Ayn Rand Paul's Analysis

It is inappropriate to use Ayn Rand to support any kind of argument other than her own. Not only is the evidence Rand Paul uses contradicting, but also weak. In Ayn Rand's dystopian world, the Council wants to keep candles and stay primitive, while in reality, the government wants to turn to something more advanced and efficient. There's also the fact that the evidence he uses almost has nothing to do with his argument.
The objective of the governments in the dystopian world and reality are complete opposites. “´This would wreck the Plans of the World Council,´ said Unanimity 2-9913, ´and without the Plans of the World Council the sun cannot rise. It took fifty years to secure the approval of all the Council´s for the candle, and to decide upon the number needed, and to re-fit the Plans so as to make candles instead of torches...We cannot alter the Plans again so soon.´¨(74). The evidence from Anthem proves that, because it would be too difficult a task, they'd rather keep their candles instead of working towards getting light bulbs. In the article Rand Paul Gives Senate Lesson
As shown in Incandescent Light Bulbs: The Controversy by Nada Manley, people´s right to choice isn't gone. ¨The law: does not ban the use or purchase of incandescent bulbs. Does not ban the sale or manufacture of ALL incandescent bulbs, just those common household incandescent (and other) bulbs that are not energy-efficient. Does not require the use of compact fluorescent bulbs.¨ These facts stated in the article proves that by no means are our rights to owning an incandescent bulb taken away, and that the government is not trying to ¨Phase out the incandescent light bulb in favor of the newer compact fluorescents.¨ as he states in the article, Rand Paul Gives Senate Lesson in Ayn Rand and Light