atlashead

I believe taking Rand's belief to the extreme; every component of a word, every brushstroke, every note, & every brick is a projection of the metaphysical beliefs of the creator.  In order to create correct, good art; one must never use it to try to get someone to do something, or to tell a lie.  It's true, if u respect someone & create a piece to please them, because that pleases you, it will be good.

when you create somethig in your own image, the John Galts of the world can say "yes, that is you." which is a mutally beneficial realization.  I think friendship is at the heart of art, that and self-actualization.  It (good art) makes you think & feel.

edit 2: it's objective & private what u think & feel.

6 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The only intentions that anyone can vouch for or know are one's own intentions.  The intentions of others (if they exist) are only to be guessed at.  Thoughts are private, intentions are private. 

Obviously, but humans can understand symbols

Art is created from INTENTION which objectivly exists.  For simplicity's sake we'll say the subject is like a perpetual motion machine, choose the wrong one (an immoral one) & you will become a hater of your life-losing the will to create.

This is no flaw.  The stoddard temple is a example of an individual who privately amassed wealth & destroyed it.  The government is the compulsor of taxes & thus destroys wealth, not of 1 man's(Roark's), but the entire society's.

11 minutes ago, dldelancey said:

Define "not with."  Does that mean not in a committed relationship?  Or does it mean in a committed relationship but not physically in the same location at the moment?

Physically.

In the case one is not with the one they love, and they feel sexual desire towards a person they value less, what should they do?

I think there should be a state in the United states where children don't HAVE TO go to school, are fully emancipated from parents, & can work full time jobs.  This SHOULD be done, at least as a social experiment.

As they watched the empty aluminum can burn in the fire he said “it’s not that cool that it’s turning into aluminum oxide, but it’s worth noting.”

He had searched earlier that day, now it was night, for something: the highest proof can there was.  He bought two, one for himself, one for the explosion.

“Let’s get fucked up.” is how he started the night.  Everyone agreed.

So while he was being held upside down drinking from the keg (he had pressurized earlier), he watched the green flames explode from the can he threw into the green flames that were caused by the driftwood he had added.

Later on, when the keg was depleted, he pressurized that and used it as a bouy.

Thanks for the replies.  I have a new thing to rant, and it's quick:
From the first instant one does something profound, the leeches surround.  They seek to destroy the creator, his invention.  They seek to take it, to use it;to claim credit for it.  And thay seek to torture you, not in the previously mentioned acts, but for that PRIME MOVE.

John Galt, in the book, never erred.

Atlashead,

John Galt in the book also never existed in reality. He is an archetype, not a real human being.

You are organic, not static. You must grow, peak and decay like all living things. John Galt in the book is only portrayed during the peak time.

Michael

Edit: Rand said people's art is a projection of their beliefs. How did the characters SHE regarded as PERFECT err in Any way?

Edit 2:I do believe free will exists.

John Galt, in the book, never erred.

John Galt, in the book, never erred.

Dagny Taggart still had something to do; a railroad to run. I could continue to make things BUT I won't do it anymore. Men work for their living, if you are John Galt, you earn it from the earth; but John Galt, I am not. So I'm leaving it where I stand, take over, it is yours.

I forgot that food is derived from land (don't know how to edit posts on my cell).

Fair market value is based on need. There perhaps is an equation that can determine what is worth what but a hierarchy needs to be established. I will throw out some values:water(sometimes has to be purified), food, fossil fuels, steel, building materials, copper, rare earth metals, science equipment's anti-derivative.

The point I'm trying to make is a standard mathematical model based on human LIFE could be created and could be used in peaceful...I'm looking for a word that means embargo on an individual scale.

Any experts in any field offering facts will lead us in the direction of the mathematics of "VAlUE", but it's going to be a long road (perhaps someone has achieved this feat.

To answer the above response, I'd say, fair use should be at play. Certainly if someone is squandering value, using, say, an iron deposit for a playground, they must be stopped. The how is based on situation. Does there ever become a time resource squatting can warrant force? I'm unsure.

When one owns a monopoly over a particular resource, I think it's their duty to sell at a fair value. Have any true resource monopolies existed/exist? I would consider it a monopoly if, due to governing body, all the resources in the area are owned by one, in the case of importing prohibitions and especially when leaving the community (state/country (probably!)) is prohibited or entrance into a new one isn't do-able.

Sorry for the beginner's dual-threads, I just thought this warranted its own.

At some points in time, it may have been that some resources have not been in the hands of the most efficient producer. I'm talking raw materials. Thus comes the question, is whoever gets there first the owner? I would say "no". The owner SHOULD be who can extract the most value most quickly. So who is the judge? That would be the person with the most knowledge and impeccable morality. How is this decided? In the free market strikes against a producer can be used to make their business fail. It is in the interest of all to have the most efficient producer run the most large and important resource extractions. This is not to say they HAVE to, each man is entitled to whatever amount of achievement they decide, as long as they take the EXACT consequences of their EXACT achievement. Is there any real-world case of a sub-par producer sitting on a resource?