In Defence of Ayn Rand

Via Vanity Press, Johann Hari writes a decent critique of Ayn Rand's philosophy. But there's one part where I think Hari is unfair to Rand:

Like most of the American right, she has no conception of positive liberty. When asked how free a man in Harlem with no healthcare insurance and a kid with cancer is, she has no answer. She cannot see when hands have been kept too far off.

I actually think Rand's "Objectivism" does have an answer for such a person: "Your child's cancer is your child's affair. You owe it to yourself not to be weighed down by lesser beings. And if you, yourself can't win the financial means to save your child (assuming your child's life is of some personal value to you) then don't expect the government to force others to pay for your child's treatments. Furthermore, if you can't win the means to even lift yourself out of poverty, then you deserve to stay there and rot. The superior people, the producers might need you for their own purposes and give you a job, but don't count on it. You could respond to your situation with revolutionary anger, but according to "Objectivism" that would be self-defeating as your sort of inferior specimens can only make a hash of things anyway."

Obviously, people can choose to reject the premises of such a philosophy.