a) I wasn't attacking you. An ad-hominem attack in this case would be, "Javert is an idiot, therefore this viewpoint is wrong." I don't believe that you're an idiot. On the contrary, I believe that you are probably a smart person who has had a particular set of experiences.

b) The statement was made to draw attention to what I perceive as weakness in your argument.

c) Notwithstanding the points made by others in the comments below, it should be said that I completely understand how and why people are objectivists. If, as I proposed, all (or even most (or even a significant number of)) objectivists had been born underprivileged, I think that I might be more inclined to agree with it.

d) > If you want to see what happens to an economic sector as the government becomes more invasive, look at the finance sector, which is the most controlled sector in the US, or look at the "federal telecom bureaus" (AT&T, Time Warner and Verizon).

In the finance sector, people broke the rules or rushed to fill in spaces where the rules were rolled back. Then things went really bad.

In the telecoms, they are breaking the rules but not being held accountable by the government.

In both cases, the fact that they are not following the rules is the actual problem. I'm not sure how this supports your claim.