts to saving his fellow passengers from poverty, ignorance, neurosis or whatever other troubles they might have. Nor does it mean that he should spend his life sailing the seven seas in search of shipwreck victims to save."

This explicitly supports my claim that Rand treated emergencies as metaphysically different and applied different rules. But was her analysis valid? Life or death situations are almost always an emergency to those affected by them but they are a part of normal existence. Economic and societal processes involve everything whether its an emergency to some or just a normal part of living. I don't have an easy answer to difficult questions, and I'm not fully satisfied with Rand's answers either, though I'm sympathetic to both her and Sowell.

(Inner circle) Objectivist lecturers usually reject "lifeboat" emergency scenarios. Two or three decades ago I heard an revealing second-hand anecdote about just this. In a closed discussion, one of the grand poopah inner circle Objectivists was asked what would he do in the actual event of such a lifeboat scenario. He was silent but made the jesture of looking both ways suggesting that he was verifying that he wasn't being watched and then he made a heaving jesture to indicate throwing someone else overboard.

About 18 years ago another well know Objectivest made a similar but light hearted point in a speech before a group of Objectivists in the SF Bay area about hiking in the forest with an acquaintance and coming across a hungry bear, upon which he took off his pack and put on a pair of running shoes. "You can't outrun a bear" said his fellow hiker, to which our Objectivist replied "I don't have to, I only need to outrun you".

My point is that life is a struggle for existence and at times there really are situations that don't have good outcomes for everyone, and even leading Objectivists have sometimes acknowledged this. Its in situations like these (though not necessarily so dire) that practical rules of emergencies kick-in when its either a choice of whether you die or not, or whether you or someone else die at the expense of breaking some other rule for which amends can later be made.