I would say that your evaluation was right on the money. Repealing 10-289 would only have delayed the inevitable...maybe. Also, since we all know that absolute power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely, John would've had to refuse, regardless.

Like all of the looters, Thompson's offer was simply so John Galt would do "something". I believe that Galt's corrective actions would have been allowed (with the exception of reducing government and taxes), but the world would still have ended up crashing, because the underlying cause was not being addressed.

It's been several years since I read the book, but that is what I remember about it. Dagny kept fighting the collapse because she loved her railroad. All the while Galt, Francisco d'Anconia, and Ragnar Danneskjöld believed a collapse was required.

Mr. Thompson was a jellyfish. If you asked me to cast an AS movie with the Greatest Actors of All Time, I'd cast John Fiedler (Vinnie in The Odd Couple) as Mr. Thompson. I mean, look at how he blew it when Floyd Ferris suggested a euthanasia campaign? It was Ferris who wanted to apply torture--and summary execution on a grand scale. Ferris got off on that kind of thing. Mr. Thompson just thought he could cut a deal--until he wound up between two men (Galt v. Ferris), neither of whom was really interested in dealing with the other.

That's the Catch-22 of Libertarianism. You need to take governmental power in order to remove governmental powers. That irony in my opinion is one of the reasons we don't have more liberty or objectivist-minded politicians.

True... I think that the possibility that Galt would repeal all of their bad decisions could not possibly occur to someone like Thompson. My other thought was that Thompson knew Galt would refuse, and thus would have an excuse to torture him. But I don't think Thompson was smart enough to play a bluff.

if the choice would be given to me...I would take it on the condition that 90% of govt would go away...and all taxes abolished...Thompson's goons would never honor that....

I think Galt realized that you can neither lead nor follow and remain true to the principles of Objectivism. The people had to find for themselves that 10-289 was akin to what the UN would put in place in this country, given the power. Much like an alcoholic needs to hit bottom to begin repair, so too did the structure of society. As we are seeing from today's socialists, denied the ability to implant Marxism, they continue to fight for something which is self-defeating.

I saw it as the only way to show them definitively, that they would fail epically by taking away the Value Creators as punishment for their stupidity.

Once it all collapsed...the free market would rebuild the economy by it's virtues alone.

He wanted no part of their vision.

First, Mr. Thompson did not mean that offer in anything approaching sincerity. He would never entrust John Galt with the power to repeal Directive 10-289. What Mr. Thompson had in mind was someone to take over the functions of the Unification Board and directly micromanage all factories, stores, and whatnot. It would be like Nikita Khrushchev saying to the staff of Gosplan, "You're all fired. From now on, Ivan Galt will tell us what to do."

John Galt surely knew this. And as if he didn't know it, he tested Mr. Thompson. "Start by abolishing all income taxes." "Fire your government employees." Mr. Thompson balked at both. That's when Galt asked him whether he got the point or not.

That's why Galt laughed in his face. But of course he wanted to see the collapse. Remember: he and his fellow Triumvirs were prepared to see this through for generations if need be. The collapse took far less time than any of the three could have predicted.

Bingo

I think Thompson truly did not understand freedom. He was offering Galt absolute power in how to control the economy how he saw fit. He was not offering him absolute power to control it or leave it alone as he saw fit. Galt asked to leave it alone and Thompson said no. The offer had limits. It had to have a role for government leaders. In Thompson's mind that went without saying, so he was being honest in his over to turn it over to Galt supposedly with no restrictions.

To me, Galt's response to the offer has to be 'No'.

In power, Galt could repeal 10-289 but the gang would balk at measures that would chop their incomes. In the public view, Galt would have responsibility, but he would not have real authority.
Things take time to recover. Putting in bad people and getting bad results is fast. Replacing bad people and after that waiting for recovery is slower. So let Thompson get the blame for his errors.

Second question- Why was the offer made?
Thompson did not offer to stand down, and take the wrecking team with him.
He thought either- Galt could turn thing around and that he, Thompson, will claim all the praise.
Or, he does not think that but putting Galt in control (nominal) buys time to make more excuses (blame the Russians or the usual suspects).

Living your own life and ruling other people seems to be a contradiction.

Life under a "benevolent dictator" or monarch is still slavery of producers. Individual liberty, free markets, and very limited constitutional government frees the producers to create products that free people will voluntarily trade for.