I don't want 'to see it happen' either, but one of the conspiracy theories does grab my attention...

If there is ANY kind of Event that prompts the government to do ANYTHING like extend the rule of Obama by delaying elections or some kind of shit like that, 1) it'll be too late for anything but Maybe an armed rebellion, and 2) too many people will be saying "I tried to warn ya!" and 3) it'll still be too late.

Pity the next generations.

Ovomit is nothing, NOTHING, like John Galt.

plusaf and RevJay, I just made it to 72 and am glad to see we are pretty much in agreement that we don't want to see the SHTF but may miss it if and when it does....

I, too, consider myself to be a "thinker and questioner, not an implementer. And, being over 70, I doubt that I will live to see the SHTF fun(?). I may be wrong, as the "plan" of this administration seems to be shifting into high gear lately. Not sure I want to live to see it happen.

#%$^&*!@ (Thats the noise I am making while stifling back my laughter). I like your thought, but I just wish there were 50M intelligent voters. (Ok, I can already hear you laughing).

Yes, and me, too...
The think that, in my mind, differentiates humans from most other species is our 'flexibility,' and that kind of ability to adjust to changing situations and environments will, in the end, determine how 'we recover' from the crap heading our way.
Good luck to all. I turn 70 this year. I may miss all the SHTF fun... :) (and I hope so, too! I'm still a thinker and questioner, not 'implementer.')

You've got that totally RIGHT!

O and his gang are tightening the noose a little every day. Collapse - yes. I don't think in terms of rebuilding. Galt's message to me is simply Take-back-your-life. If that results in some type of rebuilding all the better. There are >300M people in this country, if say 50M would "March" on Washington one day the looters would see just how truly small they are. ( ok, ok stop laughing. I dream...)

Yes, but obviously the rebuild in Obama's utopia would include a huge government and probably himself as ruler. Galt wanted to live in the opposite world.

First there are no perfect analogies. You should know this.
Second as a schoolboy, I learned that Aristotle wrote that there were four causes to answer the question "why". We memorized them as MEFF - material, efficient, final, and formal. The Efficient cause "A change or movement's efficient or moving cause consists of things apart from the thing being changed or moved, which interact so as to be an agency of the change or movement. For example, the efficient cause of a table is a carpenter, or a person working as one, and according to Aristotle the efficient cause of a boy is a father.". The Efficient cause is value neutral - an agency by which something gets done. jimjamesjames was correct when he commented that "Process is the "how". In the father-boy example on Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_cause...
intercourse is the agency, the Efficient cause by which a boy is "fathered" and has no moral import whatsoever! If the pregnancy were to be caused by rape, then the moral question would apply. This would be separate and apart from the process itself.

There is also no precedent for the situation we have where there is no hospitable place to go if you don't like what rises out of the ashes.

You are correct, Atlas Shrugged was written as a warning, not a guide. She said as much but I cannot remember her words.

Cake or death?

Um... cake, please.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFyuhTwi...

plusaf, I, too, have not seen any Recovery Strategy outlined and it would be a fascinating topic. Nevertheless, human kind has destroyed and rebuilt many times in history and I have no doubt that it will happen. I agree with ibecame, below, on a likely scenario.

I don't have a perfect answer for you, but I myself look to history. There have been a lot of collapses throughout history although as far as we know of this is the first that may happen in a technological society. There is no precedent for this, but having contemplated the implications of a collapse I suspect that is why Ayn Rand never wrote a sequel and turned to teaching Objectivism hoping to prevent it from happening (those of you that have read more of her works than I have are greatly encouraged to comment on this).

Very briefly, during a collapse anyone not prepared gets swept away, along with those that are unlucky. What remains are basically two groups, the smarter, and the ruthless. The outcome of this will depend on the battle and the integration of these two groups, just like it always has been throughout history. Darwin's law.

romcentee, I support your comment, but I believe the outcome will be worse that you realize. Most of the Reardens and Dagnys, will still be fighting to put out the fire when the whole thing comes apart and they are caught in the collapse. It is unlikely they will survive. If this truly is intentional then Obama and those with him already have selected who will rebuild and it won't be, Reardens or Dagnys or Howard Roark.

To tell the truth, I didn't imagine that the "stretching" would be so expansive.... but I'm glad it is. This has been fun.

I understand what you are doing, I'm just noting (as are others) that it is quite a stretch.

Your analogy only would apply to the stem cells themselves-not to the process of acquiring them or using them. like TNT, and even that is not a perfect analogy. In one case, dynamite and guns we have inanimate, human made things. In the other case we have a biologically created thing that can automatically transform itself under the right circumstances.

I understand where you are coming from-the SUV doesn't kill someone on the highway. A process involves people's intention to perform or not perform a process. I do not see how you separate that out in Ethics. A gun is a thing, not a process. In this case, process necessarily involves human interaction with said process. The process of murdering someone has consequences.

From my earlier post:

Initiator (Galt) >>> Process >>> Consequence
Initiator (Obama) >>> Process >>> Consequence

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

I was not suggesting a moral equivalency, only that the components of the process are similar.

Seems I'm also keeping myself on my toes, too...... ;-)

One must look at the rebuilding, however. You are attempting to say that because the effects will be the same that there is moral equivalency to the actions taken. Neither is in fact true. The methods taken to induce collapse are nothing similar. Obama is taking an active role in destroying the greatest nation the world has ever seen. Galt would simply have allowed the corruption within to destroy itself; Obama actively encourages it. Very different means prompted by very different morals.

One must also consider the ends as well. Anyone with even a basic background in psychology will recognize that Obama is an uber-narcissist. He has a desire to rule, to conquer, etc. John Galt didn't care about ruling - he wanted the laws of selfishness to rule.

I like the thread idea, but it is very easy to demonstrate that any such similarities as you are attempting to equate are erroneous by any standard. Thanks for keeping us on our toes, however!

Not so. A process is a means to an end. Every process contains a morality in and of itself, as do the ends. Those who espouse that only the ends (and not the means) are subject to moral evaluation are the collectivists who seek to ignore individual rights in the name of the collective.

Both means AND end have a morality independent of each other. It is the reason why Galt did not sabotage other producers of electricity - he merely withheld his inventions. Same with Wyatt, D'Anconia, and others. Their means was not to impede the progress of others, but to allow the consequences of their own actions to bit them in their collective behinds.

Take a look at most of today's collective agendas and you can see the defunct moralities at play in not only the ends, but the means as well. Take abortion for example. Margaret Sanger - founder of Planned Parenthood - openly proclaimed that her goal was eugenicist in nature: she sought to destroy anyone of color and so bring about a master race consisting solely of white people. And her mentality has been embraced by many. It is fact that most abortions are not of whites, but of blacks - to the tune of more than 250 million so far in the United States alone - and all with the sanction of the Government.

Obama's taxes are yet another example. He institutes them claiming that the rich "haven't paid their fair share", but whom do they penalize in fact? The poor who can no longer find jobs because the "rich" have no more assets to invest! Minimum wage laws follow the same pattern.

In your example of the revolver, however, you cite only a part of the process. The process does not begin with the round being fired, it begins with the trigger being pulled - by a person. WHY the person pulls the trigger is going to be based on morality.

I agree, they would not develop something just because it would benefit the world. They would have done it because it was a benefit to themselves and the world would have been better off.

Obama has done a lot to stop the motor of the world. Right up there with FDR