This is not an intellectual exercise. The baby boomers are now 60 and by the time they are 80 one out of three will have Alzheimers and that does not include other medical issues. China will never be able to reach the level of consumerism that we enjoy here in America because there are simply not enough resources. Things are running out and my own generation has really screwed things up. There will be a wave of hatred against the elderly that we are beginning to see even today. The Republican party will never elect a president while it embraces the religious right with its extremist mystical views. Even the democratic hand out thinking is less dangerous. It is comparatively easy to find a way to make sure people work for their food. Irrational religious mysticism is much harder to root out. Make no mistake, objectivism is going to become the predominant thinking of the new generation as is should. But I hope it can retain its heart and not become as cold hearted and callus as the enemies that it is trying to fight. Those of my age will never give up their power and it needs to be taken away from them. They have proven themselves incompetent. Youth stands upon the shoulders of the older generation and I only wish that we could have lifted you all higher than we have. I work two jobs just to make ends meet. In the book, if John Galt and the others who were value producers had never let the incompetents take over in the first place they would have never had to come back to help out the rest of the world. There is a moral obligation for the competent to not allow the incompetent to rule. It is against nature. Its seed lies in religious mysticism that is intellectual and not from the heart. There is no guilt. I'm just saying that going to the gulch is the coward's way out.

"John Galt and the others knew what needed to be done to help the world out of its mess and they chose to help."

You can believe what you want outside of the novel, but this claim is not consistent with what is presented internally to the novel. Not what John Galt says before they return. It's not "They'll accept our help now."

"We must live with the consequences of our choices so they might as well be our own and not some canned response."

And no one is responsible for indirect consequences of his actions OR conditions of the world that have nothing to do with him. If you want to feel guilty about the plight of inner city children, go ahead, but since I had nothing to do with it, it is not rational for me to feel guilty. Is their plight unjust? Yes, but that is a separate issue.

I don't really have any emotional connection to this but I would like to share that I used to be very ideological and believed each person not only had the right but the obligation to follow their own individual path through life. Then I spent time as both a family crisis councilor and a children's mental health worker. I was forced to confront the reality that some people are not able to get out of the mess they are in without some help. This was a major blow to my own idealism. It is alright for me to be willing to die for what I believe, but I am not willing to let others die for what I believe if I have the power to prevent it.
John Galt and the others knew what needed to be done to help the world out of its mess and they chose to help. Presumably because they might not have been able to live with themselves if they didn't. They went on strike, not away! Where is the heart in this? Radical Islam, Radical Christianity, Radical Judaism and Radical Objectivism are all the same. Radical. Be willing to die for a philosophical concept that isn't really even your own, just some prophet's. To do Ayn Rand's will is not to do your own. And I speak this as a supporter of Ayn Rand. Internal authority, not external authority. We must live with the consequences of our choices so they might as well be our own and not some canned response.

You're not defining the term sacrifice and thus making it nearly impossible to have a discussion.

A sacrifice is giving up a higher value for a lower value.

"If there was no moral obligation to the rest of humanity John Gault and the others would never have returned to help the rest of the world."

They returned because it's better to live in the entire world rather than one little valley, not because of a moral obligation to the rest of humanity.

They ("people") should perform the work -- read and consider -- Ayn Rand's writing, lest they properly be judged FRAUDS, merely pretending to comment here on the premise of this forum .

If there was no moral obligation to the rest of humanity John Gault and the others would never have returned to help the rest of the world. There seems to be a confusion between setting examples and pulling people's butts out of their self created problems. Have you ever wondered why most people agree that when you work for something you value it the most; but when you ask someone if they would rather have $100 in cash or work for it, they will take the cash? Personal effort is the key to this riddle. Anyone willing to take personal effort deserves my help. I will do anything I can for them. Those not willing to put out any personal effort can starve. So in regards to our moral obligation, we can be examples to others and we can lend a hand to those that are struggling and willing to put out the effort. No hand outs. I guess I don't really think of this as a moral obligation but as a way of helping myself out as well.

The human race is not a single organism. That is collectivism.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/respon...

Too many lazy bums all around . (Oh !! -- not HERE, among the elites) (*slight sarcasm* -- but if the shoe fits, wear it with my gratuities [taxes])

More miss the point --
Perform YOUR OWN damn work, and READ and think over, all of Ayn Rand's essays.
GET TO WORK !!

Of course there is a moral obligation because at one level the human race is a single organism and acts like a single organism. But it is a sick and twisted organism these days. Ayn Rand mentions that we need heroes, not to do things for us, but to show us that it is possible to do heroic things. Once we know that it is possible we can begin to believe in our own ability.
-joe

Born and raised in MA and ended up in CA by way of SC. That reminds me, Seminole fan. Go Clemson!

Pats?? You're a California guy - I thought the 49ers would be your team.

I'm a Noles fan, being from Florida...although as you say, I don't really watch football all that much.

Dr. Sometimes people do not understand the full meaning of "exist as Man". It is most unfortunate that this has become a quaint turn of phrase in our time. It is difficult to explain it to those who have not lived with it.

You will never have to worry about resentment if you don't sacrifice yourself for anyone. You love your partner, kids and elderly parents. That love is the contract and if you see doing things to help them as a sacrifice you need examine that love. My parents are in their 90's and need my help. The love I have for them makes their welfare critical to my well being. Helping them is not a sacrifice to me. It is a value for value exchange of the love they have for me and me to them.

Sacrificing for your partner, or your kids (or your elderly parents), does not build resentment when the sacrifice is appreciated. Sacrificing to the point of your own peril (mental or physical) DOES build resentment. Being able to say "no" when you know what you're about to sacrifice for someone is not truly appreciated is the key. Not letting someone take advantage of you is where the line should be drawn. This all goes back to teaching people how to treat you and standing up for yourself. My parents have NEVER crossed this line, but kids try to push the envelope now and then, especially in the teen years, but it's a parent's responsibility to see it as soon as it reveals itself and to point it out immediately as something that is not okay. How else do they learn? And believe me WAY too many kids DON'T learn these boundaries from their parents...and I blame a lot of the social issues we have today in this country on that very thing. Lazy parents who let their kids trample on them and then the kids expect the trampling to work where ever they go as adults.

You're clearly not a football fan. Don't whine to me when the Pats game is on.

In this case, I see both Rand and the people who say sacrifice as being correct. The former perspective is just a positive motivation and the latter is a negative, but the root is still the same--doing something for someone you love. However, the difference is psycological. It is harmful to reinforce to yourself that you are sacrificing for your partner. That builds resentment and frustration. In contrast, if it's not a sacrifice, you're doing what you want. This subtlety is something anti-Rand people often miss--disregarding the self is harmful to relationships and the group in the long term.

I somewhat touched on this in my blog post earlier this week, but I think the best way I can think of "romantic trade" is in terms of values.

Let's say you love football, you watch it every Sunday, you wear the jersey, all that stuff. One Sunday, your wife comes in upset about something that happened at work or with her parents, etc., and wants to talk to you. You turn the game off and give her your full attention.

In the modern culture, people interpret that action as "sacrifice", but I think Objectivists would look at it as a trade in terms of the hierarchy of values - you love your wife more than football, so it's not a sacrifice, it's an exchange of a lesser value for a greater one.

To paraphrase Rand, time is spiritual currency (by spiritual she meant "pertaining to consciousness") and like money, we only have a limited amount of it so we must budget it and invest it in the things we give value to. Love is the ultimate expression of that principle; when you love someone, it's not sacrifice to give up something that you don't value in exchange for the person whom you value more than anything else.

Someone missed the point of my earlier comment, and, has NOT understood Ayn Rand, the only reason for this "forum."
"To exist as Man," I wrote -- not, merely to exist as some creature .

You are wise then, because honestly there is nothing worse than someone spouting off about how to properly parent when they themselves have no children. It's a situation that gets very ugly very quickly. Avoid it! lol Not that you would "spout off" I'm just saying... :) (and I'm laughing at the "romantic trade". Never really thought of it like that..probably because there is SO much more involved than the trading of the romantic...nesses. LOL.)

Well, Sheldon IS abstract and disconnected from reality. That is what philosophy is when it is likewise disconnected from reality.

I don't like to speak on stuff I don't have knowledge of. Yes, I don't need to read to have knowledge of something, but I feel like I'd have to for this particular gap in knowledge.

All contracts should be freely entered into. That's the only way a contract can work. A romantic trade is unique, but it is still a trade.

You're allowed to speak without first referring to philosophical readings. What you say might not be fact, but you can still surmise especially about parenting because until you are one it's all just words on paper anyway. Nothing REALLY prepares you for all that it entails. :) However, your response was nicely put. As for the "contract" in our marriage, that is not why I'm obligated to my spouse. I CHOOSE to be of my own free will. :) And, can I get squirrelly here for a second and admit that I read your entire post, in my head, in the voice of Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory? ;)

I think there are a few things here:

1. Love is a moral obligation to yourself. Love is the recognition of value and you owe it to yourself to treat value well. Thus when you love someone, you are treating them well because they are a value and yourself well because you are achieving your values.

2. Marriage is a contract. You have an obligation to honor contracts you agree to.

3. The parent/child bond is unique, as a child is not born fully prepared to independently deal with the world. Thus, part of what is accepted in choosing to be a parent is the responsibility of caring for the child until he can be independent. I've not read much philosophy on this point, so I don't want to speak further on it.