John Galt sought ends defined by reason. Soetoro has reasons in pursuit of (undefinable) ends.

John Galt had an end in mind: a world of individuals free to choose, organized around a set of reasoned principles.
Barry Soetoro, as any liberal/socialist, would never be able to define his ideal world. Not understanding where wealth comes from, or worse, believing all wealth is necessarily stolen, he would only make generalizations about equality and social justice, giving no particulars about how a society based on them would operate or be sustainable.

Dog shit and cake.... excellent!!!

Ewww. Did not need image. Drinking coffee - also brown.

Jan

Wonderful keystone discussion, 3j. I am typically more interested in 'what' a person does than 'why' they do it. (Most of the people I know are intelligent enough to rationalize a connection between any two known points in the universe. This makes 'why' discussions moot with them.)

What you point out is that in this case the 'why' is the crucial aspect of the difference between Obama and Galt. I would like to suggest that the parameters for regrowth are also different: A totalitarian autocrat wants to destroy the current structure so that they can force the exacting top-down rebuild of it into the image they design. A freedom fighter wants to destroy social structure to remove the constraints to personal decision. He is willing to take the chance that free choice will cause a better (bottom up) system to be rebuilt.

The totalitarian autocrat carefully makes certain that any alternative systems cannot compete and that only his philosophy is included in the restructuring. A freedom fighter smashes the bars and handcuffs that prevent choice and then lets the individuals choose their own path.

After Galt destroyed the motor of the world, people could decide that they want to freely choose socialism - and Galt (by his own philosophy) would have to suck it up and let them make their decisions. Stalin would never do this; he would eliminate anyone who disagreed with him.

Jan
(see also my reply to sjatkins post in this thread)

While the phrase itself was coined by Machiavelli, the philosophy was put most pointedly into practice by the Jesuit order.

Jan

Obama (or any progressive) isn't trying to build anything up. They are trying to bring everyone down to the same level of equality. The problem is there is no level of equality. As Rand pointed out in the workers of the Twentieth Century Motor Company there in no equality in a socialist system because there will always be someone below you who wants what you have until everyone is destitute. Unfortunately, it won't stop because progressives will continue to try to extort more because that is their goal. So as John Galt asserted, they are a cult of death whose goal is the death of the mind. They just don't admit it to themselves because then they would have to accept their death philosphy.

I was going to, Obama doesn't have a plan to restart the engine once stopped

I think that 'grow in ones own image' can mean different things.

One meaning is 'use my philosophy as a rigorous template' the other is 'remove the impediments to growth and allow a bottom-up regeneration which I am willing to bet will spontaneously follow my philosophy'.

Once again, the touchstone of inclusionary vs exclusionary is helpful here: Stalin wants to Include only his directives (and everything else is illegal); Galt wants to break the back of the suppressive power structure that is preventing prosperity - excluding it from the geo-political canvas. He is willing to wager that what grows back will be a system that values freedom and the individual. He will seed the regrowing culture with productive individuals and a worthwhile philosophy, but (once the strongarm restrictions are excluded) everyone can make their own decisions.

Jan

Obama is not looking for an end to rebuild from. I believe he is looking to expand on the progressive movement while eliminating all other adversaries to his agenda yet in doing so will cause the collapse and will leave him with no power to rebuild from.

Galt wasn't trying to change the country however to help by protecting those that could help in the rebuilding after a a collapse set forth by the Obama ' s of the country.

It's like your comparing apples to oranges or as mamaemma put it like comparing to dog shit and chocolate cake.

Galt want to stop the motor of a dysfunctional world run by moochers and looters. Obama wants to enlist those types to destroy the good in society and replace it with sheeple on whom they will prey.
Galt wanted the best from each individual without the need to control them. Obama wants to level the playing field, dumb down people and take away their individualism completely. Obama was and always will be a moocher himself. Galt wanted a world of producers. Obama wants a world of slaves. You can't get much different.

I fear the Gulch is slipping into an abyss.

Galt's plan WAS in his self-interest. He simply wasn't interested in living in any other kind of world than one where existence exists.

Let me simplify this:
Initiator (Galt) >>> Process >>> Consequence
Initiator (Obama) >>> Process >>> Consequence

My point: regardless of the initiator, there is a process that will yield a consequence.

A process is mechanical. Due process is a legal concept. TNT was developed to provide a stable and safe explosive for construction projects. That it was promptly used to splatter men in combat has nothing morally to do with the development which was neither good nor bad.

That is, if we let him get away with it. Sadly, too many people in this country will.

I beg to differ; Obama will only move over to the UN and continue his agenda of destruction. He's putting the pieces together while in office to hogtie the US. Watch what happens.

Here's the difference:
Galt would eliminate the Obamas of the world and all their ilk, whereas Obama would eliminate the Galts of the world and all those inspired by him.

Both you and president Bush have imposed your moral beliefs onto the process of harvesting stem cells from aborted fetuses. The process itself is mechanics and is neither moral nor immoral.

Objectively, collapse first, rebuilding follows.

"2 separate processes for two entirely separate ends."

Correct. And each process is driven by a philosophy of morality; hence, "process" does involve morality.

Objectively, there are no insults.

No. All ethics must be reality based, that is OBJECTIVELY based, otherwise A is not A. My point: JG and Obama's outcomes will be the same, destruction and, hopefully, rebuilding.

The process by which the goal is achieved is my issue, that JG's were objective, based on reality; Obama's are driven by his narcissistic tyrannical-minded megalomaniac NON-objective "values."