Taking over the broadcast would have a tremendous effect (if even possible to do today). But I just can't imagine anyone I know, particularly being caught unprepared, that would listen to the entire thing. In the book, you can read some, then set it aside, absorb it and then pick the book up and continue or even re-read. But to sit and listen for that length of time--I just don't see it.

Virgin comment, in that I wanted to respond without reading the other comments first. This being something I've been tossing around in my head for 50 years.

IMO, The Speech is almost totally irrelevant to the book itself, and yet. not.

Long day on commenting online, exclusively in this great site, so I'll keep it short (I hope):

In total honesty, I've always "spread the word", for the most part, by saying to those I thought rational: "Read this book, Atlas Shrugged".

But I also said, "read the story, don't feel obliged to read the speech in full, the story is the point".

I still stand by that.

I have read the entire speech in retrospect. After all of Rand's non-fiction...so informative...to a degree. In truth, just a precursor to her brilliant later non-fiction works...

But for a first-reader, a fictional "average" listener on the radio in the book, or a movie...

No.

[edited for clarification]

hey kevin. This link should explain. Note: David Kelley is commenting in this post. http://www.atlassociety.org/open_objecti...

Yes, it would be great to have the text, because I cannot remember exactly what was said in the movie.

Perhaps you should read a little John Locke. Have you read any of Rand's books?

Actually most libertarians start their whole philosophy from the non-aggression principle, which causes no end of problems.

The vast majority of people have no idea where their underlying philosophical concepts come from. I see this all the time, where people have absorbed some philosophical concept such as Utilitarianism and yet do not know it. So what.

Not everyone has to understand genetics or natural rights for us to profit from it.

No, he is not being a rationalizing animal. A bear is an omnivore animal. If a bear is fed only meat, that does not make bears carnivores. You are confusing the specific with the concept, which was my point in the first place.

This is a common technique of the left. For instance, show me your inalienable rights - where are they - people in North Korea do not own themselves. It is a purposeful category mistake.

I'm sorry. Please explain.

I've been hearing the term "self-ownership" for awhile now. Never really saw it defined, but it sounds good. It really does.

Finally someone who can explain it means.

In particular, how a "principle", not to mention a "foundation", has no philosophy behind it?

I understand the definition of what rationalizing is, but it is incorrect to say humans are rationalizing animals. Rationalization is only possible for an animal that has reason, but it is impossible to reverse that situation.

I disagree with this. Libertarians build freedom using the principle of self-ownership as its foundation, and it works well enough. A philosophy helps some people, but it is not strictly necessary.

Unfortunately, I doubt that it would have much im-
pact if delivered over the radio. In a book, it's dif-
ferent. One can read parts, and then go back to it
and resume later. I read the speech before I read
the rest of the book. ( I was an adolescent, and
although intrigued by Ayn Rand, was afraid of
her, because I feared her philosophy would shat
ter certain cherished delusions I held. It did,
but gradually; I learned not to be so afraid and
hurt by that fact). I looked at the speech in the
library,but would not check the book out for a
while. But I finally did. But I still liked the
speech, for the way it lambasted the evil. On
the radio, to an audience of today?--I don't think
so. But then,in that situation in the book, where
the people had expected to hear more B.S. from
the dictator in charge, and find he is temporari-
ly shut up; maybe. Of course, some would have
Eugene Lawson's reaction.

Too many people now have video game induced - attention deficit disorder to read through or listen through Galt's speech. Oooooh! Shiny!

to your first point, have you ever watched a Jesse
Watters segment on O'Reilly? . most people in a
TV audience, say, would have no clue about who or
what causes them to have food, except plastic. . and
an exploiting employer. . maybe.
and your second point -- no chance. . they can
hardly, most of them, connect one sentence with
the next. . and I love most of these people, y'know,
as a member of the finest nation on earth. . way more
than half of our population is beyond the reach
of a rational approach like Galt's. . there must be
another way.

that's why I love the story which I just edited -- the
"fly-over" population decides to pull their States
out of the U.S., taking away much of the food and
water. . the others, deprived of food and water,
become desperate and beg for help. . these left-
and right-coast States decide to join the new U.S.
with its new constitution and laws, to re-integrate
the nation. . so,,, the u.s. is saved. . by force. . it
took force to get their attention. -- j

p.s. http://www.amazon.com/Unsustainable-Tuck...

Sadly, Galt's speech would not have much impact today. Many listening would not understand hardly a word of it. Others, will have too short of an attention span to sit through it. Many who read A.S. are stymied when it comes to Galt's speech. If, on the other hand, you are thrilled by the speech and the book, you belong to an entirely different breed. But you are also a breed apart, a minority who place reason and freedom above everything else.

Greetings DavidKelley,
First let me say I very much enjoyed the extras you provided on each of the DVDs. If people who have the movies, but did not check them out they are missing out.

As for the Galt speech, I remember thinking, how long is this going to go on, but felt a great deal of satisfaction once completed. I would still pay for an audio version of the entire thing read by Mr. Polaha. If your scenario was played out and Obama's State of the Union address was interrupted in such a fashion, I for one would be glued to the set. I might be among too few, but I would see it as the greatest "three..." hours ever to have interrupted the usually scheduled programming. World changing... Just to imagine the detractors puling their hair out. :)
Respectfully,
O.A.

That would be very interesting to read. Thank you!

I first read Atlas in high school, and, like Snoogoo, I turned page after page in the speech waiting for the dialog and action to resume.

Brief interlude, since I'm kind-of new here: I’m David Kelley. I work at The Atlas Society, which I founded, and I worked with Scott and others on the film adaptation of Atlas. I’m glad to be here as a participant in the Gulch!

I agree that the speech wouldn’t work today, given its length and philosophical depth. Maybe not even in the 50s when it was written. On the other hand, you have to consider the novel’s context: The great producers have been disappearing, society is collapsing, the government is totally corrupt and everyone knows it—and here’s a guy who shows up out of nowhere and explains it all. Imagine in our world if Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel and others disappeared mysteriously, Silicon Valley looked like Detroit, we were in another, even worse financial crisis, and then some unknown genius took over the airwaves during an Obama State of the Union address. I can just barely imagine this—for an hour, maybe, though not for three….

Anyway, I like Snoogoo’s idea of a condensed version. We faced that challenge on the script for the film, Atlas Shrugged Part 3, where the speech had to be super-condensed. I’d love to hear comments on it. The script of the speech and comparison with the novel are in a book we published, Atlas Shrugged: The Novel, the Films, the Philosophy (on Amazon), in a chapter called “Scripting the Speeches.”

If anyone’s interested, I’ll see whether we can make that chapter available to Producers.

When Galt gave his speech in AS, the U.S. was in chaos, production of goods was basically shut down, and the people were literally starving to death. I can only hope that our current fellow-citizens would wise up before we reach that point.

Yeah, its a real challenge to garner support when most people have been steeped in non-objectivism for so long. I think at this point its better to talk to them where they live- things like waiting for hours in Venezuela to buy toilet paper because no one can afford to make it with the government's regulations.

Hello dbhalling,
I am only vaguely familiar with the term "closed objectivism". Started to research it once, got distracted and never got back to it. This is the first reference to it that I have seen in a few years. Can you point me to some information to research the subject?

My point was that the speech would not have any impact if given in real life, today or any other time. I think that's a direct answer to the question which was asked.

I understand your frustration but I disagree. Starving Americans, to whom Galt's speech is addressed, would listen and "get" enough. As Rand once observed, the "common man" in America is singularly UN common.

Agreed, but you're missing the point of the question. The question wasn't whether it had an impact in a fictional story. The question was, since it is so needed today, would it have any impact if given today. It's a hypothetical study. I have a pretty good grasp on the difference between fiction and reality, but thanks for clarifying.

The speech is philosophically correct.
It is outside the average citizens level of learning today.
The philosophy that you are referring too does exist; it is known as OBJECTIVISM.