You are KILLING it today. Such a great reply.

You can't think of "Atlas Shrugged" as a manual on how to become an ideal man; remember, Rand always thought of herself as a novelist first, THEN a philosopher, and her first purpose in writing (and reading) was for the sake of the story.

I would recommend that you read "The Romantic Manifesto", as Rand lays out very clearly her "prime mover" in her fiction writing.

My anger gets in the way of my reading comprehension. No amount of sophistry can convince me that the anti will bring folk to the theater. They want the exaltation of the Halley Fourth Concerto. They hunger for value. They had a taste of it in Part I. They will want more after seeing Part II.

I was referring to Galt, not Rand.

Rand didn't "invent" anything. She defined the possible.

The key word is "fictional." It also ignores the reality that people have differing abilities and contexts to compare them to an engineering and philosophical genius who invented what was essentially a perpetual motion device.

Galt as Ayn Rand's protagonist characterizes in fictional form the ideal man achieved, and if her masterpiece serves as a manual on how he is achieved, then I value each and every post and reply on this board to the degree they exalt Galt.

Thank you, Scott. That was unnecessary but appreciated.

Actually, what everyone would tell you, from the Producers to the Grips, is that Justin was an invaluable member of the team throughout the production. I should know - I hired him and I was there with him everyday.

I can also attest first hand to Justin's "getting" Galt. And, he does so more than most.

Justin is not degrading Atlas, objectivism, the movie or anything else for that matter. He is simply bringing to light that which exists.

You have him pegged wrong Mooch. He's one of the good guys - the REAL good guys.

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me what I don't get about Galt.

There's a difference between verifiability and memorability.

I know I got mentioned there a bit by Laurie, but were there pictures of me too?

Please explain to me what I don't get about Galt.

And how much do you want to wager that no one on set has heard of me?

And here is who I am, shoot me a message if you want: https://www.facebook.com/jmlesniewski

Why don't you head on over to the Atlas Society website and take a gander at JML's pics with the producers and reports on the set. Perhaps that will answer that retort.

As far as "getting" John Galt - that's really a snotty hipster/beatnik/Starbucks-swilling statement. I'd say YOU were the one who doesn't "get" Galt.

You don't "get" Galt, and I would wager, were I to ask anyone from the Atlas Shrugged: Part II set, from the producers to the caterer's dishwasher, who "Lesniewski" (or whatever your real name) is, the answer would be "never heard of 'im."

There's no glorification of the detractors - it's about awareness of who's saying what about Rand, her works and her philosophy. It's not all going to be positive, because the culture we live in is collectivistic. It is still necessary to know what's going on in the world with respect to Rand so that we can combat foolishness and ignorance in the culture (and apparently, here on the board as well).

As far as what "John Galt" would do...let me remind you of another favorite piece of Rand's writings:

ROARK: How can you let other people decide for you?

Don't think about what Galt would do; think about yourself, who you aspire to be, and live your life in accordance with your own judgment.

I'm not giving myself any credit. I'm trying to figure out what your point is.

I'm also not glorifying anything. I make comments on all the articles I post, none praising them. The point is to spark conversation.

I also don't live my life based on what John Galt would do. He is a fictional character in a novel. I'm a real person in the real world in a context extremely different than his.

I agree. Those in poverty in the US are ahead of 85% of the world, or so I have read before. I think it likely true.

"Sabotage Objectivism?" You give yourself too much credit.

As far as the movie goes, it depends in part on this board and *its* "tenor." Were I a new visitor to this board, I would find baffling the glorification of Atlas' detractors, the kind of creature on which John Galt wouldn't waste a femtosecond of his life -- which tells you something about the degree to which the board has become acclimated to the zero.

For me it's a bit of a confused argument to discuss whether there's more poverty now or not. Poverty is a relative standard. In America, the poor have fridges, cell phones, and flat screen color TVs. In third world countries, the poor are literally starving. Additionally, I think the success of America is still due to its founding ideals and whatever freedom still exists. A little freedom goes a long way.

More or less poverty today in the US than from our founding through the 19th century? Based on comments from dignitaries about the lack of poor I would say much more.

The well known ben franklin quote about we have less poverty because they feel the pain of poverty here, but in England you have more because you plan to have it comes to mind.

I think the closing comments on this article to be dead wrong. We have greater poverty with the public programs than we had without them.

Are your claiming I'm trying to sabotage Objectivism or the movie?

And unfortunately 90% of the articles that pop up are negative. It's partially the internet, partially the general cultural tenor.

Your "douchebag" post isn't sabotage enough? Tell me something, les: can you find any positive links in your basket?