Just started this book; massive and equally magnificent in terms of depth and political commentary. I'd like to start a debate on this book. Are the basic tenets presented right or wrong? Who is John Galt? What is it in Rand's philosophy that inspires people so?

__________________
"You can tell alot about a fellow's character by his way of eating jellybeans."
-Ronald Reagan

I'm reading the book right now. I'm almost finished with the first book (I believe there are three or four in all). I like to read Ayn Rand. I've read The Fountainhead and We the Living. So far my favorite is The Fountainhead.

WRT Atlas shrugged: I think that the expression "who is John Gault" refers to apathy. Basically, so far in the book Dagny Taggart and her business partners are basically battling other business leaders who have become apathetic towards being the best businessmen they can be. They no longer strive to make their businesses run more efficiently, rather they do the bare minimum to simply get by. Also, rather than competing with each other they use the government to make shady deals that stifle competition. When "who is John Gault" is used it is basically an expression of hopelessness. Why are are rail roads in decline? Why can't the leadership of the Taggart lines run the business efficiently enough for me to keep my job? Who is John Gault? That is why Dagny names her rail road the John Gault line. To show rail road workers, as well as those whose lively hood depend on the rail roads, that there are those who understand their frustration and to throw the "bad guys' apathy right back into their faces.

WRT Mrs. Rands philosophy, the common theme in all of her books that I've read is that of individualism trumping collectivism. She purports that when we as individuals work hard and do what is best for ourselves we do what is best for everyone, assuming of coarse the rule of law is followed. She believes that organizations or alliances that advocate or give advantages to one group of people over another are antithetical to the principles of liberty and freedom..

She despises collectivist thought. One example would be in The Fountainhead. The hero is Howard Roark. He is an architect who gets kicked out of his university for daring to design by his own rules. He was a modernist architect who disagreed with the prevalent idea of decoration for its own sake. His main "enemy" in the book is Elsworth Toohey, who through several art organizations seems to dictate popular thought on matters of architecture, art, literature, etc. The members of these groups basically write glorious reviews of each others shitty work. At the same time they denounce people like Roark who refuse to accept the status quo. Roark eventually wins out by working hard and designing the best buildings that he can and staying true to himself.

I think that many of her themes are amazingly applicable in todays world. A big trend in todays politics is that the common good can be better served by government intervention. Taking money from one group of people and using it to benefit another group of people. This is rationalized by stating that the more "fortunate" are obliged to help out the less "fortunate" and describe this line of thought as everyone helping out for the common good. My question is are those individuals who unfairly take advantage of government programs really helping out? Is it really fair to give people an incentive to not work hard and try to succeed? How much better off would we be if we, as a nation, made individual commitments to ourselves to "help out" by doing the best we can to be self reliant? If people could make it a point to take care of themselves rather than counting on and voting for politicians who promise to give them more of other people's money the need for these programs would largely cease to exist. Why can't we start working on making our individuals more self reliant? Well..... who is John Gault?

I read Atlas Shrugged some time ago and would probably have another interpretation if I read it today. I also enjoyed the other books of Ayn Rand including Fountainhead and We the Living.

I am currently reading Atlas Shrugged and am of the opinion that it can be used as a torture device in two ways. One, by hitting people over the head with this massive tome. Second, by making people read it.

It is the most shallow, vapid, boring book I have ever read. And that's saying a lot.

Ayn Rand seemed to be of the opinion of, "Why say something in one paragraph that you can say in 300 pages?" It's like, hey, I get it. I got it 299 pages ago.

But if you want to brainwash someone, you have to repeat your single point over and over and over and over and over. Like a hammer.

I think the only people who could possibly be "inspired" by Rand's simplistic Objectivist philosophy would be Libertarians.

I just love how Rand killed an entire trainload of people in the book and found a way to blame each and every one of them for their own deaths.

There, you have just read the whole book.

Rand was really pissed off at somebody.

Notice how shallow the characters are. Notice the fantastic coincidence that hundreds of people who all had the same shallow outlook on life were on the same train together with not one innocent soul. "There was not a man aboard who did not share one or more of their ideas"! Notice how Rand sentences them all to death for committing no crime other than believing in the wrong idea.

The book is stupid. And boring.

So it may have been overly cruel...But isn't Rand's basic idea pretty solid, That people should be allowed to achieve greatness, without the fetters of society to weigh them down on their quest? That seems like the essence of the American dream to me.

__________________
"You can tell alot about a fellow's character by his way of eating jellybeans."
-Ronald Reagan

Its ok, she didn't really kill anyone, it is only a book.

I don't think she was necessarily saying that they were to blame for their own deaths, as they were not the people responsible for making sure the train arrived safely. I think that the people who were responsible had the same philosophy and attitude as those who died.

I find it odd that you picked this part of the book to gripe about. Vilifying Rand by saying she "sentenced" these "people" to death is pretty weird. It is just a book, they're not real. You can't really believe that she had a grudge against these people. How much of the book did you read. The last time I asked someone if they even read the book they didn't bother to respond back.

I'm not saying that haven't read it, it is just a little weird that you would have this much dislike/ anger over a fictional book.

__________________
Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars. ... I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask no one to live for me, nor do I live for others. I covet no mans soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.

Ayn Rand, Anthem.