thank you

This should have been done in the year 2002

One slight correction: the U.S. Marines were created in 1775, even before the Declaration of Independence. The action against the Barbary pirates brought them to the world's attention as a unique military force.

While Atlas' underpinning is Ayn Rand's philosophy, it is still a work of fiction and like any Good fiction it contains multi-faceted flawed characters. My greatest criticism of The Fountainhead, for example, is that Howard Roark comes off a bit too god-like. This might also be said of John Galt, but we really don't know him as well as we do other characters in Atlas. To me, that underpinning is what makes the novels so uplifting and illuminating. It makes you want to say - If Only.....

Sometimes it just comes down to kill or be killed.
Eat or be eaten?
allosaur may be my moniker but I don';t want to go there.

Regarding the OP's original question, I don't see how one can answer "no" without giving up the right to self-defense or abandoning military protection in wartime. Which particular assaults on one's rights justify killing the aggressor is open for debate, but not the fact that under certain circumstances it can be justified.

That is clearly false. In the story, NT was strongly disliked for his values - the very values an Obj.ist would hold. So his haters spread the rumor that he murdered someone.

If you know anything of Rand, you know that no crime - let alone murder - is moral unless committed in self-defense.

i would prefer thermobaric bombs...kills anything that breathes...

i am with you...

I think any country or people within a country attack the US (let's say 9-11) then we should do the same thing that Madison did, instead of sending in ground troops. That is bomb let's say the capital of the country (perhaps with Napalm) until they promise to never do (allow) that again.

If it is the only possible form of self-defense against someone who has initiated force against you, then it is fully justified. Physical force has multiple forms. Passing a law that declares you a criminal for living morally results in you being punished for your virtues. I could envision a situation in the world of Atlas Shrugged where killing would be justified, but the world of Atlas Shrugged is fiction; a metaphor for a possible world future, and a warning. While there are similarities and unfortunate parallels with our world, we aren't there yet.

No. In fact - by asking this seminal question, you expose the flaw in Ayn's philosophy.

Bit of history - Remember Ayn and her family escaped pre-revolutionary Russia (likely a good thing) - escaped a group of thugs and looters who believed so strongly in the "Make them submit to our will or destroy them" philosophy that it carried from before Ekaterinberg all the way through Dzhugashvili to Gorby (and possibly beyond)...

So killing those who stand in your way - and having Dagny revere this trait in her grandfather - is (in a VERY strange paradox) having the objectivist heroine of the book embracing perhaps the most of anti-objectivist's traits - to become a destroyer in the manner of her grandfather. TO me - that is about as un-objectivist as one can get - Destroying rather than creating.

Thus, it is sometimes better to remember that, while Atlas IS a life-changing book (it certainly changed mine!), and within are the gems to lead a successful prosperous and objectivist life, it is above all a work of fiction... And while Objectivism in its purest form is great philosophically, you should base your life on logic and rationality, rather than hook line and sinker out of a book by a fiction author.

Near the end of Atlas Shrugged, Dagny shot a guard while helping rescue John Galt.

I think that it depends on what is done to you. If they stop you from marketing a product, that does not rise to the level of needing to kill them. However, if they threaten to kill me, then I have no issue getting rid of the threat. If that isnt PC, then so be it.

On the other hand, would I defend someone like Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or Obama if someone else attempted to kill them- HELL NO.

agreed. I am tired of being politically correct and tolerating Muslim craziness at my expense.

Retaliation for acts of war or aggression are not murder but survival coupled with revenge,. If we do not protect ourselves and our loved ones, we deserve to die. Killing killers is not a deterrent but a sure way of eliminating repeaters.

If this is to be believed, there are a LOT more than that: https://youtu.be/g7TAAw3oQvg

Tricky question...I suppose it is just as valid to protect the life of one's self as it is to protect the lives of many...but I wonder, at what point does one's actions or intentions become a threat likened to the loss of life objectively.

I also wonder if Rand just exercised her own secret wishes into print.

YES, we advocate when necessary use of the atomic bomb!

when muslim pirates in the 19th century intercepted our shipping to europe and killed those aboard, President Thomas Jefferson created the Marines and sent them to Tripoli, where the pirates were operating out of to "kill every man, woman, and child" who supported the muslim pirates...the muslim pirates sued for peace...based on what the muslim religious terrorists we doing today, the same practice needs to be instituted against muslims terrorists and their families today...it will be the end of our civilization if they do not get the message loud and fatal...there are over 1.2 billion muslims in the world and over 30% think the muslim terrorists are justified and in their actions...that is over 300,000 millions individuals that need their minds changed...it will not be easy...and those who volunteer to go where necessary to deliver the message must be free to prosecute the message to minimize their risk of death...but anything short of eliminating the terrorists, the women who birthed them, and future terrorists will only allow the problem to exist at peril to our peaceful existence...

Dagny said only that she knew how Nathaniel Taggart felt about it, if he did the deed, and not to test her on that. She also knew jellyfish James would not question her.

On the other hand, when Howard Roark destroyed the Cortlandt project, he took care that he should kill no one. Hence asking Dominique to decoy the night guard away.

Not really. I do note, however, that there are folks out there that seem to "need killing".

I don't think so. Too many looters already have the idea that if someone stops them from getting what they want it is OK to kill them. If a creator (Objectivist) does the same thing, it becomes impossible to tell the looter from the creator.
A creator will find a way to do what needs to be done inspite of the looters and will succeed.
If you haven't read it, read The Fountainhead.

we would have to agree on what the "use of force" entails. in Rand's time, I think she would have said it is not complete tyranny if we have free press. the tipping point is, looking at police and government over-reach, have we reached it? I still accept the rule of law