The Taggert family in Atlas Shrugged had the usual aspects of traditionalism (not described in detail), but was by ordinary standards a much better than average, successful family, not something that supported or encouraged the James Taggert mentality.

Dagny and Jim were opposite philosophical archetypes in romantic fiction, who made opposite choices under the same circumstances among the best typically available.

But those choices were not made in an intellectual vacuum; they chose from among ideas passed on to them by the culture. In that sense Jim absorbed the worst -- and ran with it to an extreme. Each of them had to choose what to be. Jim made the choice to 'absorb' the worst and follow it to its logical conclusion, not through his own 'logic', but the logic of the nature of his premises.

Perhaps I do not understand what you mean by "abstract philosophy." If you mean dissecting the errors in Immanuel Kant, then, no. If you mean an abstraction as the unity of two or more concepts, then yes, you can teach abstract philosophy to a child who is young enough to speak.

Children do not have all the rights of adults by their nature as lacking ability to exercise them. They gradually acquire rights until becoming adults.

I agree that it was easier to melt sulfur on the stove and pour it over a Lincoln cent than to explain the theories of all that -- even if I understood them well enough myself. So, my daughter got a lot of science experiments and not much science theory. That said, though, children have an amazing capacity for learning and understanding that adults often do not appreciate. I delivered a demonstration to my daughter's kindergarten class on electricity and magnetism with balllons and magnets and said repeatedly that gravity is lot like that, too. That we fall down being attracted to the Earth. And with a needle on a string circling a magnet, I said that is like the Earth going around the Sun or the Moon going around the Earth. The adults were puzzled. The kids were not.

I did write this:
Hey, diddle, diddle
The Excluded Middle
means that A cannot be non-A.
It's either-or and neither-nor;
and A is always A.

( I don't think it ever sank in on that level. On another level though, she was always an "A or non-A" kid, Never a middle ground with her...)

Hard to say. I know one kid well. I am not a teacher. And I don't know any teacher who unxderstood Objectivist epistemology. So, I'm in the dark on that.

Perhaps it would serve us both and us all well to think through the civil rights and civil liberties of an individual in society. For example, I believe that the right to vote should include a knowledge test. In aviation, we have a standardized test bank of like 1100 possible and they ask you like 110 drawn at random.

"I am sorry for your loss" is such a cliche, a mechanical response, but there is not much else that can be said.

The other side, being "happy for your gains" is not much better.

I am intrigued, though: personally interested in your story. Thank you for opening up and sharing it.

So, thanks for clarifying your views on trust. It is a two-way street.

I agree 100% that children make their own choices. That speaks to their having a range of rights based on their range of choice and action.

I am not sure that you can say that Dagny came from a "good" family. Oh, I am sure that they were all right and all that... but James only absorbed and acted out the bad side of that family: the religion, the social do-gooding of the rich, the governmental entanglements "necessary" to business. (Mouch was Rearden's lobbyist.) Dagny absorbed the other side, the self-confidence of judgment, the pride in achievement, the social graces based on self-esteem, the love of machinery and for that matter household efficiency. (She could sew on a button.)

The idea that you can "raise your child to be an Objectivist" is ludicrous. We teach by example and children choose.

I will post here later in a different topic how I raised my daughter. You should feel free to share your experiences and outcomes as a parent.

I disagree. I will say, there was one time when my daughter was about 2-1/2 when she went out sleep walking. I heard her get up and I heard her in the living room. I watched her put on her winter coat and boots and go out the door. So, I followed of course. But I did not interfere right away. We got almost a mile. She walked up to the neighborhood library we went to often. She trotted right along, those little feet... Anyway, I finally caught up with her asked her where she was going. She had no answer for that and I carried her home.

So, no, a child cannot always just leave home. But in Ayn Rand's day many children did. A child of 8, 10, 12... who makes up their mind could do so successfully. Our society is a bit different. We have very few jobs that children can do. But, you know, a lot of adults have only a grade school education and they do quite well. I work with one or two in an engineering fabrication shop.

Moreover, in his early days, Herbert Spencer said that chidren who work and pay taxes should vote. A child's rights are not A or non-A. Back in 1966 the song said, "You're old enough to kill, but not for votin'..." Age of consent for sex, age of consent for marriage, drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco... And the free market recognizes that: car rentals are generally unavailable if you are under 25. Try being 23 and suiing for your "equal rights" to rent a car... or run for Congress... But a 16-year old can drive. Our public library made the 9th grade or age 14 the cut-off between a children's card and an adult permit. Adults had different check-out privileges (more books; stiffer fines).

Just sayin'... A child's rights -- or anyone's -- are not a matter of exclusive disjunction. Life is a process.

Hello Mike! Good to know you are well.
The expression to not trust me, initially, is an invitation to earn it mutually.

That being said, these "kids" mentioned above are not my biological children. My two are dead, each less than a year old. Along with this I've had many an opportunity in mentorship that verges on the step-dad role. The worst results have been one murdered and another committed suicide.
I have 5 beautiful young women age 18 to 27 who are going to be phenomonally successful pursuing their happiness. Every few months I get a call or text on a point of altruism / capitalism perspective.
Most recent was an apprentice in my shop, grandson of a friend. Had him on suicide watch for about 3 months in late 18 (4 of his peer group of 25 have taken their lives in the past 8 years). When I moved out of MN to WI this winter he had to seek other employment....got a call 2 weeks after he found such. He was surprised by how much he knew.....and the enthusiasm of that value has blown away a self esteem issue he's been dealing with.

In 2008 I had a brief episode. An upwelling of sorrow / rage / bewilderment of intensity that shall never repeat. The losses.....and I made a choice: They are all mine.

This past Sunday I had the fortune of sitting with four youngsters at the marina I joined. 17 to 24 years old. "What do you think of this present global situation?" I asked. The responses were not too varied, yet collectively involved mistrust of source of information. We spent an hour in exploration of how to possibly vet a source and validate it. Sure is not taught in contemporary early education. They were involved in making critical decisions on perception and how it affects their lives. They also ignored the little electronic chirps from their devices.

These wonderful young people, even in the midst of dire circumstance, engage with me because I care deeply for my happiness extended to theirs.....it's a process. I don't know exactly how I do this. I just seem to be the process.

The parent has to live the principles convey the meaning gradually. Teaching abstract philosophy to young children is not possible. But more can be done with increasing age.

Good additions. She obviously did care about children and their development.

Not having patience for a public school doesn't make a child a "hoodlum", and not liking the school does not tell a child what to do; being against something doesn't tell you what to be for. He may or may not turn into a hoodlum.

The prime example of rational parental influence not being sufficient and a child becoming what he chooses to be is the difference between Dagny and Jim Taggert growing up in the same good family.

Children do not have all the rights of adults. A young child cannot simply decide on his own he wants leave a family to go off on his own or join another family. There would have to be good cause based on some serious dereliction of the parents and a court decision allowing it. Other family members like grandparents, cousins, etc. have an easier time of leaving, if warranted, by right.

Troll.

What principles are those? (I admit that my question is rhetorical. I mean, as a parent,: (1What did you define as the principles of Objectivism? and (2) How did you apply them to raising your children? and (3) How did you teach your children to live by them?

(I will deliver my answers later...)

I am not sure what you mean by the "expectations of society." I do agree that the the matter is bilateral: parent-to-child, as well as child-to-parent.

The metaphysical fact is that children did not ask to be born. They are brought into the "contract" against their will. It is hard to understand what could be binding on them. At least, that was my understanding as a parent. The process of raising a child is in some contexts analogous to the emancipating of an inherited slave.

Like you, I am a parent. In that, we are unusual here.
"I qualify with: Do not trust me or trust I am telling you the Truth."
Not a tack I would have taken. Trust is extremely important, however much I encouraged indpeendent thought and action. Far short of blind faith or obedience, I was always cognizant of my responsibility to be trustwortthy. But that was, perhaps, personal with me. You took a different view of the matter.

So, if I may ask, how old are your children now? My daughter is 40. I have had plenty of opportunity to see how this plays out.

"... well-behaved children in families were mentioned as part of the life the Valley." Yes, but she had a soft spot in her heart for hoodlums, the kids who with too much energy to be corralled by a public school. You might suggest that having rational parents will create well-behaved children. My experience as a parent is that children make choices. If they were "well-behaved" when Dagny saw them, it was only because their manners were "glued on well" (as Francisco would say).

I think that if you consider the biography of Gail Wynand, you will find quite a bit in there about a child who makes rational choices based on principles. Contrast Dagny and Eddie as children, and then both of them against James.

You summarized that well, as always. Allow me to add that she did endorse How to Raise a Brighter Child by Joan Beck. She also endorsed the Montessori method Banesh Hoffman's The Tyranny of Testing. Those and more significantly informed my choices for raising our daughter. Ayn Rand gave a lot of thought to the problem. A passage in Atlas Shrugged about the horrors of irrational philosophy sets the scene with a mother carefully measuring formula. It seems unimportant -- except that Ayn Rand never left anything unimportant in her work.

Obligation to care for children once born is 'binding' until they are adults. Remaining in a bad family is not. Spouses may divorce and others may move out at will.

Children were not arguably improperly covered in the novel. Many things were omitted or not emphasized in the plot because they were not required for the purpose of the novel.

She was 'pro-choice' because she recognized the right of the individual to choose not to bear children either at a particular time or ever. A chosen obligation as a consequence of choosing to have children is not a duty to have children whether or not one wants to.

"Pro choice" in general -- the rights of the individual -- is a consequence of morality based on the necessity for standards in making rational choices to live one's own life -- the virtue of selfishness.

Ayn Rand did not "forget about children and families". Selfishness does not preclude having children, the right of abortion does not mean anti-children, and the "arrogant" label is a gratuitous slur.

If you read the responses, it will become more clear to you. She rarely mentions them and was pro-choice... i think a more honest answer is this:

She was selfish and arrogant.

Thank you all for the answers!