Roark working in the quarry was similar to Tesla digging ditches.

Even though Ayn Rand left the Soviet Union, which some might consider an escape, in "We the Living", her first novel, which, I read somewhere, she described as "the closest thing to an autobiography that she will ever write", Kira's attempt to escape is not the central plot. The novel is primarily a vivid, realistic (I can personally testify) and utterly condemning description of the life and the society shortly after the communists take over.

In my opinion, shrugging into the Gulch is not an escapist plan. They all want to cause a profound change in the country and the only method available to them is to hasten and precipitate an economic collapse.

As I recall, Ayn Rand did not say that it was neces-
sary to escape. Not yet. Of course, she died 33
years ago, and things have gotten worse since
then. She named certain conditions under which it
would be "time to quit." I don't think we have
reached that point yet, but we must fight, and
fight hard, to keep from getting there. But
I just do not think Trump is the answer. Praising
eminent domain, getting chummy with Putin...
what's next?! No, I'd rather have Cruz. He's
certainly not ideal, but he has shown a real dis-
position to fight on the Senate floor. And at
least he's not a blowhard cross between Ross
Perot and P.T. Barnum.

Coming here to make a good life is what made our country great once. I am not really thrilled by the intolerant and violent dogmas of Islam tho. Bin Laden was of means too

The original question was not the statement that you replied to.

Why do you think Rand used escape as a device for plot resolution in Anthem, We the Living, and Atlas Shrugged, but did not do so in The Fountainhead?

"A device for plot resolution" is indeed a device, and is not a central theme. The central themes are well-known. (1) Individualism versus Collectivism, (2) Man against the State, (3) The Mind on strike.

Lwinn did not suggest escape as a central theme. As much as I admire your insights, this was not one of them.

I agree. Well said. See my comments below.

I never felt that way, and neither did my parents, wife, or child. My mother told me about Atlas Shrugged, though she never read it, actually. My wife had read The Fountainhead just before I met her. Of course, our daughter would be in accord with all of that.

That said, our daughter also did the math, and offered to buy us a condo near her when we are too old to fend for ourselves. She said that it was the least she could do in return. But she offered: we did not ask.

That is the difference between benevolence and sacrifice.

Here in Texas, two families of Syrians entered from Mexico. They found the border patrol and turned themselves in. They had paid $50,000 each to be smuggled in. These are people of means, producers.

No. As I said, he had other options. And he was not looking for "an honest job to work his way back up." Architecture has all kinds of work that pay better than being a laborer in a quarry. He was waiting for the right kind of person to find his work and find him. He also did not want to work at a good-paying job in a purchasing department where his efforts would benefit his detractors and destroyers. For him, the quarry was a kind of strike.

But the altruistic standard is being applied. Oh these poor people. We must help them because they are weak. Listen to Hillary. It's disgusting. You want strong and productive people in the lifeboat, not weak and frail

That is a physical threat and should not be allowed. That and the collectivist "only let in people who we think will contribute to society" is a the false alternative currently being promulgated. Neither covers the innocent individuals who have a right to emigrate to a free society (not for welfare).
.

I don't want card carrying muslims with their wacky intolerant and violent leanings

A reverse refugee out of the pan and into the fire?

We don't say who can come but there is a national debate on it right now being framed in a false alternative.

The world's greatest put-down.

As a practical matter, I have little or no say as to who comes here. The popular reason to allow refugees to come here is a very altruistic one- let in the ones who are worse off. I dont think it is proper to force people (me) to pay for them and settle them in with welfare.
Our standards of immigration are set up by mob rule of the majority. They are what they are.

Immigrants are typically discriminated against when they first come, and its up to them to prove that they can be productive members of the society. Thats not going to happen with muslim refugees from Syria, in my estimation, but who am I to judge. If it gets too bad, I will just move somewhere else.

The concept of 'escape' can be strained to include all kinds of actions, but the straining avoids essentials. "To someone who only knows how to use a hammer everything looks like a nail." 'Escape' was not a theme or central plot device throughout Ayn Rand's writing.

The response was to your post on who should be allowed. Now you say you have no say in it. Which is it? Are you discussing the criteria for immigration or not?

No, they cannot come just by buying land. They are either allowed into the country or they aren't by the standards of immigration and of temporary entry into the country, whether they own, rent or are nomads.

You can assess what you think of them or anyone else, but what you "feel" about someone is irrelevant to their rights versus being a physical threat. The conservative criterion that has been circulating, based on "contributing to the country" to the satisfaction of others, is a collectivist standard.

I am not even sure that I have any say in whoever moves here to start with actually. I guess if they can buy land from someone already here, they can come. That said, I would certainly feel better about an immigrant if he brought something positive to the community. Hence the comment about money, intelligence, and interest in working at something productive.

well said

It seems to me that ignoring is a kind of withdrawal, abstention from conversation, or confrontation, or interaction of some kind.
Escape to me means removing oneself form within the range of control or from power reach of somebody or something.
Two different concepts, I agree.

Why should this extend to your parents? Surely you did not ask for parents, and did not willfully enter into the relationship with them... While it may give you personal pleasure to assist your parents, and if doing so makes you happy, then doing so is for your gain. Do not make the mistake of thinking it is their right.

As for the spouse and kids, I agree. By an measure, you willfully entered an arrangement with a spouse, and it goes with the territory. With minor children, you caused them, you care for them. Again, you may enjoy that, which adds bonus value to your life, so good. Once they cease to be children, they should be capable of self care, and if not, it should be your responsibility to correct the problem, and not anyone else to take care of them, unless that person enjoys doing so to the extent that they believe it is worth the expense to them. While I'm sure your kids are lovely, I have no desire to support them, so make sure they are capable of self support and care. I'll do the same with my kids, and maybe some day we can sit around an old folks home and when other complain about their kids, we can remind them that the child has no objective obligation to the parent. (however, it would of course be my hope that I've been such an awesome parent that my smart and capable children are filled with joy to visit me and find that a relationship with me continues to add value to their lives.)

"Escape by ignoring" is not an escape. If you can simply ignore something there is nothing to escape from.

The primary qualification should be immigrants seeking to live as American individualists in a free society regardless of how smart, industrious or rich they are -- and not those who pose a physical threat coming for welfare in whole or in part, spreading disease, or seeking to overthrow American government for sharia or socialism. Those who meet that basic requirement are coming by right as individuals who have the same moral rights as human beings regardless of where they are, not to "improve our country" which is a collectivist standard.

He didn't escape. There was no confinement or external threat to escape from. He couldn't find customers to remain in business doing what he wanted to. He was driven out, but did not give up. He took an honest job to work his way back up (and as arranged for in the script to meet Dominique under a great contrast in social position). A plot requires conflict. That doesn't make it "escape".

yessir! -- j
.