Atlas Shrugged
 

Anybody see Atlas Shrugged yet? If so, give us your review. I Hope to see it soon.

Another earlier effort at putting Ayn Rand on the big screen was the 1949 Fountainhead with Gary Cooper, Patricia O'Neil and Raymond Massey. It is a tale where untalented narrow little minds try to keep genius and individual achievement down and subordinate to the will of the masses. This is done so that the untalented don't wind up being shown up for just what they are.

It's playing close to here, Laguna Niguel or Mission Viejo, but my wife is still asleep, jet lag from her last few weeks of travel. Maybe next week.
Today I am going to the Orange Circle Car show.

One of my very good friends saw it and he loved it. He said that where the Wyatt oil fields were located is right where he lives (Boulder, CO). I thought they might focus too much on the Dagny/Hank romance, but my friend said they did not and they stayed very close to the book.

I am a huge fan of the book - I have actually read three times (In college; about 10 years ago and recently). I bring that up cuz I really know the book, and my expectations were very high.

We went to the opening last Friday with two other couples. 4 out of 6 of us had read the book. On a scale of 1 to 10 I would give it a 7. It apparently didn't have much of a budget (which I didn't know beforehand.) I am glad I went, but to me it's clear they could have had a better screenplay and a better Dagny.

What I was most interested in was whether it would encourage those viewers who had not read the book to do so. I don't think that's the case. There is so much in the book's plot I don't think I could have followed it had I not read the book. The two in our group who hadn't read it had no greater inclination after the movie.

Still, if you are a fan, you will probably be glad you went. It just could have been great...

Good for you! I have the paperback - never got through it. It's now on my Kindle. More of a project than an entertaining read. I flew cross country with it, and watched the percent complete inch from 4% to 6%. I think I'm at 7% now. Problem is, I won't download anything else until I finish that d@mn book!

Meh, who needs books now, just play around on the internet instead. Hey...PlayStation is back online! Time for some Bad Company 2 to kill some time and brain cells.

I'll probably see the movie, as long as it doesn't ruin the book.

I read Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged a long time ago and get them confused. I like utopian novels in general, which is what drew me to Rand. As I recall, in both she creates a society where characters always know what is in their best long- and short-term interest and always act accordingly.

I lent my ~1960 copy of Atlas Shrugged to a friend and he lost it. Great book and I look forward to the movie.

I've read the book and I got my wife, father-in-law, brother-in-law and several others to read it. "Atlas Shrugged", "Catch 22" and "Dr Strangelove" are on my "read several times during your lifetime" list.

I would be afraid to see the movie before you finish the book.

And Loomis - with only a couple of exceptions the book moves along pretty fast once you get past the first 100 pages. Stick with it - you'll be happy you did

I too have read the book 3 times - the first time was the old de rigour in my first year of college.... then in my mid 20s and then about 3 years ago.

Just saw the movie - it is obviously part I - and I wonder if they will make enough money to make parts II and probably part III if the amount of book covered in this movie is any indication.

So - the romance wouldn't start until movie 2 and wouldn't get kinky until movie 3 azasadny...

I would give it about a 4 - I liked the book when I was young - when I re-read it I realized how shallow it was. The movie is pretty low budget - and Dagny - who really carries the book in the first 2/3rds of the novel is terrible. She is one of the great characters in mid century literature - and Taylor Schilling isn't up to the task -

Oh, just as an interesting aside - they are merchandising the movie - you can buy Taggert's jewelry online - sort of fits with a movie that, if it follows the book, will eventually tear down the cross and replace it with the dollar sign. Ah, the religion of capitalism, and the worship of the almighty dollar. I wonder if they will leave that in if it makes it to the end of the book. Sort of would turn off most of the people it was trying to appeal to.

That is a very shallow interpretation and certainly not what I believe is intended with all the dollar sign stuff. I do agree that was not one of the best thought out portions of the book, but it is a worship of freedom not an actual currency that is intended. Remember it was sort of a joke in the first place when he gave Midas the sculpture.

On further thought, the only worship I remember being encouraged is of self, though worship probably isn't the right word there either.

Foxpaws,
My friend told me the Wyatt oil fields are right near Boulder, where you both live, that must have been pretty cool. I'm a Christian, so parts of Ayn Rand's philosophy didn't work for me (obviously), but I understand why she was an atheist after reading her life story and what her family went through in Russia.

It is pretty cool having the fields nearby - heck - when I drive to work I drive through fields that are really being worked right now - I think every week a new rig pops up and another set of wells go in...

lendaddy - Rand could have used many symbols for freedom - eagles - in the west wild horses equate to freedom, heck even a drilling rig would have been appropriate - she very specifically chose the dollar sign to rise over the rubble of the cross for a good reason - the symbolism at the end of the book means a lot - and she obviously wanted to get across a very specific point.

azasadny - many people go through far more than what Rand did in Russia and continue to believe in God - God rewards sacrifice - that is antithesis to her objectivism creed - she just replaces God with her own god (the god of self).

which specific point is completely missed by many, as evidenced in this thread.

I'm not talking about freedom in the flag waving sense, freedom in the spiritual sense(not to be confused with religion). It's all about passion and the freedom to pursue it.

And back to your original claim, I've struggled to come up with a single beloved character in her books that celebrated the trappings of wealth.... I've come up with none. Money and wealth are byproducts of the passion not the goal.

The movie is just the first part of the book... about a third, as I recall.

You could probably do the movie when you've read that far... maybe.

They are at present working on parts 2 and 3.

Budget; yes, shoestring...

Selfishness is a virtue...

I am not talking about flag waving either - otherwise I would have chosen the image of a flag. She very specifically chose a dollar sign to replace a cross - she actually could have used a government symbol to be replaced, but she specifically replaced God's icon with her spiritual icon, the mighty dollar, money, her barometer of all.

As far as money, and how she views it - remember Francisco's very long speech on the virtue of money in Shrugged? If I remember (I'll need to dig up my rather tattered copy) he claims that the biggest achievement of America is that we are a country of money - that is how you define America.

However, you come to find out as you slog through Shrugged Francisco's speech was only 'very long' until you got to Galt's speech at the end - 90 pages - I wonder how the movie will treat it?

your view/recollection of it doesn't seem to match the reality:

__________________________________________________ ____

Rearden heard Bertram Scudder, outside the group, say to a girl who made some sound of indignation, "Don't let him disturb you. You know, money is the root of all evil – and he's the typical product of money."

Rearden did not think that Francisco could have heard it, but he saw Francisco turning to them with a gravely courteous smile.

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Aconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor – your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?

"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions – and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made – before it can be looted or mooched – made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.

"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except by the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss – the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery – that you must offer them values, not wounds – that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best your money can find. And when men live by trade – with reason, not force, as their final arbiter – it is the best product that wins, the best performance, then man of best judgment and highest ability – and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?

"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality – the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.

"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants; money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth – the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

"Money is your means of survival. The verdict which you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?

"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?

"Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is the loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money – and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.

"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.

"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another – their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.

"But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride, or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich – will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt – and of his life, as he deserves.

"Then you will see the rise of the double standard – the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money – the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law – men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims – then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.

"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it becomes, marked: 'Account overdrawn.'

"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world?' You are.

"You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while you're damning its life-blood – money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men's history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves – slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody's mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer. Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers – as industrialists.

"To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money – and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being – the self-made man – the American industrialist.

"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose – because it contains all the others – the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money'. No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity – to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted, or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.

"Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters' continents. Now the looters' credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide – as, I think, he will.

"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns – or dollars. Take your choice – there is no other – and your time is running out."

Thanks for finding it - now I don't have to figure out where is Rand? Not dissimilar to Where's Waldo...

But I did remember it correctly - America is a country of money - Francisco sees only the 'good' because in a utopian world such as is portrayed in Shrugged, you have to have only black and white - the reality of gray never can enter in, because then you see the failure of the utopia that has been built on a flawed idea.

"To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money – and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being – the self-made man – the American industrialist.

If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose – because it contains all the others – the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money'. No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity – to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted, or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality."

I love how she thinks that making money must mean those glorious things: reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. She always conveniently forgets it also means: greed, avarice, covetous, sloth, slavery. It is part of her black and white way of viewing things - in her world no Enron would exist, but in the real world Enron does exist, along with countless others that would take advantage, cheat the system, or are just bad. She isn't good with painting the gray areas.

Just as you notice there isn't any room for charity, benevolence, altruism in her world, but, thank goodness in America we do believe in those values as well. Altruism is a vernal sin according to Rand - but without it, where would America really stand? Wouldn't we be the same as Stalin, but with a capitalist backed system instead of a communist one?

Just as communism failed because it didn't take into account man's real nature, so would Rand's equally flawed world ideal, she never takes into account man's real nature.

Now that this MS150 is over, I think I'll get the wife and go see it tonight.

Six people I know saw it this weekend and liked it, only two had read the book.

In my Bible, it says the love of money is the root of all evil.

so do you give your money away? live in a tent?

Really, I don't see how you can get that from reading the above passage. She talks at length about how just acquiring money does NOT automatically mean all those glorious things. In her world, Enron very much does exist. There are many "Enron" type characters and entities in Atlas Shrugged.

This really is the crux of the debate, IMO.

Most people - lead mostly by religion, including Christianity, IMO, view human beings as weak, unworthy and unglorious creatures (original sinners).

Certainly Rand does not take that view, she views man as a heroic being.

People who tend to view man as the former generally don't get much from Rand, people who view man as the latter tend to get something.

It referenced "money is the root of all evil" in an excerpt at the top of the post. I disagree with that. Unless we want to live in a barter only society, there is nothing wrong with money in and of itself.

Sloth?

I suspect that your conclusions are drawn the way that they are because you have a preconceived opinion about how the world works and are trying to back your views into Rand's book.

The reality is that Francisco was specifically responding to a statement much like yours, that money is the "root of all evil" and that people who make money are automatically evil or selfish or whatever. She was a very feisty and strong willed woman (at a time when women were still not always taken very seriously) who probably relished the idea of confronting a controversial statement or symbol head on, like the dollar sign. She was using the dollar sign because money is a symbol of achievement and value, in much the same way that the cross is a symbol of Christian values, not ancient torture devices.

For context you need to remember that these books were written by a Soviet woman who basically escaped one of the most brutal and murderous regimes in human history, all based on the concept of selflessness, altruism and that money is a symbol of western decadence. This is very important to remember, altruism was a core tenet of the USSR and is at the core of communism in general.

I also believe her point on altruism is very valid. It's only altruism if you do it yourself. As soon as you try to force others to involuntarily give up some of the value they have earned for purposes that you have decided are worthy, you are no longer altruistic, you are basically a power hungry, arrogant parasite, seeking to dominate your will over others that by definition you consider inferior, despite the fact that they have created value that you have not. That type of altruism is inherently conflicted, cynical, hypocritical, and ultimately, evil.

This is one of the reasons some modern liberals have become so twisted. Unable to produce anything of value themselves, they turn to forcing their will upon those that do produce value, and try to feel better about their own failures by somehow positioning the very group they desperately rely on as evil.

Enlightened self-interest generates more value, charity, and comfort than any other force because it is the engine that powers civilization and advancement and that allows everything else to happen. There has to be "stuff" before you can worry about how "stufff" ought to be distributed, and history has shown that individuals doing things for their own "selfish" reasons generate the vast majority of advancement. Yes, there are some few exceptions and Rand even wrote an excellent essay giving kudos to the Kennedy era space program as an example.

As far as Enron goes, I think it's pretty obvious that evil people can exist anywhere in the social strata. If you condemn capitalism because of Enron and Madoff, are you also willing to condemn all poor people or blacks because statistically more are criminals? Humans are imperfect, and we need to weed out the bad ones no matter where they are.

Finally, the books are quaintly wooden in characters and plot, and are preachy and long winded if viewed as a novel. But it's pretty clear that Rand was making social and philosophical statements under the thin veil of fiction, so complaining about that is like complaining that Citizen Kane had a boring musical soundtrack.

I enjoyed the movie. Yes, they took a few liberties in making it. It's just a movie. I thought Taylor Shilling did a great job as Dagny Taggart.
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...Schilling1.jpg

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...rSchilling.jpg

The audience in the theater stood up and gave it a standing ovation after the movie ended.

I've read the book three times. My wife has read it more times than I. We have a 1st edition copy of the book.
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c154/95CobraR/AS.jpg

You can say that about any book/movie/etc. It also is important to remember the context if you *agree* with Rand as well. Humans are very good at selective reading and interpretation. Pre-existing bias colors everything we interact with. Those that reject Rand might want to scan for why, as should those who embrace her.

I haven't seen it yet but definately will.

Like the book, some will like it and some will hate it.

Losers always hate it when they are encouraged to stand on their own two feet while winners gladly accept the opportunity to shine.

Pete: Whether I agree or not, that was extremely well done.

This is better than a class on Atlas Shrugged, especially McLovin and AirKuhl, I will see the movie, I hope this weekend, looks like my wife is leaving next week for Nashville, got to see it now.

I have a Forrest Gump moment to share that is appropriate to the discussion above. My wife and I own a cabin with another couple. The wife of the other couple is from the family that sponsored Rand when she came to the US. The family in New York were her mother's aunt and uncle. Later, when Rand moved to Chicago before going to Hollywood, she stayed with our friend's mother's family. Rand was the same age as our friend's mother. Their family considered Rand to be an adopted sister/daughter in their family.

They're closely enough related to have some signed books. A few years ago our friend visited the Ayn Rand museum with two aunts who lived with Rand before she went west. Her mother had passed away by then. The museum treated them like celebrities and had them go through the archives to identify people in photos. The aunts were a bit surprised by the attention. They couldn't believe anyone was interested in old pictures of their cousin. Frankly, I don't get the impression that they were as impressed with their cousin as the museum people.

The US family appears quite nonplussed by Rand's notoriety. She was an odd one, as you might imagine. Despite the favors other people did for her to be able to stay in America and help get her on her feet, the family says that she would do nothing for anyone else without there being something in it for her. Supposedly it was literally true that if she found someone run over by a car, she wouldn't stop to help unless there was something in it for her. She seemed to think it wasn't moral to help someone without there being something in it for her.

Very true, however...

My middle school son was in his first school debate the other day. He chose to a pro-second amendment position.

He asked me for some tips and I told him my "secret" to preparing for a debate or any other situation where you are trying to change someone's mind. I said he needs to know more about the other person's position that they do. Pretend you're arguing the other side and do the research. Predict every argument the other side will come up with and have a well reasoned response ready.

One of two things will happen. Your research might make you change your mind as you learn more about a topic, which is a beautiful thing. Or, you will absolutely annihilate the person you are debating against.

He got an A+, not easy arguing pro-gun in the SF bay area. ;)

Point is, as an engineer I have to set aside my preconceived notions every day at work or I'll make a mistake when reviewing data. Being objective is definitely possible.

-
so - Self achievement and value trump Christian values - you did get it AirKuhl -

I would really wonder if Rand would like the excuses you have made for her - She wouldn't you know...
I have to agree with you on why altruism goes downhill fast if it is forced - but Rand was against all altruism...

If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject.

Being unselfish - or to have concern for others creates a better civilization - when it is voluntary - but in her world - all altruism needs to be rejected. MRM is correct with his statements about Rand in her personal life. Charity was a weakness - unless of course, she needed it.

I don't condemn capitalism - I personally think it works better than anything else -what I condemn is completely unfettered capitalism - the type Rand held to the highest regard. I understand that there is a balance between regulation and laissez-faire - and that is what we strive to achieve here in the US. Rand's form of utopia is no more feasible than Marx's. Both don't take into account real human nature.

I sort of like Fountainhead - and I truly think that Dagny is a great character - however I will disagree with Vintage Racer - Taylor Shilling was awful, she just was flat - and certainly looked as though she was walking through the movie - well, they all looked like they were walking through the movie.

Colorado looked good though - and you gotta love a state that is so successful it is going to get another tax slapped on it by the evil, nasty government because they are successful. I knew I was being hit over the head a billion times in the book - but when it comes to looking into boardroom after boardroom and upscale hotel room after upscale hotel room, and being hit over the head with the same philosophy, however this time by a cast of characters that somehow were more wooden on the screen then they were in the book - blick.