I won't asplode.
I was a political science major in college, though, so not throwing in my $0.02 is harder some times. I've been trying to come up with the least problematic way to talk political philosophy in VERY generic terms. I think I've figured out how.
I am, however, a lot less familiar with Ayn Rand's philosophy -- we never read her stuff. I think the farthest we got in my political philosophy classes was Nietzche.
As Orange Blend mentioned, I think most political philosophy sounds great in theory, but the problem is practical application by humans, you know, being creatures with feet of clay, as it were.
The philosophies typically boil down to one version or another of "Wouldn't it be great if...." But the "if" is basically impossible, so you have to dial it back to practicalities and go from there. And that's where all pure application of political philosophy falls apart. Even in the U.S. where we revere "The Framers," even their "ideal" system never quite worked. I mean, you've got the First Amendment, which SHOULD be pretty freakin' straightforward, right? Congress shall make NO LAW restricting the freedom of speech....and yet we end up with the Sedition Act in 1798 -- only 9 years after the Constitution has been ratified, and when just about ALL of the people who ORIGINALLY WROTE THE THING are still around!! And even THEN we can't get our act together to remain consistent! :lol
That's humanity, right there. That's PRACTICAL application of political philosophy. THIS LAW IS ETERNAL AND UNIMPEACHABLE....er...except when we really really need to get around it, right? Oops. So much for "The Founders'" high-minded ideals...
With any system, I think you need to consider not merely the ideals of the system, but the practical application thereof. Typically, we talk about "freedom" being our highest ideal. Certainly, the concept of liberty has been central in the modern age (although not everyone agrees on that point, of course). But, assuming you're talking about people who value freedom, what exactly does "freedom" mean?
Stop and consider that issue alone when looking at any political philosophy, and think in practical, real world terms. Some might say that freedom should be all about freedom FROM the restrictions of the government. That's all well and good, but our actions are restricted by more than JUST the government. We have social restrictions, economic restrictions, restrictions derived from our own genetic makeup, etc. Does this system espouse total freedom from governmental restrictions only? What does it say about economics? Does it address them at all?
Another way to ask this question is "What good is freedom if you're too busy starving to enjoy it?" The government may not prevent you from doing XYZ but if you can't PRACTICALLY do it, are you really free?
As a separate issue, it's important to bear in mind that ANY system of government is inherently designed to RESTRAIN human behavior. If you accept the premise that in the "state of nature" we are all 100% free from overarching governmental restrictions, then you have to start asking yourself what the point of government is. (This is why a lot of political philosophies start with a discussion of the "state of nature.") Although, even the state of nature discussion is tricky because, while you're "free" from governmental restrictions, nothing is stopping anyone else from bashing you over the head and taking your stuff. Or, you know, just bashing you over the head for funsies. So, how "free" are we -- ever -- really? I would posit that the question becomes more about what KIND of freedom one wants, and what one is willing to give up to get that kind of freedom. Keeping this stuff in mind can help one assess a political philosophy.
Aaand that's about as clinical and detached as I can get.
