the Ambassador program is simply to help those who show up in Atlantis get their bearings, know the ropes. It also is a way to run new ideas past some people. Did Galt every time he had a dinner party in the Gulch invite everyone in the Gulch over ?

I don't think Objectivism involves proselytyzing either, and that is why I am a little uncomfortable with the idea of being a Gulch ambassador.

The question really is whether it is possible to achieve a reasonable society via reformation of an existing society or whether it is necessary to start from scratch like America's founders did.

I don't see any phoenixes rising either. This is why I am more convinced than ever that it is time to start working on Atlantis.

For the most part, you are correct. I do, however, note that Ragnar intercepted ships, D'Anconia blew up his own mine, and Galt did multiple things to "accelerate" the end for Taggart Transcontinental. They did more than "let nature take its course". Otherwise, Dagny wouldn't have referred to Galt as the "destroyer".

I've heard others make the same mistake she does, thinking objectivists must be "without empathy". The characters in AS show empathy, and laissez faire capitalism requires any business to have a good sense of customers needs.
I don't understand why people think that, unless its maybe just how Rand's personality came across.

The dystopia in Atlas Shrugged was not caused by the strikers. They only stopped trying to prevent it and let nature take its course..

proselytizing? I don't think objectivism ever involves this. I think the question you are asking is whether "this world" can be saved without a major catastrophe? I don't know. Either way it is by building an proper philosophical base that we can end up with a reasonable society someday. Most revolutions end in disaster. If things fall apart today, I think we are more likely to end up in disaster than the phoenix rising

I was being quite serious, khalling. My daughter has been using the word "dystopian" a lot lately, and it certainly applies to Atlas Shrugged. Whether we have to, or even should try to, win the world is a serious debate that I am admittedly struggling with. Certainly Dagny struggled with this. Is the world worth saving? Dagny thought so, but John Galt thought it had to be destroyed so that it could be resurrected properly (with an intentional tweak toward Christians there). Should we be trying to convince people of whether Objectivism is the correct way to live one's life, or should we let people come to that conclusion on their own? Ever since being asked to be a Gulch ambassador, I have to say that I am leaning toward letting people come to their conclusions on their own. Presenting facts and correcting errors are both fine, but going any further seems like unnecessary, and more importantly unwanted, proselytizing. Currently this is the contradiction in my own life I am having to work through.

one of Obama's college graduates promised that if they did that for free-they can rule the country later on down the road. ugh. Thousands of college grads who could not find work, are in similar projects every year. They pay them through welfare, unless their parents take care of them as a way to get prog points politically. double ugh

ah, thanks for the research :)

A woman who runs a social awareness non-profit organization in a country which was taken over by a Soviet backed political party just by coincidence happens to also be an Ayn Rand/Objectivism detractor?

Never saw that coming.

(Madelynne Wager, CEO Brightest Young Minds.
http://bym.co.za/about-us/team/madelynne...)

I'm with you. They're certainly making their true goals much more obvious to a lot of us, and I think the interest in Objectivism is fantastic.

Snap their hands off--or maybe heads.

+1 for "Battle!"

yep, I think the over-reach of progressivism is going to snap their hands off....hoping for that anyway-which reminds me, I stole that line-new post!

very clever, j :)
It's a goal-not a moral duty [edited to add happy face]

Do we have the world to win? Is that really a responsibility that comes with being an Objectivist?

Why have progressives become so paranoid about Objectivism in the last few years? HaHaHah!