re incompatible; they are philosophical opposites; they cannot co-exist in the same man or the same society," that "Capitalism was destroyed by the morality of altruism." She also believed that "The social system based on and consonant with the altruist morality-with the code of self-sacrifice-is socialism, in all or any of its variants: fascism, Nazism and communism."97 Rand had without a doubt well earned her sobriquet of the "sorceress of reason."98 Weiss observes, moreover, that the notion of liberty so widely espoused by the various factions of the radical Right does not refer to the elimination of despotism, in line with the thinking of the American Founding Fathers, but merely to the elimination of taxation and government management of the economy.99 Not surprisingly, as Yaron Brook proclaimed in his debate with Miles Rapoport of the Demos think tank, '"If I had to start with ge!ing rid of government from our lives, I would probably start with public education."'100 Rand had learned well the lessons of the Soviet propagandists of her youth.101 One finds nothing in Rand's writings, or in McConnell's interviews or in the statements by Weiss's interviewees comparable with Stow's The Law's expression of his love for his fellow townsfolk, Love inexpressible, inexhaustible. My love for him, it, them. No ma!er if such love is not returned. In the contemplation of stars, in the remembrance of oceans and flowers, in the voice of the lone crow, and the jacaranda-blue of far ranges, I have all I need of requital.102 Stow's socially responsive individualism recognizes the inherent inadequacies of a conception of the individual that is purely transactional. While undoubtedly pertinent to market based relationships, Rand's transactional individualism fails to recognize that many, if not most, human relationships do not involve a commercially ratable quid pro quo. Indeed, o-en our relationships are based upon a spectrum of permanent or transitory bases, usually affective, that have a value but not a price. By contrast Ra