The article is about power, not money. Also, there's no suggested course of action. In fact, a legitimate course of action could be "stop using Google's services so that if shit hits the fan, they don't have your data".
How could enlightened self-interest of consumers ever possibly be construed as an assault on liberty (or whatever-the-hell)?
It's really best never to think of those you disagree with in terms of flat caricatures.
To reiterate, how could enlightened (individual) self-interest of consumers ever possibly be construed as an assault on liberty (or whatever-the-hell)?
edit: Pretty sure not eating McDonald's every day is not an affront to capitalism. To assume that critics of McDonald's food are automatically calling for regulation/whatever, instead of just trying to educate people to help them act in their self-interest, is a caricature. Similarly, suggesting any critic of Google is automatically some sort of proto-communist is a ridiculous caricature.
>>To reiterate, how could enlightened (individual) self-interest of consumers ever possibly be construed as an assault on liberty (or whatever-the-hell)?
To the extent that you think objectivism is inconsistent with choosing not to use a product or convincing others not to use a product, I think you've missed the point. In particular, not using Google because you think your privacy is more valuable than the value generated by google's products is pretty exemplary of rational selfishness and individual freedom.
To the extent that you're correct, you're just discrediting Rand as a true private sector authoritarian.
The article is about power, not money. Also, there's no suggested course of action. In fact, a legitimate course of action could be "stop using Google's services so that if shit hits the fan, they don't have your data".
How could enlightened self-interest of consumers ever possibly be construed as an assault on liberty (or whatever-the-hell)?
It's really best never to think of those you disagree with in terms of flat caricatures.