Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Think Atlas Shrugged is fiction? Look around !

Posted 8 years ago on Nov. 27, 2011, 10 a.m. EST by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Who is John Galt ?

118 Comments

118 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Not just fiction.

Garish, cartoonish, utterly unbelievable fiction.

With a cast of characters so completely removed from reality as to be considered by any competent clinical psychologist: "psychopathic", "sociopathic" and deranged.

It's like a comic book without the pretty pictures.

[-] 3 points by Bomer (58) 8 years ago

You got that right!

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

Exactly. Just like real life.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Real life is...

Garish, cartoonish, utterly unbelievable fiction.

With a cast of characters so completely removed from reality as to be considered by any competent clinical psychologist: "psychopathic", "sociopathic" and deranged.

???

You sound pretty jaded.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

thats our congress

[-] 6 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

100% pure, utter fiction. Poorly written too.

Try some Asimov.

For something better grounded in reality, try some Sinclair Lewis.

[-] 4 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 8 years ago

Ah hah! We could apply the Laws of Robotics to Corporations: A Corporation shall never harm a human being. A Corporation shall never allow harm to come to a human being; A Corporation shall never allow harm to itself, unless it violates Rule No. 1 or 2

It's been years, so I may have forgotten the exact rules. Of course, his stories in that series were all based on these laws coming into conflict. Can you imagine Congress trying to define "harm"? Ah, well, just a thought.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

I never thought of that angle.....Thanks.

Congress can't even define itself these days.

[-] -1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 8 years ago

All three of them are good authors. Just because she wrote about something you don't agree with does not make her a poor writer. Just someone opposed to your ideas.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Poorly written. Sorry it's true, unless you're the Koch brothers.

Why don't you provide us some quotes from Mr. Lewis, and equate to the world around us today?

Why are you such a rabid believer in one writers books of fiction?

In a world that's as much a fiction as Pandora?

If you must stroke your ego, there are better ways to do it, and better places to express it.

I have yet to see libertarianism, bear a positive result.

[-] 1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 8 years ago

Well I do suppose that opposing ideas have gotten people killed before. For the record Asimov is an incredible author but all of his stories are entirely fictional. What exactly is wrong with Atlas Shrugged? Is it because it was so long? I'm sorry if thats the case but some people can read faster than 1 word a minute.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Atlas Shrugged, is entirely fictional too.

Your ego is showing.

Was that supposed to be an insult.

Read some Jared Diamond, if you can't quote Lewis.

[-] 0 points by kingscrosssection (314) 8 years ago

Ok now I'm honestly asking what is wrong with the book.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Some people seem to think it has applications in the real world.

Quite rabidly so. It gets tiresome, as it doesn't really work.

Like I said, try Lewis and Diamond.

Much more applicable.

[-] 0 points by kingscrosssection (314) 8 years ago

What do you have to say about the country she came from which adopted some of the policies OWS is suggesting and then collapsed. (Or are you going to forget about that?) And she lived through it if I'm not mistaken.

[-] 3 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

You might check out these threads - lots of comments that address your questions:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/im-out/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-real-ayn-rand/

OWS has nothing in common with the USSR. This is not a marxist revolutionary movement, despite a few radical individuals. The goal is moderate equality and justice in a nation that has become extremely unequal and unjust.

Moderate egalitarianism is the position of liberalism. Rand's, like fascism and other ideologies of the far right, is extremely anti-egalitarian.

[-] 1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 8 years ago

Bringing everyone to the same level of equality is communist os it not?

[-] 5 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Which is a strawman. What part of moderate equality did you not understand?

Check this out for some charts on the current extreme inequality:

http://www.brianrogel.com/the-100-percent-solution-for-the-99-percent

You're still in high school, right? Perhaps it would be a good time to do some research on other political philosophers (which is extremely generous to Rand) like John Rawls or J.S. Mill.

[-] 4 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 8 years ago

Rand - a philosopher? I'm not sure that expounding thought with the luxury of holding the idea that every person is an island as a constant constitutes philosophy. it's quite obvious why it was so simple to her and is to her followers. it is simple, but it's wrong. she probably sucked in bed, too.

[-] -2 points by Infowar (295) 8 years ago

A rose by any other name, is that it?

[-] -3 points by Caf0331 (3) 8 years ago

I think Rand's work is very relevant today. I don't agree with all she wrote, but look around. If you read Atlas Shrugged, instead of judging it by what your lib prof told you to think, than you would see some parrallels. Why do libs only allow freedom of thought if it is what they believe.

[-] 3 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

What is Sunday a holy day in the church of Rand?

The only parallel I see is the ascendancy of the sociopathic superman ideology in the public sphere, the work of Rand used as a cudgel against the social contract and the last remnants of the middle class.

[-] -1 points by Caf0331 (3) 8 years ago

You miss the mark and have drank the coolaid of most higher ed. I don't agree with Rand on quite alot, but are referring to the social contract that was ever growing. The one that led to gov theft of intellectual and private property. Happened in the book and is happening here and now.

[-] 6 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

No Kool-Aid here. The stuff I drank was Rand herself, in high school. That was the closest I ever came to indoctrination. Here I was being given permission to be a cold-hearted antisocial ubermensch, and reject all my quaint views on morality and, basically, my mother's love - the value of things like empathy and altruism. Seriously. My rejection of this worldview was the outcome of a process of hardcore introspection and self-taught philosophy through the reading of people like Kant, Sartre, James, Mill, Locke, Rousseau, and Rawls.

The liberal professor stereotype is well-overplayed. I was more liberal than most of my professors.

I apologize for my snark. There has been so much Randalizing around here lately that my nerves are raw. I find it evil, and evil makes me angry.

What you call the theft of property I call the social contract. That our funds are being used to fight foreign wars and bailout banks, instead of promote the general welfare, is a failing of the social contract, and a product of our abdication of civic duty; addressing this failing is a prime purpose of OWS.

All the evidence i need that there's too much Rand and not enough Rawls in the public sphere is: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/us/census-measures-those-not-quite-in-poverty-but-struggling.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

...while the right screams in anti-socialist fury at any policy that is deemed remotely egalitarian. We are going down a very dangerous path. We need to rebuild the middle class and focus on a better society, before it is too late.

By the way, thank you for your service.

[-] 3 points by nickhowdy (1104) 8 years ago

Loosely human, I know you permalinked, but I just wanted to say..Thank You..

[-] 1 points by redavocet (38) 8 years ago

It can be found in the Acts of the Apostles - when the early Christians shared everything!

[-] 1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 8 years ago

Why did you have to bring up the bible?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Like I said.

Try Lewis and Diamond.

This stuff is actually happening. They are both fact based, not fiction.

There will be no communist revolution here.

So forget about it. It's conspiracy theory.

[-] 0 points by Caf0331 (3) 8 years ago

I think Rand's work is very relevant today. I don't agree with all she wrote, but look around. If you read Atlas Shrugged, instead of judging it by what your lib prof told you to think, than you would see some parrallels. Why do libs only allow freedom of thought if it is what they believe.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

I can see parallels in all kinds of novels.

That doesn't make them so.

I don't base my life on them.

I never had a lib prof, whatever that is, nor care what you are implying.

You can think whatever you like, that doesn't mean I have no right to disagree, and I do disagree with objectivism.

Wholeheartedly.

Read Jared Diamond.

[-] 1 points by Caf0331 (3) 8 years ago

I will look into Diamond. What would you suggest?

[-] 1 points by Caf0331 (3) 8 years ago

We agree. I have served to protect your right to disagree with me. I don't follow objectivism either, so why would you label me as such. Can't I differ without being attacked? Or do only the holy hold the high ground here? :)

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Ms. Rand defined objectivism.

Guns, Germs and Steel,is a good start.

[-] 1 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 8 years ago

Spammer.

[-] 1 points by Caf0331 (3) 8 years ago

So since I don't follow your ideas to the letter, I'm a spammer? No room for opposing views. I do agree with OWS on a few items, but without written goals/reasons for protest, who would sign on to something they don't know or understand. Maybe a sheep? I can't follow just because you say I should.

[-] 0 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 8 years ago

No you're a spammer because you copied/pasted your same comment at least once.

[-] 1 points by Caf0331 (3) 8 years ago

Sorry. Did it on accident as I am new to this. Thanks fir being tolerant of new people in the 99

[-] 0 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 8 years ago

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged since I was 17 years old (1961), but I remember being totally engrossed in it. She created great larger than life "job providers" -- the likes of which have never existed in real life -- and the rest of society, the leeches who drained the Big Guys of all interest in creating and innovating because it was going to be given to the non-contributors. That is how I remember it. John Galt's speech is about 45 pages long, summarizing her philosophy in case you didn't figure it out in the first 1000 pages.

[-] -1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 8 years ago

Well A she explored everything that could be explored in that first thousand pages. I'm 16 now and I love the book. Not engrossed but it has several good themes. Such as providing for oneself and not taking what you want from someone else. I never said the novel was entirely realistic. What great novel doesn't slightly over-play thing? I'd like to point you towards The Great Gatsby. Its not 100% true but it does portray several of the things that were occurring at the time.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

I never said it was non fiction. It's just interesting how the novel depicts the same things in reality. so you don't like the book & attack the writing lol! typical lefty

[-] 4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Why does Galt want poisoned water, air, and land?

Why would Galt chop down the last tree?

Or eat the last fish?

Galt is quite simple a glutton and a thief. An unrepentant egoist.

Go read Sinclair Lewis. It's fact based.

[+] -4 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

you are making assumptions based on nothing. who is responsible for the BP oil spill? first the government forcing them to drill in deep water then the regulator for signing off on letting them bypass safety precautions. of which the woman resigned. same with the housing crisis, forcing equality by lowering lending standards so everyone can own a home. Meanwhile - did Dodd - Frank stop MF Global from going under? I thought that big regulation was supposed to prevent this kind of thing?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Because ego always fights regulation.

Read some Lewis.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 8 years ago

actually the Id fights, the ego regulates.

[-] 7 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Touche!

Pure ego writes stuff like Shrugged, to give expression to the id.

[-] 0 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

i always conceptualized it as regulating one's ego was the way to role.

[-] -1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

???

[-] 4 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Ayn Rand is a Palpably Diagnosable Misanthropic Sociopath, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Virtue_of_Selfishness ).

Please see OWS-Forum poster "Lockean's" excellent recent post : http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-real-ayn-rand/ and the first twenty or so posts on the subsequent thread, for a definitive deconstruction and insight into Ayn Rand, her associated and assorted acolytes and their collective foibles, lunacies and psychopathies.

fiat lux ...

[-] -3 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

ok - you're entitled to your opinion. I am just comparing the story of Atlas Shrugged to events unfolding around us. seems eerily similar. Unless you can point out the flaws for me

[-] 3 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago
[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

@ aries : I've never read 'Atlas Shrugged' but Rand's non-fiction writing & her 'thoughts' re. "Objectivism" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_movement ) have the hallmarks of a heartless, human hater and the true damage that this psychopath has done to socio-political discourse in The U$A is yet to be realised and quantified let alone countered.

spero meliora ...

[-] -2 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

so you are commenting on something you haven't read just because the herd tells you she is bad. hm. Try Capitalism - The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand. Non Fiction.

[-] 4 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

My reading (and personal psychology ?) tells me Rand is not just wrong but 'Nuts', whereas somewhat paradoxically 'the herd' either hasn't heard of her or thinks that she's somehow relevant and noteworthy !

Re. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism:_The_Unknown_Ideal ", somehow I don't see myself reading that any time soon either. Indeed, 'The Fountainhead' was more than enough for me and I'm as likely to read 'Atlas' or anything else by her as you are to closely read 'The Communist Manifesto' , 'Das Kapital' or 'Wealth Of Nations' ... or perhaps I'm being presumptuous !!

pax et lux ...

[-] -1 points by Marquee (192) 8 years ago

Intelligent critical thinkers will always discover the reasons and reasoning of those who think differently. Refusal to read a book is a sure sign of intentional ignorance.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Is the sauce for the goose the same as for the gander ?

By your criterion above, exactly What should we make of Mind-Managed Americans who wax prosaically and noisily about their 'Received Wisdom' Propagandised Positions about "Socialism" ( http://occupywallst.org/forum/in-defence-of-the-broad-church-of-socialism-from-t/ ), without having Ever read anything by Marx { http://www.marxists.org/ } or Gramsci [ http://www.internationalgramscisociety.org/ ] for example ?

I do Not have to read any more rancid, narcissistic and self-referential bunkum (gleaned from 'The Fountainhead' & 'The Virtue of Selfishness') to realise that Rand and her ideas, her 'Objectivism' and her influence on the body politic of The U$A - has been a disaster, the full implications of which are yet to fully play out !

Do Human Beings really need any more encouragement and reasons to be 'selfish' ? Rand didn't have the courage to ever really say it explicitly but what she absolutely hated was having to contend and come to terms with the existence of 'The Human Conscience' and she despised Anyone who exhibited any hint of compassion or altruism - which she regarded as 'evil' !!

Rand is best summed up in two words : F**kin' Lunatic !!!

veritas vos liberabit

[-] 1 points by Marquee (192) 8 years ago

Excellent summation! : )

[-] 3 points by buphiloman (840) 8 years ago

Rand's hackish and ignorant dismissal of Kant is enough to show her to be a poor thinker (and even worse scholar).

Read Bill Vallicella's rundown of Rand on Kant here:

http://maverickphilosopher.blogspot.com/2004/06/rands-misunderstanding-of-kant.html

BTW, Bill is an ACTUAL accredited expert on Kant, who wrote his Doctoral dissertation on Kant.

[-] 6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

It is fiction.

I did the Ayn Rand phase already, thanks.

[-] 0 points by stuartchase (861) 8 years ago

So, what do you do these days?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

As far as reading material? Or material that is used politically?

[-] 1 points by stuartchase (861) 8 years ago

Both. :)

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

This past year I would say that I have spent more time on late antiquity and urban history. I am almost finished with Peter Heather's Fall of the Roman Empire. The next up is the Island at the Center of the World by Russell Shorto, Fascists: the Christian right and the war on America by Chris Hedges, and Hedrick's History and Silence. I'm boring as hell. :/

What are you doing?

[-] 1 points by stuartchase (861) 8 years ago

Sitting here typing to you. :)

[-] 5 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

Definitely fiction. John Galt is a hopeless narcissist that insists on others worshiping him.

[-] 5 points by Bomer (58) 8 years ago

Well No Sh*t!!! I guess since those controlling business and government are such ardent fans of this novel, how could it be otherwise? Didn't Boehner recently state that , "Job creators are on strike"? It's right out of the novel for Gods sake.

[+] -4 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

exactly - Boehner is right. Why shouldn't they be on strike? The climate today wouldn't inspire me to to expand my business.

[-] 3 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 8 years ago

Because if they fuck with the majority too much the majority will eat them alive.

[-] -2 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

Nah - they will just move away and go where people appreciate their capital. Like China or India. As we are seeing - their standards of living are booming. We've gotten spoiled & lazy. We have turned into an entitlement society. The govt created a dependency on them in exchange for votes and we took the bait hook line & sinker. You can thank the unions too for going too far.

[-] -3 points by OWSlover (0) from Kearny, NJ 8 years ago

The majority appear to be somewhat stupid if OWS is any indication. I wish all you silly children would go home

[-] 5 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 8 years ago

Home is an abstract concept. One can make anywhere or anything their home. They can carry it on their backs and in their minds.

Your comment is stupid and irrelevant.

[-] 2 points by NortonSound (176) 8 years ago

See ya, I hear China is beautiful this time of year, I can smell the Yang Sea River already, phew!

[-] -2 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

cutting your nose off to spite your face

[-] 4 points by PandoraK (1678) 8 years ago

Think it's fiction? No, I KNOW it's fiction.

Art imitates life and at times life imitates art...doesn't change the fact that it is still art.

[-] 3 points by CanEd (78) from Edmonton, AB 8 years ago

I used to be a Libertarian, but even then I thought Ayn Rand was too extreme. And at one point I favored the privatization of everything.

[-] 3 points by Edgewaters (912) 8 years ago

It's half-baked rubbish and badly written. Who is John Galt? Well I can tell you it sure as shit isn't the guy waving the "I am John Galt" placard. Did he invent a motor that runs on ambient energy? No, he's just some guy, maybe a shoe salesman or something.

[-] 3 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).

As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."

But alas she did and said what she said was wrong for everyone else to do so.

[-] 0 points by whisper (212) 8 years ago

You forget that the money which went into those programs was taken from her in the first place.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

SO, I will put you down for two wrongs make right!

Thanks for your VOTE!

[-] 0 points by whisper (212) 8 years ago

Not quite clear on this. You're suggesting that it's wrong to accept the return of money which has been taken from you?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

She preached resoundingly against taking any kind of money from the government. It's only for weaklings and not what government should do period. Then she did exactly what she told others not to do.

She preached rugged individualism, depend on your self, and then she became weak in her old age when she wasn't so rugged anymore. She took everything she could get from the government out of desperation and weakness. Hypocrite x 1000.

Get it?

[-] 0 points by whisper (212) 8 years ago

"She preached resoundingly against taking any kind of money from the government."

But that isn't true. What she 'preached' against was the idea that government (or anyone else) had a right to the effort or the result of the effort of another person. In response to a reader of her newsletter who asked if it was moral to accept government scholarships for tuition, she replied that it was morally acceptable because that money had been taken from the individual (and the individual's parents, and their parents) in the first place. It is impossible to calculate how much has been taken from any one individual by government force. She followed that up with the fact that it is moral so long as one adamantly denies the idea that government should collect such fees in the first place.

It was not out of desperation and weakness that she accepted the return of what belonged to her to begin with.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Whisper, your credibility here is wanting. We all know you support the Tea Baggers. I don't like this thread and I will no longer respond to it. It had it's day for laughs. Now it needs to go away.

Seeeee Yaaaaaaa

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 8 years ago

sigh... oh puzzlin...

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

of course big deal - she was forced to pay into the program her whole life why not get what is coming to you. I am against the use of force to have me part of S.S. & medicare, but I'll be damned if I don't take the benefit of what i am paying into? That's not even the point here. Everything in the book is being mirrored in real life as we speak. Crony Capitalism, social engineering, Solyndra, BP, etc. All in the book.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Did you vote for Bush?

[-] 1 points by Caf0331 (3) 8 years ago

What's with the bold? Are you yelling at those who don't agree?

[-] 1 points by Caf0331 (3) 8 years ago

What does it matter who they voted for. Isn't the 99 against big brother. If so, why are so ready to jump in and take others rights.

[-] 0 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 8 years ago

No, neither time, but I didn't vote for the Democratic candidates either.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

At least your honest. So, who did you vote for, none of the above?

[-] 0 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 8 years ago

Libertarian in the last 4 Presidential elections.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Good Luck with the Libby candidates. It is throw away vote but at least you follow all the way through.

Thanks!

[-] -1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

given the choice I never vote for a democrat/socialist. Bush was the lesser of two evils & not by much. I dont know why the left despises him so much - he's really not conservative at all. he's probably 10 times as progressive as JFK. just shows how far the bar has moved to the left

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Very telling, Thank You!

[-] -1 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 8 years ago

It is interesting how everyone thinks, since we are for smaller government, that we should stand on some morally higher ground and refuse any government program and not take allowable tax cuts. It is the same as if someone were standing on a street corner handing out $100 bills to anyone that wanted one with no strings attached. Who would say, "No Thanks" I have enough money.

I believe the federal government should return to providing for the national defense and nothing else. Not all the next day but over a reasonable period of time to allow the system and people to adjust. The problem is that past and current politicians have made promises to people that can not be kept, from SS to Medicare and the prescription drug benefit. They need to be reformed and shrunk now before it all falls apart and nothing can be offered.

[-] -1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 8 years ago

There is nothing wrong with aid. The problem comes from when people live their lives on welfare.

[-] 2 points by remigration (7) from New York City, NY 8 years ago

It is bad fiction.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago
[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Why are half the posters in this forum Tea Baggers?

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

Because it is a great opportunity to try & educate you communists.

[-] 1 points by QuietDay (59) 8 years ago

Here's a condensed version of Atlas Shrugged so you don't have to put yourself through the torture of reading the entire book. You're welcome.

http://www.spudworks.com/article/66/2/

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

No, Atlas Shrugged is right-wing bullshit.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

brilliant response

[-] 1 points by stuartchase (861) 8 years ago

Who is John Galt? He's a member of the KTC. Come take a look! He's helping us bring down these corrupt bastards. Dagny's helping out too. She would never fuck a man who had anything to do with such a company!

http://occupywallst.org/forum/something-to-think-about-part-3-toshiba-hates-mino/

The Revolution starts here!

[-] 1 points by leavethecities (318) 8 years ago

Dont apoil the ending im reading the book

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

interesting - liberals seem to be obsessed with what other people have. I could care less about rich people having 1000 times more money than me. It has no bearing on my life. Liberals are obsessed with class and the disparity between them.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Anarchy666 (0) 8 years ago

What is fiction about it?

[-] 3 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Maybe the fact it's a fictional novel about entirely unrealistic characters, the main heroic protagonist being a megalomaniacal narcissist, whose character was based on a actual homicidal sociopath named William Hickman?

[-] 0 points by nickhowdy (1104) 8 years ago

She is very inefficient in her writing for "Atlas Shrugged"..Then you have these jackasses popping up all the time..With the "Who is John Galt?".. ..Yes like that type of thing happens all the time..

The trouble with society is that we make people dependent on others instead of teaching them not to be...We teach people to be tools for "society" instead of being independent individuals..

Of course the elite want people to be poor..To extract labor and to fight their wars ..God I'm sick of it..

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

so we agree then. So that's all you got out of the book is her use of "who is John Galt" is disagreeable to you? lighten up lol! There is more to the book than that. The parallels to crony capitalism & social engineering to be more specific.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 8 years ago

No Ayn Rand is OK..I like allot of what she writes on, she has her perspective and within that certain context, it makes a lot of sense and that's it ...

I get a bit annoyed at the constant worshiping that goes on..It's not just her followers, but anyone who would attach themselves to any idea or ideology. People need to have their own thoughts on things not just spout off about some old Ayn Rand concepts as if she was the end all be all of human intellect..

She forgot something also... that perhaps the people in charge are not the noble one's she needs them to be as part of the objectivist ideal. The folks in charge today "The banks" are not really the "producers" but more like grifters...

What you are seeing today is Fascism or more accurately Corporatism, which if Ayn Rand were alive today, she too would be revolting against.

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

I agree - Rand would be revolting against todays crony capitalism. That's what the book is about. it's just the focus of who's responsible. Politicians who we can vote out of office, or the lobbyists who offer the money. You are never going to stop the offer of money. You can hold those who take it accountable by voting them out. Tea Party style.

[-] 2 points by nickhowdy (1104) 8 years ago

That's an issue, in our two party duopoly, you only have two choices and they only represent a choice between the type of thief you'll be voting for...

[-] -1 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 8 years ago

I can say there were parts of the book I didn't like but what I took away is that each has to find their own motivation. The greedy money hungry ones were the bad guys in the novel who twisted government to preserve their power, much like we see happening today, but they used all the nice progressive words like, for the benefit of society and crap like that. Workers of Reardon Steel were better paid and had better benefits because he wanted the best that he could afford to pay. He built a quality, sought after product and demanded a fair price for it, and he kept his word. I didn't like that she didn't have any characters that were driven for other reasons, like family but the book was long enough as it was. All of the characters were hyper idealized but I thought it worked for the novel.

Acquiring wealth allows people to pursue whatever they want to. If you want to be altruistic and give your money away or start a foundation with what you have made there is nothing wrong with that. Look at Jon Huntsman Sr and the cancer institute he created with some of his wealth, it seems the OWS people would prefer to take it from him when they feel he has gotten enough and do with it what they think is right, but at that point it is theft, no matter how well intentioned the motive. The end does not justify the means.

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

Bravo ! well said

[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

I don't think humans will destroy all life on Earth

Oh wait

that's "Earth Abides"

[-] -1 points by smartenough (42) 8 years ago

A singer ?