"Money plays the largest role in determining the course of history."
Karl Marx

Hello Hiraghm,

Wow!
"This is a website devoted to Atlas Shrugged, where one prick condemns millions to suffering and death because he didn't approve of a communist plan at motor company where he worked, boo freakin hoo." Hiraghm

Really?

I have never seen it that way. John Galt decided he would no longer be a slave, that society did not own him; he did not owe society whatever sum they demanded. He would not submit to servitude, to communism, and found others of like mind. It was not about just one motor company where he worked. It was pervasive. He did not condemn millions to anything that would not have happened anyway. He may have moved it further forward in time, lacking the power to do otherwise. He took no action against them; his “action” and those of like mind, was withdrawal, inaction. He was merciful in shortening the time-span of suffering and preparing to rebuild the future. He wished to stop the motor of the world which was grinding people down like communism will. Thus he would be able to start anew. Like East Germany. Like the Phoenix.

Hatred is a passion that must be tempered if reason is to prevail. It exists. The first amendment protects unpopular speech, for it would have no use otherwise.

Respectfully,
O.A.

** "It all comes down to the fact that people are individuals not 'you people.'" **
This is so true. The political parties act as if there have stable and cohesive ideologies and most people predominately follow one or the other. Their claim is not absurd. It logically could happen, but it is not what's actually happening.

On a broader level, I think the very concept of the nation state is in decline. It worked when people started producing more than they needed but found it hard to travel and communicate long distances. In the early 19th century the fastest communication method were horseback and networks of semaphore flags on high towers. The first official long-distance (Baltimore to DC) telegraph msg was "What hath God wrought?" Indeed. Electrical engineers had taken the first baby step toward ending the nation state. We're still adapted to fear outsiders, which served us as bands of hunter gatherers. Now that people can become hyper-specialized and trade across vast distances at almost no cost, Seth Godin tribes based on cool things individuals do replace the old groups based on clan, geography, nation state.

Ability to cram bits on a wire is bigger than the printing press.

I will not argue your straw man. How have I criticized said American? I was just wondering and asked a simple question. there is nothing wrong with grouping, per se, but this guy chose a group and immediately made exceptions.
Atlas Shrugged is a novel. It is perfectly reasonable to have some stereotypical characters in a book to illustrate broader points. While I may occasionally say "moochers" or "producers" I am well aware I am referring to a behavior. The group has to have some meaning. But "you people" tells me NOTHING about to whom you are referring.and since you threw in a couple of straw men 1. pc behavior regarding discrimination and 2. that I am critical of the restaurant owner-neither argument applies to me. maybe you meant something else by "you people." Objectivist? that might apply to me.

I mean racists. I'm saying to leave them alone. If they want to go to a racist club, it's a free country. Stupidity is not (and should not be) illegal.

Before you throw out the "redneck loser" label, you might want to know the history of the term 'redneck'.

It was used to describe the union workers that were trying to strike against the coal mine owners. They wore red bandannas around their necks, to avoid friendly fire. They were organized by communist labor agitators, much like the ACLU was founded by a card carrying Communist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_B...

The one good thing about having a war criminal president, not a borderline criminal but one who openly attempts genocide, is it would test the limits of executive power. I would like a constitutional crisis, preferably with much lower stakes.

For example, I hoped Syria wouldn't turn over the chemical weapons, President Obama would want missile or air strikes, and Congress would say no. I'm happy the situation resolved, but I would like to see some crisis that forces us to define what it means that the president is commander-in-chief but doesn't have the power to declare war.

I also have this weird chill that maybe a percentage of vendors, customers, contractors who I work with all the time might be mass murders if given the chance.

From an Objectivist stand point, a moral kidnapping would be when a thief is caught be the police they take him away against his will and put him in jail. Most people would call that moral, and the definition of a kidnapping is forcefully taking an individual against their will and imprisoning them.

I'm sure Dagny knew she was breaking the law when she made that decision. That point in the book breaks any contract between her and that government, and she essentially declares war on them. You could relate it to Dagny being from another nation, and acting on behalf of that nation to rescue an illegally abducted citizen of said nation. I forget what reasons the government gave for detaining Galt, but I'm positive they were at the very least immoral, if not outright illegal.

no. but last time I checked bigotry did not include force as a constant. I do not agree to using force in order to hog tie the archie bunkers of the world or their clubs just as I would not advocate using force for any adult to freely associate with whomever they wish. If I feel threatened by their activities I might devote substantial amounts of time to educating about that threat.

Do you view the gaurd as an accomplice in an immoral kidnapping, who was armed and refused to surrender peacefully?

I see you're in a good mood today.
we didn't exactly have a good rep in Iran at the time. but my point was simply to be logical about the sign. He clearly welcomed some Iranians into his restaurant.
I am not "you people."
It all comes down to the fact that people are individuals not "you people."