IamBalSimon

Hey Tony and Michael, Thanks for the clarifications, guys. Tony - yes - I think we're on the same page - or at least in the same chapter of the book when it comes to the labeling. A token serving as a shorthand way of communicating a general sense of how we orient ourselves. For me, I have not yet fully digested Rand's philosophy as articulated in Atlas Shrugged, and I have more reading - mainly of her non-fiction works to flesh out what she tried to communicate. At some point that will happen. In the meantime, the best way to describe "balsimonism" would be to point to the well-known personalities (authors) who have influenced me. I haven't adopted any of their views whole-cloth, but there are great and varying degrees of overlap. I love Alfred Korzybski, J. Samuel Bois, Gregory Bateson, and Alan Watts. Maslow, Eric Berne, N. R. Hanson have a seat at the "Simon Round Table" as well. All of these dealt with the way we use and are affected by symbols and meanings. Rand comprises a recent member of this august group. What would "Whynotism" broaden out as? Michael - I believe I understand. And certainly, in the limited exposure that I have had here and to you, I have seen little in the way of a "clamp" mentality. I especially liked this by you: "So all "Objectivist" means here is that folks are familiar with Rand's work and like discussing ideas within a loose framework of her ideas. But each person speaks for himself or herself--and OL is not part of any formal Objectivist movement." That suits my preferences very well indeed. If I can participate within an OL framework without insisting that it is THE definitive way of looking at things, and if those who read my words understand that I write within an Objectivist arena about Objectivist subjects without feeling the least need to classify myself as an Objectivist or to orient myself "as an Objectivist would," discussions can proceed swimmingly. Big world; I am just an egg. There is much to learn. - Bal

Hi Michael, I appreciate your response. And indeed, I understand that people will have differing opinions and come to different interpretations and conclusions, even if they start from "the same" articulated premises and foundations. I like what you said about the label serving as a convenience and not a clamp. My opening post refers to people who seem to use these labels as a clamp. That's what I don't get. Especially in an arena where "the individual" is celebrated as is the "freedom of thought." I have no problem at all with someone challenging the morality of the US entering into WWII. I know for a fact that I would not be alive today had America not done so, so I feel biased in a big way about that. Of course, if I weren't here, perhaps someone else would be - and that other person might contribute more to the evolution of humanity than I do. (But how many angels do dance on the pathways surrounding the Lincoln Monument?) What I have a problem with is people saying, "Oh, you're mistaken *because* that's not xyz-ist doctrine." That sort of "logic" has never made any sense to me. A proposition stands or falls on its own merits; and not because it conforms or doesn't to some formal doctrine. Does this make sense? - Bal

I frequently find myself puzzled by those who claim independence of thought, participate with philosophical groups that claim said independence as a primary value, and then say things like, "Well, that's not true xyz-ism," as if that's supposed to carry any weight with someone who truly is independent in his/her (hir) thinking. Long ago, I used to participate in some General Semantics forums, and while many there *did* practice the independence of thought (they'd put that word in quotes, as in "thought"), many acted like true believers. I have seen some comments here where people say, "I know this isn't true objectivism, but..." as though they are making an apology. Why the need for that baggage? I don't get it. I am NOT an objectivist any more than I am a general semanticist. If there is a label that I would use, it's "balsimonist." That my views correspond to yours or anyone else's is a matter of happy coincidence. My only beef comes when the practical results are ones that I don't like, e.g., taxpayer money being spent on parasites, or people being stoned or beheaded because they don't believe in some specific deity. I don't mind if someone tells me that I'm going to burn in hell. Just don't burn down my house or make it difficult for me to earn a living. I don't much care if you're a thesit, a polytheist, an atheist, or (like me) an agnostic. How you act - how your actions impact me and mine - that's what matters to me. And "me and mine" covers a lot of territory. 911 comprised an attack on *my* country. You'd better believe that I got pissed. And I wouldn't have cared if the attack had come from little green men who believe that the deity is covered with chocolate frosting or if it had been from some idiot in the environmental movement who believes skyscrapers are an abomination to the goddess Gaia. What mattered was the attack; the loss of life; the mayhem and maimings, the disruption of people's lives and the loss of and damage to property. Does this make sense to anyone besides me? What is in a label - other than a shorthand way of communicating? - Bal

Adam - that was a great, great video! - Bal

Michael, you wrote: "We have crime dramas, but no business dramas, certainly none where enterprises and their creators are positive projections." Generally speaking, this is correct. However there are a few TV shows that are worth mentioning: - The biggest surprise for me is an anime show called "Spice and Wolf" which not only shows a favorable view toward business, but goes into some detail about the why's of it. I would not call it realistic. It is a cartoon, after all, and a fantasy as well, what with magic and all. And it is set in an agrarian society that looks to be about the 16th or 17th century. But the "art of business" is one of the central arcs of the show. - There is a reality TV show that my wife likes called "Pawn Wars," which shows the buying end of a pawn shop located in Las Vegas. To my knowledge, they never show the selling effort by the pawn shop owner. I guessing because that would be revealing "tricks of the trade" to his competition. But you are generally correct - business people are generally considered as props in most TV shows, and if they become central, they are evil or at least unfeeling, and generally with respect to some social issue like minority rights or environmentalism. I can't think of a single TV show or movie (other than the two above) that even approach a positive view of the business, let alone one that includes a detailed exploration of it. I do have to take a slight issue with you when you wrote about the benefit to society is a secondary desire of the entrepreneur. I would suggest that this is where "the virtue of selfishness" could use a little bit of work in its explication. When I have been a salesman or a tech writer working within a company, there is an immediate focus AT THE TIME OF THE DEAL: and that focus is to provide for myself and my family. I think most people understand the logic of this, and the way I have stated it would not threaten anyone other than the parasite class. But notice my choice of words: "immediate focus." Not "primary value." My focus tightens at the time of the deal because it has to. I have to concentrate on the terms of the deal; on the person with whom I am contracting; and on making sure that I get the best deal I can (without overreaching, sharp practices or fraud). Once I have secured the deal, however, my focus can soften and other "values" become primary for me. Granted, they would cease to be primary were I not getting paid or if the contract, for whatever reason, ended. Bear with me a little more so I can provide a short example: In April 2001, I started work as a contractor, providing tech writing at a major aerospace corporation. I loved the job. I liked the people I worked with and for. I liked upper management so far as I could understand the people in it. And they liked me (you'll see why I say this, shortly). Then we had the atrocities of 911. Immediately, almost every company in the aerospace industry was dealt an economic blow to the gut. Sales were put on hold. Inventory couldn't be gotten rid of. And the company I worked at started hemorrhaging money because it still had bills to pay, chief among them, labor costs. A decision was made within hours by upper management: all contractors would be sacked within 2 weeks. I faced my curtain call. At that time, my primary concern wasn't about the deal anymore. My primary concern shifted to the well-being of America. I vividly remember walking through the company hallways whisper-whistling Greenwood's "Proud to be an American." I remember contributing to the Red Cross, even though I didn't have the money, and knew that I and my family would be facing some very challenging times. Why? How does "selfishness" explain this? Answer: because it is "selfish" to love America. And you take care of the things you love. I immediately walked up to my boss and said, "I need 5 minutes of your time." I saw him brace for what he thought was coming, but never did. I asked, "I know that in two weeks, I'm supposed to be gone." He nodded. I continued, "What can I do -" I could visibly see his spine stiffen - "to make sure that when I'm gone, there's not a big hole where I used to work?" The relief I saw on his face was worth gold to me. How does "selfishness" explain this? Simple: I liked the company. I liked my boss. More importantly, I respected both. There was an emergency and the company was correct to shed as much as it could and go lean for a very intense period of lean times (lasted about 3 years). I appreciate that I've taken up a lot of your time with this, so I will stop here with a question and comment: Question: Would you like to know what happened next? Comment: In my view "selfishness" needs to be defined such that business and contracts are ennobled. They are PRIMARY to the well-being of any society, but not merely because of the "transfer of values." They are primary because they are the ONLY WAY that a society can function without people being put on the wrong side of a gun. Business and contracts, embedded in a framework of laws and regulations that mitigate, reduce and even eliminate tragedies of the commons are what make great societies possible. - Bal

Hi Elayne and everyone... Interesting comments and of course most anyone with affection for Atlas would agree with you. Let me add a twist to this, which I believe Rand also got to, but did not emphasize enough, IMO. But she was telling a magnificent story - NOT publishing a manifesto and strategy guide, yes? The twist emerges as an application of something I once read by the epistemologist, Gregory Bateson in his magnificent work, Steps to an Ecology of Mind. (Sorry - I can't cite the exact reference. It's late at night, his book is long, and it's been years since I read it thoroughly.) As I remember it, Bateson pointed out that we humans are faced with a constraint: namely that we cannot see around the bends (the arcs) in our lives. I would add that very few of us pay attention to the wakes that we leave behind us (I know that I CANNOT for very long, so for example, as I blithely drive through traffic, I have no way of knowing how many chains of events I set up for accidents or happy coincidences "behind me.") The wake I leave behind is an arc beyond which I cannot easily see. There are other arcs as well that are so easy to ignore. Some easy examples: - I put on my clothes in the morning - and completely ignore the fact that I owe a debt of gratitude to the people who made the clothes, and that they would not have done so had there not been a person behind them to design the clothes, and s/he would not have designed the clothes if she'd had to work 12 hours a day gathering or hunting for food. I ignore all of that. - I go to my doctor and he tells me that I need a new medication. That medication emerges not from a "John Galt" olympian mind, but from man-decades of painstaking research according to accepted best-practice methodologies, that come from man-decades of trial-error-learning arcs, that also depend on not having to gather or hunt for food a good chunk of the day. Business people ARE INDEED a tremendous resource for any society, but no business survives without customers, and there are no customers, generally speaking, without marketers - and in many cases, sales reps. And thus we have need for the fields of persuasion in the battlefields of business competition. All the raw materials of most businesses are not home grown by that business. And, of course, Rand certainly acknowledged this in Atlas Shrugged. To tell her story, Rand focused on the near-perfect characters of Galt, Rearden, D'anconia and Taggert. But they all relied on the work products of the non-herculean models of people too. Scenes where John Galt and Eddie Willers are sitting in a coffee shop talking... The coffee shop forms the unnoticed backdrop, presumably run by a business, and served by a decent enough person who makes the lives of those who frequent the shop a bit easier. (I have a great fondness for coffee shops!) The point is that everyone who adds value in our society owes a "thank you" to each other person who adds value. This thank you is usually done with money, but it would be nice to hear the words now and then too. I think that is one of my "complaints" about the parasite class: not only do they take my money by force (government), but I never ever hear the words, "Thank you (for making it possible for me to survive without adding value)." Of course, if this is the worst that I have to deal with, I'm doing mighty fine indeed. And so, indeed, I am. - Bal

Anita - I am a pure-bred mutt - both genetically (Russia, Poland and Palestine - and perhaps other strains if I go beyond my grandparents) and culturally. I am second-generation American. I stand with no particular group other than American, a citizen of a country for which I have great love and affection of for which I will die to protect if necessary. I swing by no one else's ideology. My intellectual moorings lie with the General Semanticists, with the 1970s psychologists/anthropologists (like Gregory Bateson, John C. Lilly), with the popularizers of "mysticism" (Alan Watts in particular, but also to a small extent Gurdjieff, Krishnmurti, and Idris Shah (through is tales of Nasrudin). I am a huge fan of Ayn Rand, but temper her portrayals with a good dose of other writers (like Herman Hesse, Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov (I'm big on good scifi). I am a student of science, and my teachers here are Korzybski, N.R. Hanson, Bateson, and to a lesser extent, Polyani). All of this (and more) is ultimately amalgamated and melded through my own thinking, for whatever that is worth. I don't have a one- or two-word label for this snarled up catastrophe that is my mind. If you can come up with one, I'd love to hear it. - Bal

Tony, I grieve when I see people (as in your country) yearning for liberty being trounced by tyranny instead. Political correctness forms the basis of intellectual and then political tyranny for democratic republics. It is the third worst abomination that a people can inflict upon itself. The first two - slavery followed and the internment visited upon American citizens of Japanese heritage during WWII form what may be properly called "hard tyrannies." PC forms a "soft tyranny." It doesn't necessarily break bones and tear flesh, but it does suppress the mind - it distorts intellect and turns provocative thinking and communication into crimes against the state. I think that America was truly graced by the power of rational thought in the minds and bodies of men like John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin. I think in those days, you had a real advocacy of rationality married to the romance of the European Renaissance - at least in some. Such people dared to think that they could form a society based on liberty. I just saw the movie Atlas Shrugged yesterday afternoon. I love the story. It resonates within me like almost no other story I can think of. Especially when I think of the guy currently occupying the Oval Office, a man who I believe has not a single patriotic bone in his body, and meant what he said when he campaigned that he would "fundamentally transform America." The first time I heard him say this, it sent shivers through my soul. And not pleasant shivers either. And with so many people voting for him, I truly worried that maybe this time, America truly lost its way and that the pendulum was in real danger of being impaled against and then welded to the Leftward wall. Thankfully, enough people came to their senses in 2010 and Obama had his power curtailed. The Founders remained supreme. A Galt-like strike would be a good thing, in my view, ONLY if enough Americans forget their epistemological heritage which is the Constitution, and the early judiciary ruling by the Supreme Court (Marbury vs. Madison) that the Legislature and the President could not trump that sacred document, and by the willingness of people back then to abide by the judiciary's ruling. Someone correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe that America is the only country in the world where a national Constitution trumps the legislative and executive powers - at least in theory. If backed by a patriotic and respected judiciary, I suggest it is this framework that reduces the speed of and perhaps even checks the efforts by some who - like Obama - would turn America into the kind of dystopian tyrant-run crumbling society portrayed in Atlas Shrugged. - Bal

Hey Selene - just re-reading your post again... I am continually amazed at how prescient Rand was when it comes to political correctness. If there is a self-inflicted scourge upon America, it is PC. If I were an employer, I would test for someone's PC Quotient. And the higher the PCQ the less likely would I be to hire him or her. - Bal

Hey Adam... Oh - to have a small, Jeffersonian country again. What might that even look like? One of my other favorite authors is the late Robert A. Heinlein. He wrote a book called The Notebooks of Lazarus Long, which consisted of a number of quotations by this fictional leading character. Here is one of my favorites, and it also serves to insulate me from "joining up" with various movements: Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something. Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides? Truth and the numbers of people believing or disbelieving it are somewhat independent of each other. I'm not a purist when it comes to Heinlein, either. - Bal

Interesting discussion, Brant... When Gates or Jobs create products and/or services (I should add Google and anyone who is the creative force of a large organization), they sometimes change "EVERYTHING." Consider the smart phones we have now - based on an evolution of products to be sure, but made marketably feasible by Jobs and Apple via the iPad. I have a Droid phone; I can't begin to tell you the ways in which various aspects of my life have been "improved" upon. I say improved in quotes because the jury is still out as to whether, long term, these technological innovations actually prove out to be beneficial overall. But certainly, when considering years and not decades, I'd say the value seems to be there. I AGREE - please re-read that word - AGREE with you that Rand's approach provides a caricature of how society moves. I said as much when I said that I considered it an allegory, and not a straight up discussion of things as they really are. But she had a story to tell; and while, in principle, she had unlimited space in which to tell it, as an allegory, it already topped out at more than a thousand pages. The problem you site isn't so much with Rand's telling of the story; it's more with people who seize it as a full description of the way things really are. Regarding Roarke and toilets and such; in the telling of a story, I would not expect there to be much discussion about the minutia that happens in a real-world project. My wife and I are currently remodeling parts of our house. There's huge amounts of detail that would bore a reader to tears yet are essential to the project coming out right. Would you expect that Rand would have Roarke go through the intricacies of getting licensed, bonded, and permitted? Would you expect Rand to devote a chapter to the inspection process it it didn't move the story along. Too many people get caught up in insisting that Rand's novel stands like a work of Decartes or Kant. I haven't read her non-fiction books yet, but it is in these that I would expect more attention to the details of her philosophy, for it is in such non-fiction that there is no need to move the plot along; to build up scenarios and to resolve conflicts, etc. Oh - and my friend from Mars tells me to thank you for reminding me. - Bal

Adam - I think that the problem is that so many people view Rearden, Galt and Taggert as proxies for their own aspirations. That is a tragic mistake IMO. This is why I am NOT an objectivist any more than I am a General Semanticist or a conservative, etc. I have views that are in concordance with many of these theses, but I tend to not join things philosophical. I do not cotton to being part of a movement though I might be inspired by many in some of the movements. I think I got the paradigm for this - the template if you will - from Herman Hesse in his novel, Siddartha. In chapter 3, Siddartha meets up with the Buddha, Gotoma. S has listened to G's sermon and is truly impressed by it. I will let Hesse take it from here: "I have not doubted in you for a single moment. I have not doubted for a single moment that you are Buddha, that you have reached the goal, the highest goal towards which so many thousands of Brahmans and sons of Brahmans are on their way. You have found salvation from death. It has come to you in the course of your own search, on your own path, through thoughts, through meditation, through realizations, through enlightenment. It has not come to you by means of teachings! And--thus is my thought, oh exalted one,--nobody will obtain salvation by means of teachings! You will not be able to convey and say to anybody, oh venerable one, in words and through teachings what has happened to you in the hour of enlightenment! The teachings of the enlightened Buddha contain much, it teaches many to live righteously, to avoid evil. But there is one thing which these so clear, these so venerable teachings do not contain: they do not contain the mystery of what the exalted one has experienced for himself, he alone among hundreds of thousands. This is what I have thought and realized, when I have heard the teachings. This is why I am continuing my travels--not to seek other, better teachings, for I know there are none, but to depart from all teachings and all teachers and to reach my goal by myself or to die. But often, I'll think of this day, oh exalted one, and of this hour, when my eyes beheld a holy man." http://www.online-literature.com/hesse/siddhartha/3/ Some who I've talked with have interpreted this passage as indicating Hesse to be proposing an anti-intellectual course. I don't agree with that interpretation. I think this is advocacy for having first-hand experience where possible. And thus, it matters not a wit about anyone else's ideology or views about society. What matters is that I come to my opinions - my values - my viewpoints per personal exploration. This personal exploration may well include much that is the discourse of the day. It may well include conversations like this one that we are having now. But there is no need to join a movement in order to grok and appreciate the thoughts of those in it. Standing apart allows me the intellectual freedom to diverge if that's what I come to. I think the major selling point of anything like Objectivism or General Semantics or Buddhism, etc. would be that these encourage people not so much to join up as to THINK for themselves. To think things through. To see with one's own eyes what is so or not so - regardless of what others in the movement say or see. For this reason, you will never seem me as a member of a Tea Party, though I greatly admire much of what the Tea Party brings to the American table. I cannot find it in myself to intellectually "join up" with someone or something that is based on ideology or philosophy. Bowling leagues carry no such burdens. There is, perhaps, one exception: being an American. But even here, my allegiance is first to the truth insofar as I can ascertain it; for without that, what does my allegiance to anything else mean? - Bal

Brant - I don't believe I need to rethink this at all. For my point wasn't to belittle myself or anyone else. My point was that if someone from Mars were to look upon us from a 50,000 foot level, they might notice John Galt, Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggert. But they wouldn't notice me. I would be virtually indistinguishable from any of the other denizens of the local Denny's. It is in this "grand scheme of things" that I acknowledge I don't move society the way that Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, or even that misbegotten fool in the White House do. Does this mean I don't aspire to great things - by my own decisions and actions? No it does not. What it means is that I make a distinction between being noticed writ large and being internally true to myself. Hopefully, this makes some kind of sense. - Bal

Hi Peter, I really do need to re-read Atlas for what you said about the others who were not captains of industry finding their way to Galts Gulch and being allowed to live there does ring a bell. That said, I'm not so sure that a "good industrialist" could also be a "good garbage collector." While it seems that it would be so, the fact is that a person's health and physical qualities also enter into it. Other "biological" foibles do too. For example, if someone falls asleep while dealing with masses of numbers, odds are s/he's not going to make a good accountant (how my CPA does this for me is a major mystery of life!). Hitting the nail on the head - perhaps trivially, but nonetheless accurately: someone with Tourette's Syndrome is likely NOT going make a good clown to entertain little kids in front of their parents. When I worked at an large aerospace company, the administrative assistant was virtually a lynchpin for the entire group that I worked with. The manager - who was also excellent, very likely could not do the admin's job, nearly as well as the admin did. Rand certainly recognized that people have different talents, abilities, etc. You wrote: "No one who reads Ayn Rand is comfortable saying they are more like Eddie than Hank Reardon..." In my original post here, I specifically stated that I am much more like Willers than Rearden, Galt or Taggert. The problem with "Randians" is that they, like me, forgot that "bit players" did make it to Galt's Gulch. But unlike them, I acknowledge that societally, I currently participate as a bit player. And given the way my life is set up, my desire to remain relatively anonymous, my desire to be able to go to a local Denny's and enjoy a two-hour cup of coffee, to be part of a bowling league, etc. - all of these mold my life to be a "bit player." But I am no more upset by that than the fact that I will never be Superman or Doctor Who or Thor (coming to a theater near you soon). I like to believe that I would not be choose to remain in the desert standing by a decrepit, derelict of a train in the middle of nowhere, esp. if I was offered a lift. But then, if I saw my entire world crashing around me, if I knew that the odds were that no matter where I went, everywhere would be like Los Angeles and there'd be no getting to Galt's Gulch, maybe I would stay with the train. I wonder. - Bal Addendum: On re-reading my original post, I see that I didn't specifically say that I was more like Willers than Rearden. I kind of implied it though when I said that I was not John Galt. Just making the implicit more explicit.

Glad to be aboard. Thanks! I look forward to further discussions. I hail from the once-great state of California, but seeing the writing on the wall about 20 years ago, decided it was no place to raise a kid. So when he was 1½ we moved to Washington State just outside of Seattle. Weatherwise, I live in paradise. It rains 2/3 of the time here, it very rarely gets hot (though 2 years ago we had a super-intense heat wave (even by Los Angeles standards) and no one had air condition. I could do without that kind of thing again. So far so good. Politically, Seattle is about 20 years behind Los Angeles, though definitely moving in that direction. But by the time it's intolerable for me, I'll likely be dead an buried. It will be my son's turn to fight the good fight. - Bal

I have an almost mystical belief in America. Most un-objectivist of me, but I acknowledge it to be true. I don't say that the Tea Party is centrist, though I am much closer to the way of thinking that I hear coming from their members than from virtually any other political "side." To answer your question, let me respond with a remembering from Atlas: I remember (I think correctly) a scene where Dagney and Hank are on the Galt Line, and Dagney is concerned about the parasites acting as though it was they who accomplished great things, not acknowledging the roles of the Producers - the creative forces that made it possible. Rearden replies, "We have more than enough power to carry them along." Or something to that effect. I remember the feeling of electricity surging through me as I read that. I remember that as the moment when I could begin truly distinguishing people who produce - who create and those who are the leeches, the sycophants, etc. The ENTIRE Obama Administration, as near as I can tell, consists of no creators. No producers. Only leeches. Only villains. Only minds so small that you couldn't find them with an electron microscope. They have no real power. The power lies with, as it always has, with We the People. If the followers of Rand make a mistake, it is this: that the only solution is withdrawl. The Tea Party proves that this need not be the case. No - they are not at the political center. They are to the right of center. And thus they - and others like them - are what moves the pendulum from the Left. The center isn't strong enough to do it. But the passions on the Right are. We are a "swinging" - perhaps a lurching country - neither Left nor Right. We shortsightedly think that a particular position on taken up by the pendulum is the end-all be-all. It is not. It is the pendulum itself that makes this country so dynamic. My fear - my only real fear in terms of social evolution - is that too many people lose their allegiance to the ideas and the ideals of America. Out of that social problem emerges a host of economic ones - including economic ruin. But if those who provide value to society are not bled dry by those who provide nothing, who merely take up space, and not in a good way, then yes - this country will go through a period of decline that makes the past couple of years look like the Roaring 20s. Even so - I believe in America. I believe She is strong, despite all of the crap we see right now; despite the evils inflicted upon Her and upon us by the current misbegotten resident of the White House. We have been through bad times before; we have been through worse before. And we have come through. This is the source of my faith - even if it be a bit sentimental and perhaps irrational. I believe, because I don't want to believe the alternative - because believing the alternative creates the possibility of an unnecessary self-fulfilling prophecy. On that basis, and out of a deep affection for America and the good people who populate her, I remain an optimist. - Bal

Hey Adam and Philip, Most of my adult life (I'm 56 now) I worked as a worker-bee in various companies; ranging from a resume writer to a sales rep to a technical writer. My last gig was as a contractor in a major aerospace company doing technical writing for their procedures. Right now, I'm semi-retired, by choice. There truly are lots and lots of very competent people in America. I am blessed to be an American citizen, and tipping point or no, that will never change. This country is still far bigger than the parasite class that knows no limits. For awhile I was very worried because it seemed America checked "its" brain at the door and decided to vote on the simple principle that Obama wasn't Bush - as if that's a rational view. (I would warn against voting for "anyone but Obama" on the same rationale.) But when the 2010 elections swung the pendulum back toward the center, I found myself relieved and far less worried. I LOVE the American political pendulum - even though it means that there are stretches where the government really pisses me off. Far better that than a dictatorship. I think that by and large, most people are NOT parasites. To the extent that Rand ever seemed to imply that they were, to that extent I'd say she got it wrong - at least so far. And I'm guessing she never did really make that her thesis. But there are many people out there who think she did, and it is important to acknowledge that most people are decent enough - just want to pursue their lives; bring up their kids, and be decent members of the society in which they live. They don't want to make trouble. I don't know ANYONE who wants to receive government money if it means that someone else is getting ripped off by the government. (That's what was so wrong with "Cash for Clunkers.") I like being able to go to local coffee shops and order a supply of coffee from a waitress who is thrilled to be my server because it helps her fill her day and helps her provide for her family. I think there is great value in the society we have formed, and I am NOT ready to chuck it just because I am very unhappy about some pretty important things. If that had been the way of my ancestors, I would not be here today. - Bal

Hi - This forms my first post here. Let me begin by saying that I have great affection for Atlas Shrugged, and I am so looking forward to seeing the movie tomorrow. Thoughts about "making the strike a reality." If you think about the strikers in Atlas, every one of them was a top tier person in the industry or trade from which s/he withdrew. Not a single Eddie Willers amongst them. I mention Willers because he was much more the "everyman" then any of the strikers. Yet without the Willers of the world, the strikers would have had no bandwidth to get anything done. And without the hierarchical systems of social organization that go on in every multi-person organization, including families, companies, charities, and, yes, governments, you could not have a civilization that sprouted ipads, microwave ovens, national highway systems, the weekly removal of your garbage, and flights to the moon circa 1969. No John Galt and his merry band of strikers would have the brain power, let alone the horsepower to do all the things that require man-DECADES to get done. If what I say here has any merit, then Atlas needs to be understood as an allegory - not a straight up understanding of reality. A very good allegory, but an allegory nonetheless. I don't find any other interpretation that I can personally accept. Example: none of the court cases in Altas had the checks and balances that American courts routinely have. Rules of evidence, rules governing the proceedings, etc. As incompetent as American jurisprudence may be (and I acknowledge that it is so often so flawed that I would be first in line to throw rotten tomatoes at some judges and lawyers if opportunity permitted), Atlas' court proceedings were caricatures of real court rooms. Which is fine if we're dealing with fiction, acknowledging that it's fiction, that there are object lessons to learn from it (same as Aesop's Fables or the Horatio Alger stories), and that she DOES draw the lines between good and evil; between producer and parasite with wonderful clarity. But then we come to reality, and I know that I am much more like Eddie Willers than John Galt. I despise Wesley Mouch, and thus many of those in the Obama Administration who so much resemble Mouch that I wonder sometimes if the villains of Atlas were made incarnate! Nevertheless, for me to join "the strikers," society would have to be far worse than it is (even given how troublesome it currently is), and I'd have to know that the people I love and care about would not be left with shrapnel in their hides as I made off to some secret location. One more point... Even Rand acknowledges this when she has Galt *urgently* asking Dagney to lie about knowing him lest she be tortured in front of him. He knew that he would be absolutely powerless to stop them from such an atrocity and that his dreams would not be fulfilled. I am not John Galt. I am Bal Simon. I know that my life is deeply embedded within the fabric of American society and culture and that dissolving the bonds would create huge amounts of havoch for me without improving society or grinding it to a halt even fractionally. I am a patriot. I love America fiercely. I do not like our current government. I do not like much of what passes for culture. But I am a firm lover of the First Amendment and much of the culture I don't like falls well within the ambit of that Amendment. Thus, much as I love Rand's Atlas, I'm not going anywhere. - Bal