I just finished re-reading the second half of the book for about the 20th time after hearing what senator warren wants to pass as law. It is very hard to choose a favorite part of the whole book. BUT if I had to it would the scene where Dagny, Galt and Francisco are standing on the hill in the Gulch. Dagny dicscribes how she would build a Railroad from Franciscos mine to the rest of the valley. My second choice would be Francisos money speech.

True. its like a never give up thing. Not sure what he was actually talking about, though. What is possible, and what is mine?

best part of the book was p.454 the trial of Reardon when he thinks: "after a journey of years through a landscape of devastation..."

I've been telling people for years that separation of state and economics is a must. Interestingly, most seem to agree.

Yes, very true. It was true to all business owners in Rand's book. They knew their business inside out.

Today's business "leaders" are more PC conscious and their main interest is to have a golden parachute.

I have two favorite parts. First would be when Dagny invites a "tramp" that she found on her train to have dinner with her. During the dinner this so called tramp gives the best, and I do mean the best rebuttal to Communism that I have read or heard. Then my second favorite section was the Thanksgiving dinner at the Rearden home. Hank finally let his family.have it.

If you understand Rand's message that it is only a small percentage of the population who represent the engine of society (such as Galt, Dagny, Rearden, D'Anconia, Wyatt et al) then you understand Galt's speech and whom is it aimed at?

Politicians voice this simply enough that most often sounds like slogans. The fact is that the "engine" is on what the large population depends, on what they build (even though Obama thinks they did not build it) their lives on.

At the time of Rand it was necessary to formulate what capitalism is? Have you heard one of the lectures by Branden when he talks about how Rand defined to him what capitalism was? She asked him: "Do you believe that a human being has the right to exist?" Branden: "Yes". "Do you believe that he has the right to exist for his own sake?" Branden: "Of course. Otherwise it would be by permission." Rand: "The political implementation of that idea is capitalism."

That is why it was necessary for Rand to spell out all aspects of that principle in Galt's speech.

Having said that, Francisco speech on how money works comes in second to Galt's.

As for the novel's adaptation to films, none of the three sequels give credit to the contents. They were poorly made and superficial (although I don't blame the authors, they had very limited budgets. But the actors practically ruined the contents. Same is true for "Fountainhead". Cooper was too old to play the role of Roark.

The part when Francisco visits Rearden at the mills before the trial. He comes close to getting Readen to abandon all, until the siren goes off. Anyone who has ever been ridiculed for ideas or inventions that went against the tide. Anyone how has faced condemnation for being different. Anyone who had ever had their beliefs critized can relate to that conversation.

“All your life, you have heard yourself denounced, not for your faults, but for your greatest virtues. You have been hated, not for your mistakes, but for your achievements. You have been scorned for all those qualities of character which are your highest pride. You have been called selfish for the courage of acting on your own judgment and bearing sole responsibility for your own life. You have been called arrogant for your independent mind. You have been called cruel for your unyielding integrity. You have been called anti-social for the vision that made you venture upon undiscovered roads. You have been called ruthless for the strength and self-discipline of your drive to your purpose. You have been called greedy for the magnificence of your power to create wealth. You, who’ve expended an inconceivable flow of energy, have been called a parasite. You, who’ve created abundance where there had been nothing but wastelands and helpless, starving men before you, have been called a robber. You, who’ve kept them all alive, have been called an exploiter. You, the purest and most moral man among them, have been sneered at as a ‘vulgar materialist.’ Have you stopped to ask them: by what right? — by what code? — by what standard? No, you have borne it all and kept silent. You bowed to their code and you never upheld your own. You knew what exacting morality was needed to produce a single metal nail, but you let them brand you as immoral. You knew that man needs the strictest code of values to deal with nature, but you thought that you needed no such code to deal with men. You left the deadliest weapon in the hands of your enemies, a weapon you never suspected or understood. Their moral code is their weapon.”

I would put an "and" between those two thoughts.

We should restrict the federal government and the state governments a whole lot more and impose beheading's! when they breach our trust or at least put them in a stockade on the White House Lawn...

If all we get is parasitical humanoids to man our governments then we will have to treat them as such...

True. There is a reason I have this part of his speech on my fridge. It really speaks to me.
"Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark in the hopeless swamps of the not-quite, the not-yet, and the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish in the lonely frustration for the life you deserve and have never been able to reach. the world you desire can be won. It exists..it is real..it is possible..it's yours."

Yes, but for some reason the mental image of Ellis's fire was the first to come to mind. I always see Ellis as more hardcore than most.

Maybe the test of real wisdom is to act on it simply.

When Dagny meets John Galt. Best part of any book ever for me.

Yeah. The constitution was a real set of compromised ideas, just like happens today. Its like herding cats. We got what we got, its better than living under a dictator, but isnt perfect by any means.

Great question, you all have good answers and prompt me to read it again again but for me the time in the valley is far and away the big climax.
A community free of moochers , a real utopia surrounded by the worst of us outside the magic image machine. COOL and I still think it's doable but time is running out.

Most of the book really spoke to the application of her philosophy to everyday life. When it came to Gals's speedh, I thought it was boring and I skipped most of it. Its an accurate description of Objectivism to be sure, just anti climactic given the rest of the book. By the time one got through the book, one pretty much knew how to run ones life in practical terms.

hope...

I have 2 favorites
One is the money speech, and 2 is the story
of the twentieth century motor company
Wayne

I think we will if we see a significant cleaning of the swamp.
It is difficult to realize while it is necessary to distract the guilty while evidence against them is being gathered.

I enjoy the philosophical but it is said the test of true wisdom is to state it simply.
I agree but somewhere along the line it looses it's profound impact.

Hmm. Sounds like McCain refusing to be released because his ancestors were famous soldiers. I say, thats pretty stupid.

Same with John Galt. Why help your captors?

Its really important to know what money really is. The lack of this acceptance fuels the horrors collectivists make us endure all the time.

True enough. Given that were all born into a very intellectually inconsistent culture, most of us are not 100% rational ALL of the time. It takes a lot of work to change from the emotionally driven child to the brain driven adult. Talking about things helps us all to accept reality more fully, and to understand our emotions and what they are based on.

If there were a god, I would tell him that the design of humans is not very good if he expected us to be rational beings.. The strength of emotions are probably turned up a bit too high, such that they get in the way of thinking more than needed.

History is full of examples where emotions are treated as primary, and thinking secondary (like with the liberals of today)

As I read AS out loud to my wife we both commented numerous times how descriptive Rand was in "painting the scene" for us. Then later I spoke to a neighbor who is a literature prof
He hadn't read the book but knew the critics were not fond of her writing style.

Breaching the separation of business and government...should have been in the constitution.