If someone is in trouble should there be a calculated risk evaluation for deciding whether or not to help?
When a part of humanity is in famine or suffering from a clamity those who can help should they first calcualte the risks?
Objectivism, the price of drugs and cure to be increased exorbitatnly and all patents to be protected so much that half the humanity may die of hunger or pandemic because they will not be able to afford it?
Even though Rand's philosphical and idealistic stature is very high and esteemed but she cannot be taken as the solution to all the problems. It is the same thing as the expereince of human race that neither religon nor libertianism i.e., neo-capitalism, provided a complete solution. Rather all philosophies, concepts and systems after a while become obsolete because they (a) they have only a limited capacity to grow and (b) self-serving the philosophy or concept becomes the primary object.
Ayn Rand as I understood her talked about the individualism for individuals and that is when her philosophy rings true. For example in the Fountainhead Howrad Roarke went head on against a group which used altruism and collectiveism as a tool against the good of common people.
The overall outcome of the Fountainhead is to let the individual grow as this takes the humanity forward. However, I failed to draw the conclusion that individual should only think and operate for his own good and profit. If this was the case Roarke could have been more successful by joining Toohey but he preferred to rebel out and establish his individuality and in the process accepted the sufferance of rejection and proverty.
Up to the individual level, and in one against many Ayn Rand's philopsophy is very clear and superior. However, using the same philosophy, by Ayn Rand herself or by Ayn Rand Society or by neo-liberals, in the reverse situation that is Group against individual or powerfull against weak appears to be a serious fallacy.
Ayn Rand a respected philosopher no doubt is also subject to misuse, of which religion is the most obvious example, and this where the limitations of her philosophy becomes more obvious.
It appears that Ayn Rand herself was not able to develop a philosophy for reverse situation that is Group vs individual or powerful against the weak.
The concept of not saving one drowning human being because of risks involved cannot be the criteria to be applied for bigger group of humans because of another very simple phenomnon. That is only if one individual amass all the wealth and power then the use of his wealth and power will be limited, will become unjustified and ultimately will be taken away per force by others.