Atlas Snubbed author responds:

Hi again, khalling. Pardon me if I disagree: Intolerance and rancor are not subjective; they're actual manifestations of a value. Yes, that value can be subjective, but it can just as well be objective.

For example, Many people are intolerant and display rancor when it comes to certain minorities. In many (all?) cases, such a reaction can stem from subjective values. On the other hand, intolerance can also stem from objective values, such as the strikers intolerance and rancor for what they call "the looters world".

And that was my point: the strikers in Atlas Shrugged were extremely intolerant of their fellow men, intolerant to the point of hatching and executing a clever plot to destroy their world, as Galt did. That's the epitome of rancor, and hardly subjective--especially if it happened to be YOUR world that was destroyed--and even worse for moral innocents like Eddie.

There's no question Galt could have responded in any number of other, better ways. And that's what Atlas Snubbed is all about: a better way to implement an objectivist society without killing off millions of people. I can't understand your reluctance to take a look. To quote from my book, is it more along the lines of: “You guys seem to consider [Galt] some sort of god whose edicts are never to be questioned"?

I found no "refutation or denial" of Objectivism, just a good read with provoking ideas. If anything, I believe the story was an indictment of Collectivism which, for me, is an endorsement of Objectivism.

I do not see it as a parody, either. For me, just a "what the hell happened" with some issues with which remaining society members would have to deal.

I've read the Halling stories, loved them, and, being a "author" myself (nice romance, about an "individual's" "I'll do it myself" mindset and the interpersonal problems it causes -- Paris, Wyoming -- Kindle edition is the last version), I'm fully aware of "literary license" and the freedom (and problems) it can cause.

"intolerance and rancor" are judgement words and subjective. The philosophy is all about rational thinking and objective. No thanks-I can spend hours within the novel Atlas Shrugged and learn something new within minutes. Carry on!

Atlas Snubbed author responds:

Thanks for the kind words, JimJJ and BrettRS, but the lion's share of the credit must go to Ayn Rand. All of the innovations detailed in my book stem from her one key concept often called the non-aggression principle: you have the inalienable right to live your life your own way without interference, provided you respect the rights and property of others. All the political solutions in my book segue from that one philosophical principle.

Since you two have read my book, and in light of some other comments in this thread, let me ask: Did I misportray Objectivism anywhere?

Thanks again for the kind words!

Atlas Snubbed author responds:

Hi, khalling. I'd disagree that "[t]his post is antithetical to the mission of this Gulch", because I took great pains with my book to portray Objectivism as accurately as possible without distortion. Should you find an error of knowledge somewhere in there, please let me know and I'll correct it. Those who have read my book have seen how Eddie's actions are the epitome of Objectivism, except without the intolerance and rancor the strikers are famous for. Give it a read for yourself, then let's talk.

Atlas Snubbed author responds:

Hi, dbhalling. I was surprised to read that you "suggest you do not waste your money on this trash" (i.e., my book) when you apparently haven't read it. Your response calls to mind Rand's address to the West Point grads in 1974 where she posits, "[I]f you don't look, you won't have to know", and "so long as you don't know it, you are free to believe what you wish." You give the impression you're a philosophical brother of the stranded astronaut she spoke of that day. I hope that's not true.

Incidentally, it is NOT "a quote from the author's webpage" that my book "highlights many of the flaws in Rand’s Objectivist philosophy." Google the phrase, and you find that statement appears nowhere on my website. And although you quote someone else's website, I note you overlooked their very next sentence, which says, "overall it is a respectfully serious parody." If you do take a moment to read my website, you'll see that I say my book is "meant to be a tribute to Ayn Rand", that Atlas Shrugged is "the greatest novel ever written", and other similarly-nice things. In fact, my book is dedicated to Rand.

So you can call it "playing off of Rand's reputation", but I call it "an extrapolation, a sighting along the philosophical lines drawn out by her that end in some surely-unintended, yet plainly-foreseeable consequences." And if anyone chooses not to countenance those consequences, wouldn't that be "not objectivist"?

One last item: If "wasting" money is truly the issue, I'd be happy to gift you with an e-copy of my book so we can have an informed discussion of its merits or lack thereof.

yes, while admin snubs long time paying producers it is no accident that I predicted anarchos getting their foot in the door here. This post is antithetical to the mission of this Gulch.

What this book does is push an anarcho-libertarian point of view. It is not objectivist and the author's explicit purpose is to parody Ayn Rand. Here is a quote from the author's webpage "His latest novel, Atlas Snubbed (http://AtlasSnubbed.com), is an unsanctioned parody sequel to Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, and highlights many of the flaws in Rand’s Objectivist philosophy." I suggest you do not waste your money on this trash, which is playing off of Rand's reputation.

yea, I only own my property due to the kindness of the community respecting it. fabulous. give me jesus

Thanks for posting. I didn't realize this book was out there and I really appreciated your review. I look forward to reading the book!

I agree, Brett. Thoroughly enjoyable and engrossing read, caused some deep thinking, gave some rational approaches to how money would work in a local economy, how "justice" might be meted out by a "society" without government. I especially liked the idea of "can't,' that no person needs a driver's license from the state but if you misuse your freedom to drive, society can then issue a "can't drive license" which you can accept and stay in society or you can refuse and be exiled. Same with drinking: anyone at any age can drink, but if you abuse that right to the extent that it interferes with anyone else's person or property, you get a "can't drink" destination and deal with it as you choose.

Thanks for your review Jim! I also was engrossed by the book and thought it was brilliant, and a worthy sequel. His proposal and description of separating "state and society" was very innovative.
For those who wonder about what they will do or can do after a real collapse, it's also a must-read.