Having used your Objectivism to determine Obama was worthy of your vote, I think you 're being a little hard on j. But you have made excellent points. Who is worthy of saving? Our vote is our voice in the election process. I also think it 's valuable to have these discussions. If j has time -he should consider reading Rand 's non fiction. Which might you recommend he read first? I think I 'd say Virtue of Selfishness...but you might recommend another. The level of frustration in these times is tough but no tougher than if we had been living under a Roosevelt admin so we can keep our chin up I think. There is that pesky welfare state problem...frankly Paul Ryan is not principled in my estimation. He does not support inventors and voted not only for the American Invents Act but also for Sarbanes Oxley. He is ruling class and a part of the US demise. Frankly there were so many people I could not stand to have as a neighbor - it is one reason I left. It is freeing to tell people to their face their actions impact the health of the US and the destruction of the middle class. They usually aren ' t awake enough to even notice I said something.

Congratulations on your 26,000th point. I was glad to give it to you.

Excellent post jbrenner and worth a good deal of discussion. We have reached a point in the demographics of the US that makes me doubt that the US or any other country existing can or could continue under the ideals of the Enlightenment or as an Objectivist haven. Personally, I have absolutely no problem with the concept of not striving as Dagny did, to try to save something that doesn't work, shows no proclivity to want to become workable, and offers no value. That same position applies equally to individuals and groups. Objectively, I often believe that even attempting to try to understand the events or steps of the fall of the US is a little pointless, except as an academic exercise. The problem is really as old as humankind and I fear will always exist. Think of how many Objectivist types of families have generated later looters/moochers/altruist, etc. AR demonstrated that quite well with Reardon's brother and mother when refusing to hire his brother as a favor to his mother.

Even in the real world of the founding, Hamilton, Jay, even Adams, and many others began immediately to alter the operation and structure of the Federal government in many ways away from the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The question must be, did they do it because of necessity, convenience, personal gain, or simply because they had the power?

My fear is that an Objectivist or even Enlightenment founded country would have to be so exclusionary as to be despised by the rest of the planet. Imagine having to exile or allow to fail, a son or daughter. Trust me, it's a very hard thing to do. An original founder sad it in nicer terms: “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you, and may your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” – John Adams

It's often stated that during the Revolution, some 30% wanted to remain under the King, 30% just swayed in the wind, and 30% supported to one extent or the other the 3% that actively fought the British. I think we won the first battle, then lost the war.

The US won't go away, but it likely will fade like England/Europe. Arguably it has already. I am willing and able to live wherever I like. I had my time trying to "save the world" like Dagny for over a decade. What Ayn Rand taught me is the importance of taking care of oneself.

As I write this, I am listening to "The Men Who Built America" on the History Channel. That is the era that I would have fit in very well.

I'll agree with you on Eddie Willers, Mike. Eddie Willers was capable of independent thought. The scene where he was "left" with the train is a little disturbing to me, particularly with regard to Eddie.

I used to work for a government lab before reading AS. That definitely is against Galt values. I think that people can indeed grow, and I have.

For all you know, Mike, I might be a Christian trying to argue the point that everyone should have the opportunity to hear that there is an Atlantis.

I threw this one out there just to stir up the pot a little bit.

... and other thing... You mischaracterize Objectivism as not being a free-will philosophy. it is indeed. Objectivism defines humanity by volition. Over on "Rebirth of Reason" the frequent writer Ed Thompson has told several times of his intellectual journey from socialism and existentialism to Objectivism. (See "My Journey Toward Ayn Rand and Objectivism" from 2011 here: http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Thom...). Such happens often. In fact, I assert, generally, it is more likely that someone with an intellectual curiosity will move from collectivism and mysticism to Objectivism as a complete philosophy. Based on what I have experienced these past 40+ years with Ayn Rand's ideas, It is less likely that a traditional conservative will change their basic beliefs; but, rather, will adopt certain specifics such as laissez-faire capitalism, while passing over epistemology, metaphysics, and aesthetics. Paul Ryan may be the paradigm if not the poster child for that. I do not know if you consider Paul Ryan "worth saving" but I think he is a nice enough guy and might make a good neighbor.

Eddie Willers demonstrates the very real consequences of brain drain. Good men suffer along with the looters.

An Objectivist or Enlightenment founded country has been despised by the rest of the planet. It was the United States. Now it is even despised by many who live in it, for a variety of reasons. It is despised by Democrats out of envy and self-loathing. It is despised by many of us because it is no longer living up to its foundational values.

I consider this a BIG issue. What kind of world am I going to live in? I am perfectly capable of going off-grid, buying a private island, starting my own mini-power plant, and starting my own Atlantis. My little part of America is certainly good enough for now that it is not worth leaving.

I never said Objectivism was not a free-will philosophy, nor did I imply it.

Paul Ryan, while he does have a few minor issues, seems like about the best we can expect out of someone trying to do something productive in Washington. I am sure that he wanted to go further than the plan that he proposed, but he reasonably negotiated it down so that it might come across as palatable to the general populace. Not a bad chap. I am actually far more generous in my assessment of others than you might think.

A few comments, some off track maybe.
MM, you are correct about the question- who is worth saving? The problem is in the question itself. jbrenner is making a rhetorical point out of the usual despair of one who has ideals but sees reality.

Eddie Williers- Obviously an important character. Competent, dedicated, trustworthy, reliable, a hard worker. He is not in the Dagny Galt Rearden class but he is a producer nevertheless. At the end of the story he is alone stranded out in the desert trying to fix a loco fault. Rand does not give any hope that he will succeed, nor send out the cavalry (deus ex machina) to save Eddie. Why?

Story- the new wife of the king of Kent was a Christian enthusiast. The king was converted and became the same. A hoard of dinars was found. They thought the pattern around the rim was just a pattern so the coins were used as currency. The inscription said- 'There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet'. Not many at that time in Kent could read Arabic so mass apoplexy was averted.

That post is yet another empirical fact to support the theory explaining why the universe did not put you in charge of all of us. In the first place, contrary to your claim, Eddie Willers was obviously capable of independent thought. Most of the time, Dagny gave him a general task and left the rest to him. He also took various responsibilities on his own tracking shortages and seeking supplies. The book opens with him confronting James Taggart over the Mexican Venture. At then end of the book, he has dispatched himself to San Francisco to fix problems and is returning when the Comet breaks down.

More deeply, the character of Willers also opens up Ayn Rand's refutation of the Kantian imperative that people cannot be means but are always (categorically and imperatively) ends in themselves. That must be balanced against Galt's Pledge. "Johnny Something" never asked Eddie to live for him, but only asked Eddie questions which he was free to ignore, evade, or lie to.

Furthermore, in the Valley, Dagny meets a truck driver, most likely someone who gave John Galt (or someone else) a ride when it was needed. Dagny first takes for a professor of comparative linguistics.

Moving right along, I voted for Barack Obama in 2008. Make of that whatever you want, I was an Objectivist before you were born.

I do not expect anyone to "save" me or to decide that I am "worth saving." One of my favorite reads was _Merchants and Moneymen of the Middle Ages_. It opened during the so-called "Dark Ages" in Italy with a merchant preparing a voyage to Constantinople. At that same time, give or take a few centuries, the English king Offa of Mercia struck gold coins imitating Arab dinars. Just sayin'... life goes on...

A few months back, I suggested that it would be appropriate to shun our neighbors who work for the government. That drew immediate contradiction (with up votes for that and down votes for me) from a woman who worked for an appeals court. Well... yes... certain functions are valid.... I just finished a contract the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Furthermore, in answer to a question about a moral career in a mixed economy, Ayn Rand said that while it would be wrong to work for the IRS, it is acceptable to work for the government at something which the government has taken over or dominates, but which someone in a free society could do. That speaks to your claims about moochers and looters not being "worth saving." Do you have some standard or some guideline? (BTW, Ragnar Danneskjoeld had informants within the IRS.)

You might want to not save "people on welfare." Would you save people who use the USPS instead of FedEx (which is run by Objectivist Fred Smith)? How many FedEx waybills do I need to buy a ticket on your lifeboat? Are you even offering a lifeboat... or just a meta-discussion about meta-lifeboats?

I dunno, jb, you do pretty good most of the time, but here, well, you missed the boat... (No thumbs down from me, though: it is a good discussion worth having).

Zen, the I do not agree with your list here. Your perspectives are your own, of course. Allow me to counter your claim that "an Objectivist or even Enlightenment founded country would have to be so exclusionary as to be despised by the rest of the planet." America itself is evidence to the contrary. An open society - as ours still is today - draws people. Moreover, even (or especially) rapacious governments need to get what they can from free states.

I think that the broadest picture of the next hundred years will bring frontiers opening up. Those places will be the new horizons. Look to Hudson's Bay, the Antarctic, the continental shelves, the open seas. I was told by an engineer who worked on one that there are so many platforms in the Gulf of Mexico that traffic consists of perhaps one million helicopter flights per year. There's a lot going on in the world... And then there's off-world...

Indeed. I do not want to rule anyone but myself.

I'm assuming that you do not want to rule mankind. Too bad there are many others that do.