No Horatio not an Ayn Rand fan - like you say there is a little too much extreme in her writings.
Nor do I like the idea of the law of the jungle and I have absolutely NO problem with city folk subsidising the bush - I don't even consider it subsidising - we absolutely need them out there doing what they do.
We do need laws and umpires - as long as they are smart about the incentives they create.
I do try to take an economists view of things when it comes to understanding why stuff happens the way it does. Incentives are a vastly more powerful influence on us as individuals and as a society than most people believe until the economist's understanding of 'incentive' is understood. No one thinks about life much in these terms but I find it a very good way to understand the world around me better.
The only way our modern society differs to Ayn Rand's version of utopia is that our incentives are constantly being modified by all sorts of externalities be they govt intervention, advertising etc. Her version of utopia didn't allow for human nature enough.
When a govt passes legislation it creates new incentives and destroys others. Our current tax rules are a classic example - they are a disincentive to savings and an incentive to invest in real estate and one of the outcomes is low savings and high mortgage debt.
Rudd's pink batts fiasco is another example - prior to his intervention there was a fairly balanced market for roof insulation - supply was meeting demand. Then he announced free pink batts for all and there was created a different set of market incentives that were based on artificial demand. If all those people had wanted insulation all they needed to do was pick up the phone and by doing so they would have collectively sent a signal to the market and it would have ramped up production to meet it. Probably slowly/carefully giving them increased margins and better profitability and an ability to employ more at better pay. It would have been a slow controlled and sustainable increase.
Instead Rudd created a gold rush mentality and supply was boosted very quickly as the demand side said "well ok, its free after all". When it all unravelled - and it was always going to, the exact same thing has been done in other countries (NZ as an example) and the EXACT same thing happened including the house fires and accidental deaths - then demand was instantly shut off by the govt cutting off the money and a massive oversupply of labour and materials suddenly appeared and has all but shut down the industry. 10s of millions of dollars of insulation is sitting in sheds and NO ONE wants it unless its free.
The same thing happened in the BER (Builder's Early Retirement) - artificial demand causing all sorts of rorts and waste.
The Resource super tax changed the incentives for miners and investors - Its now not worth risking Billions in new capital for projects and looking for undiscovered resources because it just isn't worth doing IN AUSTRALIA when the return on capital is so low. The foreign investors that provide the capital (remember our savings rate is very low so we borrow internationally - another reason Govt/RBA/Banks have little ultimate control over interest rates) simply say "Nope, Africa/Canada/etc looks like a better return for MY money". Rudd/Swan have created an incentive for sundry other miscreants in various 3rd world countries to think about have a go at grabbing at the same golden ring. Foreign investment deserts those countries too and before you know it Krudd has created an artificially constrained supply and prices are inflated long term instead of what has always happened before which is supply exceeding demand eventually and prices falling.
People are strange creatures - how many do you know who will drive half way across town to save a few cents a litre on petrol blowing whatever saving that lower price indicated.
Govts MUST be extremely careful about the incentives they create/destroy and the signals they send out as a result. Probably NO Govt is as careful as they should be but this one is not even aware care is needed.
They could have done things differently if their ideology was not one of centralised control. How about lowering taxes and incentivising savings through modified taxation legislation and let people decide what they need to do?
The only downside to that is political - it doesn't give the sugar high instant gratification that politicians need to convince people to vote for them again - which is the ONLY thing that incentivises MOST politicians. But it might have been a lot better for everyone in the slightly longer term.
How many of you know that not much more than 100 years ago there was no such thing as income tax? Federal Income tax wasn't enacted in Australia until 1915 although various states enacted different levels of income tax in the late 1800s. The way (ever increasing) income taxation has modified incentives across society ever since is REALLY interesting reading.