One leads to total collapse, one leads to rebuilding

I believe you attribute a sense of humanity to him that he doesn't have. I believe it his desire for destruction that motivates him. Period. His "third worlders and his oppressed" are tools used to achieve his goals.

good analogy except for one thing there will not be a rebuilding as Galt would have liked. I also think using 0 and Galt in the same sentence is an insult to Galt.

"Due process" is not value neutral. The "initiation of force" is also a process fraught with value considerations. Processes are value dependent. I do agree that "intent" is where the value evaluation (!) begins.

No. Barack Obama is Mister Thompson. Our fellow travelers elected Mister Thompson.

I always felt it would take a runaway Constitutional convention to produce the kind of system that would elect a Mister Thompson as Head of the State, and a unicameral Legislature that would pass the kind of Bills we hear about in AS. Sadly, that turned out not to be necessary.

The real John Galt would be one who said, "Let us all down tools and earn a subsistence wage only." Until Midas Mulligan retired to a place of refuge that could function as a working town.

I will provide a counterexample. President G.W. Bush got attacked because he would not condone the use of aborted fetuses for stem cell research. Consequently two groups (most notably Ishikawa's from Japan) developed a way to induce pluripotency into adult stem cells, effectively allowing one to turn one's own stem cells into a state consistent with when one was in his/her mother's womb. Now one can ethically do stem cell engineering. The process one chooses does make a difference; there will usually be more or dangerous byproducts to a poor process choice.

I cannot agree. Any process you would care to name is value neutral. The process whereby a a round is fired through a revolver has no connection to morality in and of itself. Any moral judgment depends entirely on the intent of the shooter

Yes. Was it Karl Marx who said 'the ends justify the means' ? Experience tells us instead that the means determine the ends - what you do leads to where you end up.
There is this thing called- noble cause corruption. The high minded set out to improve the world, decisions are made with emotion not reason. The outcome is disaster. With a bit of cool thought it could have been predicted. The so-called ideals turn out to be some device that benefits only a small special interest group.

I agree about the brain drain and its impact, I had the same motivations moving from the UK to Canada years ago. I could see the EU slowly smothering its member countries. But most people make those choices following their own self-interest, rather than having such a grand plan as Galt's. Though as I said, the grand plan works well in the context of a novel.

I really like this comment, romcentee. +many points

Process and morality are intertwined. Galt would have lost the moral authority to lead the Gulch if he had committed sabotage and if others knew that he had committed sabotage. I took "devil's advocate" on this topic a couple of weeks ago and got reamed.

One glaring (but not the only) difference between John Galt and the great and powerful O.....

John Galt removed the most productive to force society to a crossroads. They could either keep up the corruption and collapse OR they could reform and recover.

The great and powerful O removes all choice. He will destroy anyone or anything that interferes with his goals, desires or whims.

So I disagree strongly...

On an ethical basis they could not be more different.

The goals may appear the same on the surface but all the underlying motivations and intent are completely opposite.

Very good.

2 separate processes for two entirely separate ends. One driven by the philosophy of the rights of the individual, the other by the desire for destruction to make room for his third worlders and his oppressed.

Obama has no desire to rebuild the US nor to let a corrupt society collapse on it's own. His intent is simply to destroy, and he imagines that the '3rd world' and the down trodden will then have room to come to the top and have their turn in the sun. Obama's justification is hate, Galt's was the morality of life and achievement.

Big differences. No comparisons.

Indeed, and you've nailed it.

So, you think there is no such think as reality based ethics or that JG was not acting on that basis? I presume this is the case by your comment as you act as if JG is a megalomaniacal subjectivist.

Galt's mission was achieved by getting the Reardens and Dagnys of the world to stop fighting a no win battle and let the inevitable happen. Obama won't be successful because our Reardens and Dagnys et al are still in the fight.

Obama is not interested in rebuilding nor does he have any remotely sound plan to do so. He is not a man of principle.

Sounds like a gulch to me. :)

That is the most bizarre headline I have ever seen. Galt was a radical extremely ethical mover of the world. Obama is utterly unethical and will fade to nothing much after the next election. Everything Galt stands for is almost completely opposed by Obama. Obama is Mr. Thompson..

"Process" is the "how." How things are done are rife with moral questions, to wit: earn $1 million or get it for murdering a baby. The "product" is the same; the process is either moral, or not, as in "due process," for example. Check your definitions.

What does process have to do with morality?
Galt had no need to rebuild. He wanted to have complete ownership of the productive output of his mind.
Obama desires the unearned ownership of the productive output of others' minds.
There is no similarity here.
Check your premises.

Two different (one moral, one immoral) processes to the same end: the need to rebuild.

Obama is actively trying to destroy America. Galt merely took his and other productive minds and stepped aside leading the non-productive corrupt society to a collapse caused by their own contradictions.