objectiveMan

According to Wikipedia, these principles are from Rockefeller Jr. (not Sr.). The first one that you have quoted sounds good, as if John Galt himself had said it. But what kind of inconceivable evil has spawned this next one? How can these two "principles" be from the same man? To anyone who is interested, I would also recommend a TV series "The Men Who Built America" which tells the story of Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Morgan and Ford. It is short (only 4 episodes), so it remains pretty superficial in depth, but does go over the most important accomplishments of these men. http://www.history.com/shows/men-who-built-america

Hi Dean, nice to meet you. Thanks for the input.

This is an area where I might be interested to help. I know a bit about writing code and other related issues.

I understand he used lots of questionable tactics against his competitors. Still, at least for me, he and other exceptional men of that age are the closest living examples of those heroic businessmen Ayn Rand talks about. Ayn Rand seems to have been very outspoken against the Sherman Act. I listened to her lecture entitled "America's Persecuted Minority: Big Business" in which she talks about it. Here is what she said: I have no idea what that means.

Out in the open of the valley with the John Galt Stealth Screen that caused Dagny's crash when she pierced it and it killed her engine...lol - stopping it's motive power... A... You are correct, I was thinking that the place was surrounded by mountains, not that it was actually "inside" a mountain. So, not an open area in the sense that some passerby would accidentally walk in there, as the mountains would block their path. That was my line of reasoning.

A book about one of the great industrialists of the era of American capitalism. I recommend this book to anyone who wants to read about the period in history where businessmen could operate with relatively little government intervention. I hope such a time will come again one day... until then, all we can do is read about the times when that was possible. As you may know, he became the richest man in the world and afterward gave most of it to charity. The Standard Oil company was broken up by the government after this book was written. Here is a link to the book (with different versions): https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/17090 Of course, all the advice is still true today, as it was then: The book is rather short. Let me know what you think if you bother to read it.

You are right, I don't get your point. What exactly is your question? Do you disagree with the definition of the word "value"?

Ok, I will try to give my answers. Please excuse me for inaccuracies, it has been a few years since I read the book. In general I agree that there are few parts which are a bit unrealistic, but that is probably intentional. I think Ayn Rand's intention was to make a point, rather than to make sure everything is extremely realistic. 1. Rearden wasn't an Objectivist when he married Lillian, he only became one after Galt taught him. As for not having children, this was a theme with all the heroes in Atlas Shrugged. 2. Was it explicitly stated that he did not have sex with other women, or did you assume it? I assume he did have others but they were not mentioned. But in case he did not, I guess he loved Dagny and could not find anyone else her equal. Anyone find it curious that there are lots of male heroes in AS, but Dagny seems to be about the only female one? I actually found it slightly troublesome that Francisco just gave Dagny to Galt, and not fight for her. But I think Ayn Rand made it like that specifically to make a point which she further elaborates in "There is no conflicts of interest between rational men". 3. What about this? As I recall, the conditions for Taggart Transcontinental got continuously worse as the story progressed, as it did for the whole economy. So it likely was not profitable at the very end, in fact it probably went bankrupt. Isn't the last chapter about a Taggart train stopping and Eddie Willers on it? 4. I understood Eddie Willers to be example of a character who was a "good person" with good intentions, but not smart enough to grasp the concepts which the "men of the mind" grasped, and thus he had to be left behind. Dagny probably felt some sympathy for him, but he could never be taken into Galt's Gulch for example, because he did not understand "what was wrong with the world". 5. This does not seem logical, if you look at US Navy today (or naval fleets of other countries). My assumption is that collectivism/mysticism/irrationalism had proceeded to such a level that no nation could organize or fund a proper navy anymore. Pirates in modern times is not a far fetched concept, as we have seen with Somalian pirates in recent years. 6. You mean Galt's Gulch, or something else? I understood the Gulch to be inside a mountain, not some space of open land that people would normally buy. 8. I think the point was specifically that the average people destroyed the world, not the heroes. The heroes merely withdrew from society, but did not actively destroy it (other than their own respective companies).

Apologies for not commenting on your answers. The fact is that I can't find anything particular to say, other than to say that I enjoy reading your answers. Obviously the book has so many wonderful parts and this discussion is great for refreshing my memory.

I think you may be confusing two separate things here. As you said, a value is something a person wants to gain or keep. Any individual is free to choose their own values (remember every person is free to work towards their own destruction). This part has nothing to do with Objectivism. Objectivism then defines what kind of values one should choose. A person living according to Objectivism would value anything which furthers their life and happiness. And place a negative value on anything which brings them closer to death or unhappiness. I think it is wrong to consider sex as a whole, and I would rather judge every individual situation separately. Does it work towards your life or your death? If, for example, there is a high risk of catching a serious STD, it would probably not require a lengthy process of reasoning to conclude that it is a non-value. And as for happiness, do not consider the merely physical pleasure at the spur of the moment. The real measure is whether you feel good about it the next day. If I remember a consistent theme from Ayn Rand's books, it was that sex is only a value when practiced with an equal partner. Only sex with a person whom you admire and respect is capable of making you truly happy. Just because a majority of people do something, does not mean it is objectively a value. In fact, I think a strong case could be made that the majority of people are not living their lives according to objective values. No, there is no universal agreement of what art to value. I do not value the same art that you do. If I eat a lot of sweets and become horribly obese as a result, what value have I gained? That should give you a hint. Just because something feels good, does not mean it is actually objectively good. In fact many times it is the opposite. That is why living according to objective values requires self-discipline above all.

I appreciate the tips, thanks. But honestly, I may need some opening lines which are consistent with Objectivism. Preferably something that will tell me quickly whether or not we are philosophically and politically compatible, so I will not spend too much of my time with a person who is not. Let me know if you think of anything.

What are the most memorable parts for you in the book, that got stuck in your mind, and that you still remember even years after reading the book? For me it occurs at the very end when they have rescued Galt, and he thanks Rearden, to which Hank replies what Galt taught him, that no thanks is necessary when men act for selfish interests. This concept is so powerful somehow, the idea that selfish men do not owe gratitude to each other, but at the same time... if someone rescues your life, you would feel immense gratitude for them, and want to thank them. Like that is the one person you would want to thank, with all your heart. Here is the actual text, from the book (they are onboard a plane): Of course, my other favorite parts are Galt's speech and Francisco's speech about money.

Yes, I can imagine it was very interesting. Her voice takes a while to get used to. I plan on listening through all of these little gems.

I started by listening the first one. It was very powerful. I am blown away by the fact that it is from 1961, and she talks about how collectivism, mysticism and altruism have taken over America. Also how there is almost no difference between Republicans and Democrats, and they just represent different flavors of totalitarianism. And then I think about how much more free America was in 1961, compared to today. It is just mindblowing. Assuming this "progress" continues unchallenged, imagine where we are another 50 years from now. By then, the America of 2015 must look like a bastion of individual freedom and economic liberty.

Thanks for the explanation. I guessed that's what it means, but I didn't get the joke. Thank you for the tip. I did look at Atlasphere and even registered there, but it appeared you couldn't do much without paid membership. Also it didn't really interest me, for some reason. I might try it though at some point, who knows. We have different parties in politics, sure, but the political "middle" is heavily to the "left" compared to USA. So, our "right" is basically what the Democrats are in USA. And our "left" is basically what the "extreme left" would be in USA. This is a rather important distinction to understand I think. So no, there is no political party that would come even close to supporting Objectivist-like values (e.g. capitalism, minimal government). Don't worry about "fixing me up". Please let me explain my position. My first goal is to meet people who share my values and views (Objectivists, or at least objectivish, as someone put it). Finding a romantic relationship is secondary, and only made possible when that first condition is filled. My reasoning is that I will enjoy any type of relationship with such a person as I am seeking, romantic or not. And secondly, I do not care to even consider a romantic relationship with a person who does not share my values. Also, I am not quick to put different types of relationships into clean cut categories. I am open to any interaction with any person, as long as it is mutually beneficial, and both parties are acting for their selfish interest. I want to exchange value for value, as Ayn Rand taught me, and there is no limit to different possibilities of what that may be.

I am glad to hear it. Still, I find the following statement very troubling. It appears that you believe that women have this collective goal that they should work towards? Individualists set goals for themselves, collectivists set goals for others. For me, true equality in a free society means that every woman has the opportunity to be anything that a man has the opportunity to be. This the difference between "equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcome". I support the first, and I will fight for "women's rights" in the sense that they have the opportunity to be CEOs and whatever else, if they are good enough. But I will set no preference towards how many women actually should be CEOs. Sandberg on the other hand, at least judging by that quote, cares about equality of outcome. She is concerned with the fact that equal number of women actually end up as leaders as men, regardless of their competence. You chose an example of exceptional women to argue where average women are good at? I have no problem with this idea of organic growth, but that is not what is happening (at least over here). The government (and media) is actively trying to encourage, promote, and even enforce (via laws) these "ideals" that more women should be leaders, and that more men should be stay-at-home-dads. So what is your stance on this kind of government interference? Sorry for derailing the "gay thread" into other issues.

No, I am not suggesting no-one should try at all, I am merely saying that I am fearful of what "equality" gone too far leads to. And they are not just making irrational demands as if that is where it stops, they are actually getting their irrational demands passed into irrational laws. I don't think there should be any goal for what percentage of companies is run by women, or what percentage of houses is run by men. This should be left completely to "free market" to decide, which means to individuals themselves. Any government enforcement or even encouragement is about the worst kind of government intervention I can think of. Men and women should compete for a job on equal grounds, may be the best person win. That is not what the feminists are advocating though, they want preferential treatment. They are saying they should get a leadership job because they are women, not because they are good at the job. That's what gender quotas are. Would you personally like to be hired into a leadership position in a company because of your objective skill and qualifications, or because the company had to hire a woman? Would you feel proud if you got that board seat due to gender quota? I sure wouldn't. Also, did you consider that men may be objectively better at certain things, while women may be objectively better at others? Or did you consider that half of women may not want to lead companies, or that half of men may not want to be stay-at-home-dads?

Hi, nice to meet you. Now is the time to ask what her sign is...oops...nevermind... What sign?

I visited South Africa about a year ago. I loved many aspects of the country. I have to confess, I do have some irrational fascination with Africa. I didn't like the worship of Nelson Mandela everywhere, it just felt over the top. Everyone was so obsessed with him. I understood that plays into the favour of the largest political party? Apartheid was obviously horrible, but it is sad to hear that now the "equality" has turned against the whites in some aspects.

Hi, nice to meet you.

People accept a currency as payment for their goods and services only because they believe other people will do the same (accept it as payment for their goods and services). It is essentially based on trust. This is same for dollars, bitcoin and gold, and there's really nothing "intrinsic" about it. If trust in the medium of exchange disappears, so does its value. Bitcoin is entirely digital, just a computer program, and nothing "tangible", so it doesn't feel as real as a currency that you can hold in your hand. But it does have a set amount of coins which cannot be arbitrarily changed, giving it rarity. What gives its value is simply the fact that people choose to value it, and use it as a currency. Stocks, on the other hand, are something completely different. I think Ayn Rand said that the source of all weath is man's mind. When I buy a share of a company, I am essentially buying a share of the minds of all their employees. I am buying a share of their intellectual and productive effort. This is something fundamentally different than buying gold. With gold, I am betting someone else will pay more for it later. With stocks, I am betting men will continue to work and use their intellect.

Thank you for an excellent post with many good points. Of course, the point that gays are promoted and glorified in media, is merely my subjective view. I believe that to be true objectively too, but it is arguable. I guess that is the case in the so called "left" media, where the "right" media still promotes so called "traditional values", e.g. family between man and woman. My biggest fear with advocates of "gay rights" or "womens rights", is that they never stop at a point where reasonable "equality" is achieved. And the word "equality" itself is problematic, in my opinion. Lets look at women's rights as an example, as we have a longer history in that than gay rights. First they wanted the right to vote. Ok, that seems reasonable. Next they wanted to work instead of staying at home and raising children. Ok, that's reasonable, lets do that. Now lets look at where we are today, with so called "feminists". In Finland, they are saying that we need to re-make all traffic signs because people in them resemble males and that hurts their "equality". In Sweden, they are re-making toilets unisex, and getting rid of separate toilets for men and women. They are also trying to get rid of separate words "he" and "she", because any idea of two separate genders is apparently hurtful to them. They are teaching children in schools not to use the words "boy" or "girl" when talking of each other. I wonder why the so called feminists don't demand that army is made mandatory for women in the name of equality, as it is for men in Finland? Wonder why they demand a gender quota in the boardrooms of companies, but not in the dirty manual labor jobs that are mostly done by men? This is actually my strongest reason for being somewhat opposed to gay rights, as un-objectivist as that may be. They may talk about gay marriage now, but what is next? A demand that there is a gay in every boardroom of every company?

I am definitely not recommending Bitcoin as an investment. Though I am fairly sure that it is not a Ponzi scheme. The idea of "intrinsic value" is difficult for me. I don't see any intrinsic value in Fiat money either. Gold may have little intrinsic value because of industrial uses, but I am sure that alone would not support the current price. I do see intrinsic value in stocks.

Thank you for the welcome, and for all the information.

Thaks for the welcome. I look forward to learning what this non-orthodox Objectivism means.