It seems it to have written for the today Argentineans. I solicit to read its phrases with the abierta mind, without prejudices. It says: " When it notices that to produce it needs to obtain authorization from those who does not produce anything; when it verifies that the money flows towards those who goods do not deal, but favors; when it perceives that many are made rich more by the bribe and influences than by the work, and that the laws do not protect it against them, but, on the contrary, they are they those that are protected against you; when it repairs that the corruption is compensated and the honesty becomes a useless sacrifice, then will be able to recognize that society is condenada". Ayn Rand was born in Saint Petersburg in 1905 and passed away in New York almost three decades ago. Its true name was Smooths Zinovievna Rosenbaum. From small it demonstrated a determined literary vocation, because the seven years it began to scribble novels and scripts for the cinema new born. One was excited by works of Victor Hugo and other romantic writers who, at the same time, denounced injustices. It studied philosophy and history in the University of Saint Petersburg. It discovered to Nietzsche and its glorification by the heroic thing. One stayed pledged with the Logic of Aristotle during all their life. To the 21 years, it secured a visa to travel to the United States, because it wished to continue his race of scriptwriter. Back it left a blood-stained and confused Russia, where the ideals were transformed into a hypocritical dictatorship. Their works produced commotion and they expanded like fertilizers. For many, nevertheless, they only contained errors and poison. Its greater book calls the Atlas rebellion (Atlas shrugged), extensive novel equipped with fluidity and suspension. Nevertheless, also it generated hatreds. Because it and all works had a coherence that went against the dominant current. Indeed, the phrases with which I have begun east article only show to clarity and forcefulness. It said what thought, although it fell bad. It formed school and it had chains of admirers and not less long chains of detractors. Hardly arrival to the United States, fascinated to Cecil B. DeMille, introduced that it in the cinema and incorporated like actress in King of Kings. Since then one insisted on writing up scripts and novels. " I decided to be writer from girl, and everything what I have done has so circumscribed to propósito." In their works the people usually stand out who strive to obtain the best thing of themselves, and to whose she puts them independence in conflict with the man-mass, with the put under man. For that reason she has detested the colectivistas proposals, in which each person dissolves, becomes irresponsible, excessively obedient, robot, manipulable. Also his denunciation against those who really do not work and they are useful those who there do yes it (she talked about politicians, union leaders and hypocritical leaders). She detested of the thieves and falsarios. She considered that each human being is sacred, but must make honor to that sacralidad by means of the honest activity and independence of ideas. In 1936 she published Those that we lived, where she narrates the dramatic life of a woman of indómito spirit under an authoritarian regime. " He is most similar autobiografía" , she confessed. The work well was not received initially because the Great Depression reigned. It increased the popularity of the communist currents, that she described like a remedy that the patient assassinates. It had seen it and experimented in own meat. The peculiar thing of the case is that, without the permission of the author, Benito Mussolini it ordered to film in 1942 two films based on that novel: Noi vivi and Addio, Kira. It was an attempt of anti-Soviet propaganda. But the Nazis noticed the ingenuous error, they became infuriated and they demanded that immediately they were retired of the billboards. They had included/understood that the message of Ayn Rand was not only anti-Soviet, but crude in a totalitarian fashion. The fame of this author unfolded with more force when publishing the spring. It was a novel that took seven years to him of work and was rejected by 12 publishing houses, until in a one of them young person him espetó to its head: " If this one is not a book adapted for you, then I do not have either to work aquí" more;. Soon the publishing houses disputed their pen. Until it produced a book of unusual extension: the thousand two hundred pages of the Atlas rebellion. In the decade of the 80 the Library of the Congress of the United States made a survey on the book that greater influence had had in the life of many readers. The first place was adjudged to the Bible and the second, to the Atlas rebellion. This long novel makes agree to those who adores and who they detest to Ayn Rand, to say that it is a reckless and powerful work. It faces the estatistas ideas that plainly they had begun to reign in the world. It narrates the decay of the United States as a result of an excessive interventionism, " inefficient and corrupt in the majority of casos". Although it was written between years 1946 and 1957, the novel seems an advance payment of the socioeconomic decay that went sinking to the majority of the Latin American countries. Without fear to the critics, that work divides the social composition of a country in two classes, that do not correspond to the classes until then identified by history, the policy and sociology. Those two classes are the one of " saqueadores" and the one of " not saqueadores". " saqueadores" they are represented by those who think that all economic activity must be regulated and to be put under a strong governmental direction. " not saqueadores" , however, they are enterprising and intellectual that inclines by the opposite solution. From that base it is easy to include/understand the paragraph that I wrote in the beginning: " When it notices that to produce it needs to obtain authorization from those who does not produce anything; when it verifies that the money flows towards those who goods do not deal, but favors; [...] when it repairs that the corruption is compensated and the honesty becomes a useless sacrifice, then will be able to recognize that society is condenada". The hypertrophy and state corruption (often handled by authoritarian dictators, simple dictadorzuelos or) have begun to give the reason to him. Even in countries where this was unimaginable, like the Cuba of Castro. It wanted a small, effective State and is transparent, that helps the social physiology. But she condemned the libertarios extremists: they are " hippies of derecha" , it said. The State, reduced to legal, rational and beneficial limits really, is positive. But the omnipresent State is fascism. The facist proclamation was categorical and unforgettable: " Everything within the State, nothing outside the Estado". The directness and boldness of Ayn Rand produced tremors. For example, it defended the right to distribute - between adults any type of text or audio-visual means, including the Nazi propaganda, communist or the pornography (that it detested, to consider it an attack against the sexuality and the good taste). It maintained that " the ideas not delinquen" , and that was only due to punish the criminal acts. It affirmed that any attempt that the State limited the expression of ideas " erróneas" , " equivocadas" or " peligrosas" it only could lead to a total censorship. The works of Rand were insulted at the outset, as I already indicated. It bothered his boldness. They sounded like demolishers of traditions and cultures. But who did not share that opinion was the public, who turned into lasting best sellers of numerous countries. The experts in English Literature tried to ignore it during decades. Equal happened to economists, sociologists and politicians. It was described as egoistic and insensible. But the great literary critic Harold Bloom found his work sufficiently significant to include it in his respected American anthology W omen Fiction Writers. Ayn Rand was brave and frank, original and seductive. It was not right in everything and it is probable that it has slipped in several points. But its merit is unquestionable: it said what many did not dare to declare and never left navigated the praises. " A follower completely without information is indeed what my philosophy condemns and I rechazo" , he affirmed.