They saw much more than "voting". They realized that no system of government would last that wasn't understood and accepted in all aspects of thought and action. That is not a matter of so-called "imperfect" beings.

It begins with reality and "works" at every stage because it is true at every step. It's not a matter of rationalizing a theory and then going back later to see if it still "works", and it doesn't operate in a vacuum with a criterion for "working" independent of how anyone understands and uses ideas held in his own mind. This isn't the Pragmatist-Positivist 'model mentality' of floating abstractions later hooked up with reality to see if it "works".

He got no advantage from being "politically connected". He destroyed himself. He didn't even know what to do with what he stole. It didn't help him. Stealing cash for the moment through a "connection" without regard for anything else is an example of range of the moment Pragmatism. Nothing James Taggert did was in his self interest.

"Works" for what by what standard? Ayn Rand's philosophy is a "philosophy for living on earth". It does "work" -- for human life here on earth. "What works" is not the starting point. Contrasting "practical" with understanding Galt's speech as if it were an alternative makes no sense.

Exactly. Big companies use government to get competitive sdvantages

He got advantages from being politically connected The deal eithvorren Boyle fir example

It’s too bad that big governments do not let people live their own lives so people could try out little areas practicing their own philosophies.

James Taggart did not get any financial benefits he was already the heir to a railroad fortune. My take was James Taggart was envious of people who could take charge , who could compete and produce. He was a small man mentally, his inherited power and wealth was not valued. He bastardized it. He like many liberals hated the truth. He was jealous of Francisco and Dagney.

Imagine how John galts speech would be received if televised today. It would be out of context, and it wouldn’t address people where they live. AS is a really good story, and galts speech is something that would not address the average citizen’s life. At that stage of economic destruction about the only thing that would grab people’s sttention is that collectivism didn’t work and specifically why in terms they could relate to. That would have been more effective in THAT speech. Only later should the philosophical roots be dealt with to get maximum impact

Yes this post has generated a lot of discussion.
It is one of my most successful threads based on # off comments. I have had more Thumbs up on other topics. There are Many great thoughts , ideas and efforts to convey them. Thanks for all the participation.

I think the founding fathers saw that the ability of people to modify and ignore parts of a constitution through voting will eventually undermine it. And that’s what’s happened here

It is more efficient to develop a philosophy like objectivism which from the outset relies on reality- as opposed to just wander around choosing random philosophies and trying them to see if they work. But in the end the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and objectivism needs to work

Obviously, and that’s why it fails

James taggart obviously got benefits early on, but lost them as collectivism became more prevalent and the economy collapsed.

I knew you would object to any reference to what works. But the real test of the usefulness of a philosophical thought IS IF IT WORKS IN PRACTICE. If it doesn’t actually work, if what use is it?

Who else thinks that this one topic should be separated into like three to five other topics?

Different people react differently. Those with an interest in ideas and understanding tend to take the speech more seriously and do not find it "dry" (let alone skip it entirely). The same goes for the shorter 'speeches'. Any explicitly principled statement of that kind is necessarily not the action of the rest of the plot, but that is not synonymous with "dry".

Interest and depth of understanding are two different aspects. The depth of understanding depends on the degree of knowledge of what Ayn Rand was referring to in the history of ideas in a 'speech' that had to be stylized for the drama of the fictional context.

Galt's speech is not an out of context treatise; the stage was set and the ideas dramatically illustrated throughout the previous action and dialogue of the entire novel. The ideas presented are basic and understandable by anyone; they do not require specialized knowledge (unlike "partial differential calculus", which is mostly not particularly complex in the context of mathematical knowledge at the level of calculus but which specialized knowledge would not belong in something requiring only general knowledge).

The same kind of difference in reaction among different kinds of readers occurs for those who having finished the novel hunger for more understanding, in contrast to those who only emotionally attach whatever they liked about the novel to whatever conventional beliefs they already hold, without regard to consistency. The latter kind of reader represents a sense of life appeal in some respect, but without the desire to understand it.

"Imperfect human beings" is today usually an intrinsicist religious view of human beings as inherently flawed by a mystic standard. The Constitution is largely abandoned because the principle of limited government has been abandoned by choice, not because of some innate "imperfection" of man making him "stray".

People have free will and can choose to focus and think if they want to, but you won't convince them in reason to do that, nor after a lifetime of irrationalism will they be in any kind of shape to know how to think rationally. Depending on factors such as age they may be hopeless after a lifetime of cognitive self destruction.. Someone accustomed to living as a Pragmatist seeking what "works" in an endless sequence of incoherence will have no particular incentive to think rationally or know what that means just because something else "doesn't work".

The notion of subservience to the collective is anti-mind and hopelessly self-destructive from the beginning. It obliterates the distinction between production, taking, and consumption.

That isn't a basis for anything. Unprincipled, anti-conceptual Pragmatism only leads to endlessly stabbing at something else hoped to "work" in a sequence of failures. "Truth" to Pragmatism is defined to be what "works" in a never ending sequence.

The first people to adopt collectivism do not get benefits. They steal something temporarily but living as a parasite and condoning subservience of the individual to the group are self destructive, not a benefit. Try to imagine John Galt, Rearden, Dagny or the other heroes of Atlas Shrugged embracing Pragmatism temporarily to be the "first to get benefits". Pragmatism does not work.

Better to listen to the Leonard Peikoff lectures on the history of philosophy, including Pragmatism, than to pick up fad buzz words like "sustainability" used out of context as a Pragmatist.

No, reducing it to a test of "what works" is the philosophy of Pragmatism that has dominated and poisoned this country for over a century. If you lack conceptual understanding you don't know what the goals are and don't have a standard of how to know when something "works". Pragmatism doesn't even have consistent principles: "what is true today may not be true tomorrow", "what works today may not work tomorrow". It redefines truth to be what "works". It is against principle on principle. Pragmatism is a thoroughly parasitic philosophy that depends on your implicitly already having principles for goals and standards of what "works". Pragmatism doesn't work. What works in a reality is a consequence of having a rational, conceptual philosophy. The philosophy of Pragmatism does not mean the practical common sense of "old fashioned American know-how" in dealing with reality (which is why I capitalize 'Pragmatism' as the name of the philosophy to emphasize the distinction).

Probably true. But I am more if a practical person. Objectivism is practical , consistent, and sustainable. It works. Isn’t that the real test of philosophy?

If you are saying a completely emotionally driven person cannot be reached through reason, I agree. But I say even such a person can begin to start thinking when something just doesn’t work in practice.

What kills communism on a practical basis is that it rewards taking and discourages producing until there is only taking and no production of anything