AOL News: "Atlas Embraced: Why Libertarianism is Back!"

[emazur]

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/03/28/atlas-embraced-why-libertarianism-is-back/
http://digg.com/political_opinion/AOL_News_Atlas_Embraced_Why_Libertarianism_is_Back #

Strangely, though, during the 2000's, Limbaugh – like many conservatives during the post-9-11 Bush years – quit discussing "libertarian" ideas once Republicans were the ones in power (and once terrorists started slamming planes into the buildings). Those who didn't get the memo, like Ron Paul and Bob Barr, were essentially written-out of the movement.


Liberals then seized on the same ideas that had powered the out-of-power right, and began playing-up Bush's "Imperial" tendencies – and railing against the loss of personal freedoms from things like "The Patriot Act".


It's no surprise that liberals – who happened to be out of power at the right time (when blogs came into existence) – were able to tap into the zeitgeist and dominate the blogosphere (it's also no surprise that Limbaugh and other conservative talkers thrived during the Clinton years).


But now that Barack Obama is in the White House, conservatives seem to be reliving the 1990s. We're hosting tea parties, and the question: "Who is John Galt" is commonly heard these days as author Ayn Rand is experiencing a comeback. (I realize Ayn Rand technically was an Objectivist -- not a Libertarian).

[akihabro]

AOhelL actually put up such a radical opinion? If anything I thought AOL was one of the most statist, status quo and filtered news agencies.

[Conza88]

It's not strange. It's blatantly obvious.

What you will now see from the Media (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=177088)

</toot own horn>

As for "Atlas Embraced: Why Libertarianism is Back!" = LMAO Ayn Rand is rolling in her grave... as probably all other Objectivists are pissed now.

Hahah. :D

[Truth Warrior]

It's not strange. It's blatantly obvious.

What you will now see from the Media (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=177088)

</toot own horn>

As for "Atlas Embraced: Why Libertarianism is Back!" = LMAO Ayn Rand is rolling in her grave... as probably all other Objectivists are pissed now.

Hahah. :D

Hahah this. :D

http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/nabat/nabat1.html (http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/nabat/nabat1.html)

Even Murray was, at one time, in Ayn's "cult". :)

;)

[Monolithic]

problem: who the hell reads AOL news?

[V4Vendetta]

problem: who the hell reads AOL news?

The same uneducated idiots that voted for McCain and Obama, Perfect place for idiots to read it.

[Kraig]

It's not strange. It's blatantly obvious.

What you will now see from the Media (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=177088)

</toot own horn>

As for "Atlas Embraced: Why Libertarianism is Back!" = LMAO Ayn Rand is rolling in her grave... as probably all other Objectivists are pissed now.

Hahah. :D

Well Atlas Shrugged is really a very libertarian book IMO, after reading it Ron Paul seemed like a natural step for me. Rand certainly created something greater than herself and greater than her stupid movement with that amazing book. It's also no surprise that her work of fiction says plenty on the failures of government but not much in terms of a successful one. I think she just fanned her ego too much with the objectivist non-sense, and the objectivists today for the most part are completely out of touch with reality, like that Peikoff guy on TV talking about how we need to bomb Iran.

[sevin]

Oh now they're interested in libertarian ideas again. Now that we're stuck with a socialist president for the next 4 years. It's a little late now. Bunch of fuckers. :mad:

[Truth Warrior]

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."

Is that a quote from Alexis de Tocqueville?

Thanks! :)

[Xenophage]

Well Atlas Shrugged is really a very libertarian book IMO, after reading it Ron Paul seemed like a natural step for me. Rand certainly created something greater than herself and greater than her stupid movement with that amazing book. It's also no surprise that her work of fiction says plenty on the failures of government but not much in terms of a successful one. I think she just fanned her ego too much with the objectivist non-sense, and the objectivists today for the most part are completely out of touch with reality, like that Peikoff guy on TV talking about how we need to bomb Iran.

Peikoff is a Randian dogmatist, not an Objectivist.

What do you mean by "fanned her ego"?

[Xenophage]

It's not strange. It's blatantly obvious.

What you will now see from the Media (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=177088)

</toot own horn>

As for "Atlas Embraced: Why Libertarianism is Back!" = LMAO Ayn Rand is rolling in her grave... as probably all other Objectivists are pissed now.

Hahah. :D

There are very few "Objectivists" that don't also call themselves libertarians.

[Elwar]

Libertarianism never went away. The only difference now and in the 90's is that those who spoke of libertarianism weren't in power.

They'll shut up again when it counts.

[Kraig]

Peikoff is a Randian dogmatist, not an Objectivist.

What do you mean by "fanned her ego"?

Well, I think he would say he's an Objectivist, and I believe he runs the Ayn Rand Institute as well as her literary estate.

By fanned her ego, I mean that she wrote some fantastic novels, Atlas Shrugged is without a doubt the best fiction I have ever read. I don't think she really created a new and original school of philosophical thought though, which is what she tried to do or thought she did. If Howard Roark or John Galt were real, I could never imagine them claiming themselves to be an "Objectivist" anyways, they didn't seem to give a rats ass as to what others thought of them or how they were labeled. A big part of so called Objectivism is trusting your own mind and judgment without needed approval from the masses before you do something, becoming a member of a labeled group seems contradictory to that IMO.

[Kraig]

There are very few "Objectivists" that don't also call themselves libertarians.

Well I believe she was vocal about her dislike for libertarianism. She was also somewhat of a war monger, I think the USSR just left a really bad taste in her mouth.

[Truth Warrior]

Libertarianism never went away. The only difference now and in the 90's is that those who spoke of libertarianism weren't in power.

They'll shut up again when it counts. The LP ( anarcho-GOP ) "Libertarians" are NOT libertarians.<IMHO>

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian)

[Conza88]

Well, I think he would say he's an Objectivist, and I believe he runs the Ayn Rand Institute as well as her literary estate.

By fanned her ego, I mean that she wrote some fantastic novels, Atlas Shrugged is without a doubt the best fiction I have ever read. I don't think she really created a new and original school of philosophical thought though, which is what she tried to do or thought she did. If Howard Roark or John Galt were real, I could never imagine them claiming themselves to be an "Objectivist" anyways, they didn't seem to give a rats ass as to what others thought of them or how they were labeled. A big part of so called Objectivism is trusting your own mind and judgment without needed approval from the masses before you do something, becoming a member of a labeled group seems contradictory to that IMO.

She is a complete and utter "thief." That is, if those who support her and her very own stance on IP, want to be consistent. She "stole" all the ideas for her novel. ;)

Garet Garrett


His most influential work is commonly regarded to be The Driver. Published in 1922, it tells the story of an entrepreneur who, through is own vision and work ethic, takes over a failing railway, turning it into a hugely productive and profitable asset for the benefit of himself and the rest of the nation. Unable to see what he has achieved in turning his own business and the wider economy around from recession to boom, and blinded by the intense wealth and power he enjoys as a result, the general population and the government turn against him, ultimately destroying him instead of celebrating his success.

Justin Raimondo and the Ludwig von Mises Institute have observed that there are similarities between Atlas Shrugged and The Driver. It is unknown whether Rand was familiar with this work, but The Driver’s central character is Henry Galt, while Atlas Shrugged’s principal character is John Galt. At one point in The Driver, someone asks, "Who is Henry Galt?"; in Atlas Shrugged, many characters repeatedly inquire, "Who is John Galt?"

LMFAO! :D Look at your idol now objectivists! :rolleyes:

[Kraig]

She is a complete and utter "thief." That is, if those who support her, also support her own stance on IP and they want to be consistent. She "stole" all the ideas for her greatest novel. ;)

Garet Garrett


LMFAO! :D Look at your idol now! :rolleyes:

haha, I have heard of that book, never read it

my idol? :confused:

[Xenophage]

Well, I think he would say he's an Objectivist, and I believe he runs the Ayn Rand Institute as well as her literary estate.

By fanned her ego, I mean that she wrote some fantastic novels, Atlas Shrugged is without a doubt the best fiction I have ever read. I don't think she really created a new and original school of philosophical thought though, which is what she tried to do or thought she did. If Howard Roark or John Galt were real, I could never imagine them claiming themselves to be an "Objectivist" anyways, they didn't seem to give a rats ass as to what others thought of them or how they were labeled. A big part of so called Objectivism is trusting your own mind and judgment without needed approval from the masses before you do something, becoming a member of a labeled group seems contradictory to that IMO.

Valid criticisms.

I would disagree slightly, however.

She did create something new. She integrated many previously explored ideas into a single, cohesive philosophy. Her greatest achievements, form my viewpoint, were in epistemology. She took a rather unique blend of rationalism and empiricism espoused by Aristotle and fully fleshed the ideas out to a degree that he never did. She also presented a unique system of moral values.

Politically she wasn't the least bit unique in any of her conclusions, but she was unique in her moral arguments. She provided the first and only moral foundation for capitalism that was also logical and consistent, in my opinion. No 18th century rationalist ever did.

[weslinder]

Matt Lewis is a mainstream guy with a few libertarian tendencies at best, but on how to campaign and how to spin a message, he is second-to-none. If you get a chance to attend his grassroots training, jump on it. It is excellent. He can teach anyone to win a political race.

His little book, Teaching Elephants to Talk, isn't bad either.

[Xenophage]

She is a complete and utter "thief." That is, if those who support her and her very own stance on IP, want to be consistent. She "stole" all the ideas for her novel. ;)

Garet Garrett


LMFAO! :D Look at your idol now objectivists! :rolleyes:

Fascinating parallels. Am I supposed to hate Ayn Rand now?

Interesting that no differences in the novels are listed.

[Kraig]

Valid criticisms.

I would disagree slightly, however.

She did create something new. She integrated many previously explored ideas into a single, cohesive philosophy. Her greatest achievements, form my viewpoint, were in epistemology. She took a rather unique blend of rationalism and empiricism espoused by Aristotle and fully fleshed the ideas out to a degree that he never did. She also presented a unique system of moral values.

Politically she wasn't the least bit unique in any of her conclusions, but she was unique in her moral arguments. She provided the first and only moral foundation for capitalism that was also logical and consistent, in my opinion. No 18th century rationalist ever did.

Well I completely agree that she did integrate previous ideas into something more cohesive, and she certainly gave better definition to them with her exquisite writing skill. To me her writing is what is impressive, not the ideas themselves but how she defines them. What was amazing was before I read Atlas Shrugged, I would have agreed with all of the moral principles it presents, but I never could have explained why in a such rational way. Kind of like Hank Rearden listening to Francisco's money speech. Her defense of rationality and self-interest from an atheist standpoint is fantastic, I have to admit that it was her that lead me to reject the faith I was taught as a child and accept atheism. She also played a big part just in the way I write and the way I think, all sorts of self-critique came around after I studied her work. For me it just stops short at "becoming" an Objectivist.

[Xenophage]

I don't think you 'become' an Objectivist. I use the word to describe myself because nothing else does so in a short and succinct manner. I use it in the same way Nathaniel Branden uses it.

He was once asked, "Are you an Objectivist?"

He responded something to the effect of: "If you mean I agree with all of the basic principles, yes. If Objectivism means, as Miss Rand would like it to mean, every conclusion she ever made in all of her words and writings, then no I am not an Objectivist."

David Kelly founded the Atlas Society after splitting with the Ayn Rand Institute when ol' Leonard got peeved that he was lecturing at a libertarian conference. If he can still call himself an Objectivist, so can I.

[Xenophage]

She is a complete and utter "thief." That is, if those who support her and her very own stance on IP, want to be consistent. She "stole" all the ideas for her novel. ;)

Garet Garrett


LMFAO! :D Look at your idol now objectivists! :rolleyes:

After having read another review by a noted libertarian who is familiar with Atlas Shrugged, I didn't pick up on the sense that he thought anything was 'stolen.' You only see this accusation on the Mises blog.

I might also add that the name "Galt" is rather common. Here's a real life John Galt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galt_(novelist)

[Kraig]

I don't think you 'become' an Objectivist. I use the word to describe myself because nothing else does so in a short and succinct manner. I use it in the same way Nathaniel Branden uses it.

He was once asked, "Are you an Objectivist?"

He responded something to the effect of: "If you mean I agree with all of the basic principles, yes. If Objectivism means, as Miss Rand would like it to mean, every conclusion she ever made in all of her words and writings, then no I am not an Objectivist."

David Kelly founded the Atlas Society after splitting with the Ayn Rand Institute when ol' Leonard got peeved that he was lecturing at a libertarian conference. If he can still call himself an Objectivist, so can I.

Well that's pretty cool, I didn't even know there was an Atlas Society. Leonard is a big douche though, I hope he gets ruined from this economic crisis because he has spent the past how many years praising all of the policies that lead to it.

[Xenophage]

Well that's pretty cool, I didn't even know there was an Atlas Society. Leonard is a big douche though, I hope he gets ruined from this economic crisis because he has spent the past how many years praising all of the policies that lead to it.

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/

Much cooler than the ARI.

And full of anarcho-capitalists and anti-IP people too.

As well as people like me who like Ron Paul and porn. And ron paul porn.

[Working Poor]

Even Murray was, at one time, in Ayn's "cult".

Darling I wish you could write a little bigger for people like me who can't see very well...

[emazur]

Well that's pretty cool, I didn't even know there was an Atlas Society. Leonard is a big douche though, I hope he gets ruined from this economic crisis because he has spent the past how many years praising all of the policies that lead to it.

Did he also support torture? Turns out that was a big fail:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/looking-backward/bushs-torture-rationale-debunk.html

Also, who were those objectivist assholes who superimposed a skull over Ron Paul on their magazine cover? I can't find it anymore

[Truth Warrior]

Darling I wish you could write a little bigger for people like me who can't see very well... The font size USED to default to size=1. Now it doesn't. :( Something is FUBARd. I usually remember to "fix it". But not always. :p Sorry, Darlin'. ;)

[Xenophage]

Did he also support torture? Turns out that was a big fail:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/looking-backward/bushs-torture-rationale-debunk.html

Also, who were those objectivist assholes who superimposed a skull over Ron Paul on their magazine cover? I can't find it anymore

You're referring to Reason magazine, which is associated with the Cato Institute if I'm not mistaken. They are libertarians, no more or less associated with objectivism than anyone at mises.org. The editor-in-chief of Reason, who hates Ron Paul, is 'embarrassed' by any association with Rand, while acknowledging her influence on libertarianism. This is essentially the same attitude most Rothbardians take, and the Cato crowd and Rothbard crowd are historically arch-enemies (if you believe either of them, to which I say: lol!).

It would be helpful if you didn't cast a big ol' collective net around all of us Objectivists and say we're for torture and against Ron Paul. Why would I be here?

[emazur]

You're referring to Reason magazine, which is associated with the Cato Institute if I'm not mistaken. They are libertarians, no more or less associated with objectivism than anyone at mises.org. The editor-in-chief of Reason, who hates Ron Paul, is 'embarrassed' by any association with Rand, while acknowledging her influence on libertarianism. This is essentially the same attitude most Rothbardians take, and the Cato crowd and Rothbard crowd are historically arch-enemies (if you believe either of them, to which I say: lol!).

It would be helpful if you didn't cast a big ol' collective net around all of us Objectivists and say we're for torture and against Ron Paul. Why would I be here?

Yeah, that came out wrong, I meant to say those particular Objectivist assholes. I generally believe in Rand's principles myself. But no, it wasn't Reason, it was actually The New Individualist - I found this after digging around:
http://praxeology.net/randians-gone-wild-ron-paul-version.PNG

[Xenophage]

My bad. I've never read that particular magazine but I've seen the cover.

It saddens me greatly.

[emazur]

My bad. I've never read that particular magazine but I've seen the cover.

It saddens me greatly.

That's the magazine sold by The Atlas Society, which you mentioned before. I know you praised them in your other post, but just based on that cover alone, it seems like an organization I would not want to have any part of.

[Theocrat]

"Libertarianism is back"? What are they talking about? Libertarianism has always been around, if those mainstream shills would've actually paid attention to real freedom fighters, like Congressman Paul, a little more.

[Truth Warrior]

"Libertarianism is back"? What are they talking about? Libertarianism has always been around, if those mainstream shills would've actually paid attention to real freedom fighters, like Congressman Paul, a little more. Maybe, they're just SATAN controlled ...... TOO! :D

[Xenophage]

That's the magazine sold by The Atlas Society, which you mentioned before. I know you praised them in your other post, but just based on that cover alone, it seems like an organization I would not want to have any part of.

Eh... yeah.

Blah.

Its the same sort of shit I see going on all the time, even here on ronpaulforums. Objectivists bash Ron Paul, Austrians bash Ayn Rand, Cato Fellows bash Austrians...

I do not see warring factions here. I see a bunch of individuals. I dislike the group-think and frankly, I encourage and enjoy dissent and argument as long as we don't lose sight of our common goals and common framework.

90% of the time I play devil's advocate around here because I like to argue and get myself thinking, but I never actually start hating the people I'm arguing with.

I mean, how silly is it that you can agree on 99% of a political philosophy, but the 1% is such a big deal that you become hated enemies?

I don't understand how anyone who loves freedom could despise Murray Rothbard OR Ayn Rand OR David Nolan or whomever. Disagree when you will on whatever topics, but don't tell me they were evil or idiots.

[heavenlyboy34]

Maybe, they're just SATAN controlled ...... TOO! :D

I LOL'ed for about 20 seconds at that one, sensei-and chuckled a little after that. :D:cool:

[Xenophage]

Whores and pimps!

[Athan]

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."

Is that a quote from Alexis de Tocqueville?

Thanks! :)

That man had a hard on for America as it should be.

[Truth Warrior]

I LOL'ed for about 20 seconds at that one, sensei-and chuckled a little after that. :D:cool: I'm still laughing because he didn't reply. < LMAO ! > :D

[Truth Warrior]

That man had a hard on for America as it should be. Is that confirmation of the quote author? :confused:

[Conza88]

There are very few "Objectivists" that don't also call themselves libertarians.

Yeah, it's cooler to be a Libertarian.


haha, I have heard of that book, never read it

my idol? :confused:

Not yours, was a general comment to the tool objectivists. Should have made that clearer. :)


Fascinating parallels. Am I supposed to hate Ayn Rand now?

Interesting that no differences in the novels are listed.

No, you're supposed to acknowledge the person who are following, isn't principled enough to stand by their convictions.

She clearly read the book, just didn't acknowledge it. Or was it just coincidences? Hahah


Garet Garrett


His most influential work is commonly regarded to be The Driver. Published in 1922, it tells the story of an entrepreneur who, through is own vision and work ethic, takes over a failing railway, turning it into a hugely productive and profitable asset for the benefit of himself and the rest of the nation. Unable to see what he has achieved in turning his own business and the wider economy around from recession to boom, and blinded by the intense wealth and power he enjoys as a result, the general population and the government turn against him, ultimately destroying him instead of celebrating his success.

Justin Raimondo and the Ludwig von Mises Institute have observed that there are similarities between Atlas Shrugged and The Driver. It is unknown whether Rand was familiar with this work, but The Driver’s central character is Henry Galt, while Atlas Shrugged’s principal character is John Galt. At one point in The Driver, someone asks, "Who is Henry Galt?"; in Atlas Shrugged, many characters repeatedly inquire, "Who is John Galt?"

;)


After having read another review by a noted libertarian who is familiar with Atlas Shrugged, I didn't pick up on the sense that he thought anything was 'stolen.' You only see this accusation on the Mises blog.

I might also add that the name "Galt" is rather common. Here's a real life John Galt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galt_(novelist)

That "Libertarian" is probably an 'objectivist.' :rolleyes: LOL, you picked up the "sense", how 'objective' of you! :rolleyes:

Yeah, you only see pretty much every truth in the Austrian School. Only seeing it on, Mises blog - gives it more credit if anything. Not the other way around. ;)

Can I just say, it's hilarious watching you try 'reason' your way out of this one.

It's clear as day. She basically "stole" the whole concept, and part of the charachters of his book. I have no problem with that.

Because I don't consider it theft. She may have innovated it, made a better book.

YOU SHOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT THOUGH; that is if you want to be consistent with you pro IP insanity.

You're choice - support your idol. Or acknowledge she "stole" it - by using her VERY OWN ARGUMENTS against herself.

The ones you support. You've talked about books before, well HERE it is. ;)

[Paulitician]

Ayn Rand disliked libertarians

[Mesogen]

Ayn Rand sounds like a twat.

[Truth Warrior]

The Ayn v. Murray split got kinda nasty. :(

[Kraig]

His most influential work is commonly regarded to be The Driver. Published in 1922, it tells the story of an entrepreneur who, through is own vision and work ethic, takes over a failing railway, turning it into a hugely productive and profitable asset for the benefit of himself and the rest of the nation. Unable to see what he has achieved in turning his own business and the wider economy around from recession to boom, and blinded by the intense wealth and power he enjoys as a result, the general population and the government turn against him, ultimately destroying him instead of celebrating his success.

Justin Raimondo and the Ludwig von Mises Institute have observed that there are similarities between Atlas Shrugged and The Driver. It is unknown whether Rand was familiar with this work, but The Driver’s central character is Henry Galt, while Atlas Shrugged’s principal character is John Galt. At one point in The Driver, someone asks, "Who is Henry Galt?"; in Atlas Shrugged, many characters repeatedly inquire, "Who is John Galt?"


I'm wondering who here has actually read this book? Or both this book and Atlas Shrugged for that matter? It doesn't seem too similar based on this description, it's about the economy and it has a railroad in it, seems like it like the plot similarities end there. It actually seems closer to The Fountainhead but that is still a stretch. Like Xeno said, Galt is a common name, and it is likely that "who is X character?" is going to appear in any novel, unless it appears more than once and is a reoccurring theme like it is in Atlas Shrugged, that seems extremely obscure. I'm going to read this over the weekend to put this to rest.

[Conza88]

I'm wondering who here has actually read this book? Or both this book and Atlas Shrugged for that matter? It doesn't seem too similar based on this description, it's about the economy and it has a railroad in it, seems like it like the plot similarities end there. It actually seems closer to The Fountainhead but that is still a stretch. Like Xeno said, Galt is a common name, and it is likely that "who is X character?" is going to appear in any novel, unless it appears more than once and is a reoccurring theme like it is in Atlas Shrugged, that seems extremely obscure. I'm going to read this over the weekend to put this to rest.

Yes I've read Ayn Rand and nearly all her works.

Now even if just PART of it was "stolen", or she read the book and thought, "Hey I could do this... better" - I'm fine with that. I don't consider it theft, or anything.

THESE clowns who support IP DO / SHOULD though, thats if they want to be consistent lol

Not my problem. It's theirs. :rolleyes:

[Kraig]

Well I don't really support IP either, so I guess it is their problem! Here's a blog from mises.org on this topic:

http://blog.mises.org/archives/007246.asp

[weslinder]

I have no personal opinion about Ayn Rand other than my opinion that Atlas Shrugged sucked as a novel, and she should have stuck to nonfiction. That being said, there is an elderly lady that works with us here in Southeast Texas that was friends with Ayn Rand, and has nothing but wonderful things to say about here. And I think the world of this lady, so I tend to trust that Ayn Rand was wonderful.

[Truth Warrior]

The following is a short description of Objectivism (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/objectivism.html) given by Ayn Rand in 1962.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro)

[Xenophage]

The following is a short description of Objectivism (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/objectivism.html) given by Ayn Rand in 1962.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro)

And that's pretty much what it is. In fact, Objectivism doesn't even necessitate a belief in intellectual property, as I've read many, many arguments from Objectivists AGAINST intellectual property. So, Conza, you failed. Epically. Man, such a failure! Fail fail fail.

omgfail.

In fact, read this Objectivist's arguments against IP: http://ftp.vix.com/objectivism/Writing/DavidKing/GuideToObjectivism/

Wow. Objectivists don't all parrot Ayn Rand? Amazing. You mean, the philosophy actually STANDS for thinking for oneSELF? Who would've guessed. Not saying I agree with this guy either, though.

Anyway...

Point Number 1: It is not proven, or clear, that Ayn Rand read The Driver. Have you read The Driver? Going off one guy's anti-Rand agenda in his interpretation of the novel? I guess for someone with an anti-Rand agenda, that's an appealing thought.

Point Number 2: If she did read it, and even if she got the name Galt from it (and if she did, why wouldn't she say so?) its still unclear to me how this is a violation of IP. *scratches head* How similar are these books, really? The synopsis you gave is skewed. The book happens to be available now in its entirety on mises.org in pdf format.

Go look up the part that says "Who is Henry M. Galt?" Its obviously a ridiculous comparison. Henry Galt, an opportunist working within the confines of an interventionist government system, also bears absolutely no resemblance to John Galt. Some of the political ideas are the same, but let's face it: If Ayn Rand was the only Capitalist who ever wrote any literature we'd be pretty fucked.

Railroads were also pretty much the height of industrial and technological achievement back then. Everyone wrote about railroads. Besides, John Galt was a physicist, and hadn't a thing to do with railroads. That would be Dagny Taggart.

So what if there were two books written today: In one of them, a software engineer named Charles Babbage writes an awesome piece of software that makes toast come out of his CD drive. In the 2nd novel, a lawyer named Frank Babbage knows a software engineer named Jude Law who writes an awesome 3d game.

WOW SIMILAR!

[Xenophage]

Ayn Rand sounds like a twat.

Says the guy with an Abe Lincoln quote.

[Xenophage]

The Ayn v. Murray split got kinda nasty. :(

Sad, unfortunate, and entirely Rand's fault. She couldn't be friends with a religious dude.