[_lc1i]

As written in her books, following her moral can often lead to the unfair perception of being a jerk. Many people briefly exposed or misunderstanding Rand choose to remember (and spread) the jerk self interest part without laying out her moral framework.

[jbooth]

Meh, John Galt went out and convinced all the rich people who were allegedly being preyed on by unions and special interests to.. go on strike? And become a special interest? Wow, that's great.

First off, if my boss left to go do that I'd say "Thanks for the promotion" and take the payraise.

Second off -- and much more importantly -- you should live your life for something more than your own crappy temporary luxuries.

[dantheman]

I think you misunderstand the story.

1. John Galt convinces the "rich", though quite a few weren't, that continuing their work would lead to their destruction so in order to survive they would need to go on strike. Perhaps the better analogy is the man who invents a new weapon and then is killed by someone else using it.

2. The problem was that as the bosses left others with corrupt ideologies were taking their place.

3. Nothing in the book has to do with the rich needing luxuries, in fact they all move out to Galt's gulch and do manual labor and leave the life of luxury behind. In fact her stories are all about being true to yourself and living your life the way that you want to.

I'm not a fan of everything she's written, but I think you really missed the point of the book.

[jbooth]

Well, thanks, but that's just as childish. Oh, they'll be replaced by the impure -- what a silly premise, only these few supermen are worthy of doing high-end industrial jobs, and if they don't do it then it'll be done in an ideologically impure manner... who's pure?

Gimme a break. If anything, the way things work in the corporate world the bosses are some of the least likely people to have consistent morals in the face of expedient solutions.

There's a million people waiting to replace them and, with a little time to get used to a job, there's no fateful reason why the previous person doing it is the only person who possibly could.

The thing about that story is that the adherents claim to be all wise and worldly, oh, you'll get it once you're making money -- I'm making money, I think it's BS and nobody actually succeeds with such a childish, self-gratifying attitude.

[dantheman]

If your responding to bullet 2, then the it wasn't a question of "purity" it was the government dictating who was in what position.

Have you read the book?

"Gimme a break. If anything, the way things work in the corporate world the bosses are some of the least likely people to have consistent morals in the face of expedient solutions." This behavior occurs throughout the novel.

What is the childish self-gratifying attitude? That those who work hard and persevere are successful? That it's wrong to steal from others? That at the end of the day you exist for yourself and what you find important (friends, family, etc) and that no one else has a claim on you?

It seems like you setup straw men and then knock them down.

[jbooth]

The childish, self-gratifying attitude is the part where you think because you achieved some success in life, you owe nothing to the society that made it possible for you. People of that sort of moral stature don't tend to have the firmitude to succeed in other ways, in my experience -- it's more typical of college republicans than it is of actual business leaders.