She continued to do productive work for pay and for profit. If that is galting then I guess I am galting too by doing productive work for money.

What it means is withdrawing your productive resources from society, because they are using your resources to destroy what you believe is good.
Rand took away her productive resources from the country she grew up in. She risked alot to do that. she wasn't just traveling the world. She wasn't just moving for a better job. She didn't just use her productive energy to make millions, she spent her time in the US trying to stop the decay and evil in the US. There are as many ways to do the above as a smart person can invent.

Relocating is NOT the same as galting. By your logic, comedian Yahkov Smirnoff was also galting when he emigratedto start his career as a comedian. She made $ Millions through productive work once she got the the USA, so clearly she never went on strke herself, nor, as far as I have ever been able to discover, did she ever encourage anyone else to actually galt (nor to blow up buildings.)

I think the fact that Rand left Russia, and the hardships she encountered, show it was not just a plot device. Is it possible you might be helping people destroy what you love about the US?

yea, thanks Fred. did you really mean "ass" there at the end?

Fred! Good to see you!

Spot on I think. I also think she would be disheartened to see this country now. Or disgusted. Maybe it's better that she can't.

Rand worked productively her entire life, and I think that the evidence shows that "galting" was simply a useful device to move the plot forward and make her philosophical point, and NOT an actual suggestion.

Well, you may assert that Rand galted by leaving the USSR, but she certainly "ungalted" when she got to the USA, and worked productively for her entire life, as will I.

I think it's more accurate to say that she relocated to a nation where she would be free to be as productive ass possible.

That may be your truth. But, I personally benefited from his books. I'll quote him all day long if I choose. By the way, he died of cancer some time ago.

Helping evil succeed, does not make sense. Throughout history, govts have changed their policies when they notice that they are losing their most talented citizens.

Charles Givens (Orlando con man) is a slippery sham artist. I knew him and his cronies well. Please don't quote him.

Not at all immoral. You are doing what you want to do. If things are as you say, you are not initiating the use of force, nor advocating it. Shrugging, only makes sense if we are close enough to the end of society for shrugging to cause the utter collapse. Collapse is only a goal if society is ready to, and capable of, learning the lesson it imposes so Capitalism can established.

:-) Those are the people who are the scariest. The ones with no reasoning behind their ideologies, the sheep who only follow, with no thoughts of their own. Fear is what makes them see everything that they don't understand or have as evil.

I just create art. And hopefully don't harm anyone in the process.

They do, but not in here. :) and I have heard people say guns, SUVs, people(my favorite), technology, capitalism, reason and selfishness are all evil. just not the root of it

Good points. I want to get back to the original question. It was not about enjoying success, which in here is a given and you do not have to explain yourself to me or anyone. This is a philosophical conversation and a provocative one at that. The premise was enjoying success and choosing not to galt in part due to enjoying success. The question of galting: is staying behind doing more damage? Look at Dagney and Hank. That was the whole idea behind the book. am presuming this the point of CapFed's post. If we don't ask questions, if we don't discern Objectivism's merits and, why it speaks to us, why we enjoyed and engaged in the reading of Atlas Shrugged and the movies, why else be in here? For myself, I have chosen to work through the process of galting. In fairness, the decision was a long time in the making and hard to act on. I submit we're mostly on the same page about this. Unsuccessful or unproductive individuals "galting" won't make the difference. It is the productive, the successful who will make the difference. I'm in here to discuss when and how and why. As individuals we will naturally make decisions regarding galting independently.

Money stirs up even stronger feelings.....

I never yet heard any moron say that "Guns are the root of all evil".

Thank you. I appreciate your comment. Guns do stir up strong feelings, no matter how you look at it.

Your husband did not create the political environment that lead to all of this fear, he (and you) have no need to "explain yourself".

He is making an honest, and evidently prosperous, living by selling a constitutionally protected product to willing consumers.

I celebrate your success there.

Not all guns are used for security. The ones my neighbors own are used exclusively for hunting. What they shoot goes directly onto their tables. It's not just a security issue. Many enthusiasts just use them for target practice. I actually own no guns. I like to shoot, however.
The rush on the industry was brought about by the potential infringement on gun ownership, whatever a person uses them for. The business employs many skilled people who are benefitting from this increase in demand. There is also the added bonus of it being a non-union operation.

I am glad that someone is in your position trying to help people deal with this disaster, but in a free world, people do not feel that they have to go stock up on guns. If people are spending more on guns and security, they are not producing other goods and services. Security is about protecting wealth already made. "company booming as a result of the disaster of Obama's re-election" and you're "...happy to be in a position to enjoy fruits earned." I just read what you wrote and asked for clarification.
Overall, this is not a good sign for the nation, even though you are prospering and providing useful service. Finally, gun laws and gun purchases are more likely to increase under Obama (other dem president) than a republican president. If our economy was freer and people were not feeling threatened to protect themselves and their assets, do you believe you would still be "wallowing" in the same industry?

I would never love the destruction of this country. It's rather presumptive to assume that's what was meant. I am saying that the industry in which my husband works is booming, and it would continue to do so under a different president, as well. It's just that panic over potential tightening of gun laws has kicked it into overdrive.

I don't think that what you do and how you feel about it is in any way immoral. You work hard, enjoy what you do, and as a result are enjoying the fruits of that effort. My hat is off to you.

The firearms industry.

Although I don't want Obama appointing them, we need more Federal judges. The process is danged slow. I have a great friend who works for a Federal judge but her husband is a doc. It would be interesting to read your take on some Supreme Court cases which leave me freaking out. In my world, it's IP decisions but also the thinking behind the Obamacare ruling.

The layoffs were support and administrative staff, but there are vacancies in several district courts. What lawyer in his right mind would leave a highly lucrative practice to take a job that in most cases pays considerably less than half that amount? Plus district court and appellate judges are presidential appointments and must be confirmed by Congress. Yet another reason to be seriously concerned about another four years of this president.