You are talking about 'the greater good'.

Economist Ron Coase addressed this type of situation, and in the long run it is self-correcting. To put it simply, if the oil is needed badly enough, then someone will make Wyatt a high enough offer for his land (or at least oil rights) that he will sell. (Unless he's the kind of industry-hater that form eco-nut groups, in which case we just have to hope that his children will sell after he is gone.)

It's a better glue than collectivism, certainly. Collectivism, if anything, repels instead of binding.

Rand treated government as an institution. History--that of the American Revolution--gives us other possible answers. Like Committees of Safety, composed of--and funded by--the major stakeholders.

Objectivism doesn't advocate an anarchistic society. It advocates a constitutional government that enforces laws that express principles of individual rights. There absolutely are shared laws.

Galt's Gulch is only a special case since it is so tiny in population. There were clearly plans at the end to develop a constitution for future government.

What are a "binding societal philosophy" and an "individual philosophy"?

What are "manufactured laws"?

What is a "societal guide"?

The main branches of philosophy are metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and politics.

Ethics deals with the science of values and a code of morality for making choices. It depends on knowing the nature of man and his relations to reality, so it requires metaphysics and epistemology.

Political philosophy deals with the nature of rights and government, and depends on ethics.

The basics of Ayn Rand's ethics and politics are included in her anthologies The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism the Unknown Ideal. They are also explained in Leonard Peikoff's comprehensive book on her entire philosophy, the facts that give rise to it, and how it is logically integrated -- Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand was not an anarchist and gave her reasons why a government of objective laws is necessary.

Civil is good. But adding something to challenge people to think is also good. Don't hold back if it can prove a point.

I was temped to add something kinda caustic to the original posting...decided against it, keeping it civil. :)

I agree. And I also like this conversation. It made me think. Thanks AJ.

Sad but true. I'd hope that in a Gulch that level of respect for the individual and his/her wants outweigh the majority.

Could John Galt have been forced to develop the motor? Would it not have been to the benefit of society? I don't believe society has anything to do with it. If Wyatt is unwilling to sell something he owns. Society has to adapt. John Galt must never be forced or where is the line drawn. I would suggest there is no line. Consider Obamacare. There is no longer a line on what our government can force people to buy. There really is no difference.

It wouldn't be different at all. But how would such a society deal with Wyatt should he choose to use his land to grow turnips and corn instead of drilling for oil when oil is in great need by the community?

Would the value/use of the oil to someone else or many others overrule his value to grow produce for consumption or sale?

Why would that be any different than John Galt not developing the motor? Or the force of government telling the railroad that it had to operate at a loss. If the price were right Wyatt sells the oil.

Perhaps, but what happens when Wyatt finds oil beneath his land but instead chooses to farm despite many others needing the oil to further their own projects. What if he refuses drilling?

I agree with your assessment. However, the nature of man, I think, prevents such a society.

IMHO, if everyone in a society had Objectivist values there would be no need for laws of any kind. There would not be theft or murder or any other crime. The only crime would come from the outside. And I really believe it is that simple. If everyone believed an A=A nothing would happen without mutual agreement. My 2 cents.

I think it is. However, it requires all those you deal with to have shared values. It is impossible right now in a society that has different levels of value to respect others who do have values at the level of regular objectivists. Values in this case are not whether or not one drinks wine, or has a love shack full of sexual deviants, but whether or not money is generally accepted as a representation of a value measurement exchanged with one another. Rather than having a society built on touchy feely sentimates driven by emotions, it is built upon foundations of value. I can respect a deviant pirate if they build good ships that I might want to purchase. But I would be unlikely to respect that pirate if all they did is steal ships second handed and passed them off as their own.