Replies

On your answer to question #1, I see your point. And could agree with you, that IF that were his only weapon he would be justified in using it. But that's the rub isn't it?

I can't see holding yourself up in the Highlands of the Rockies, while the rest of the country goes down the shitter, as a particularly noble thing to do. Where would we be today if Washington and the boys just headed west to open up new territory and declare a new country instead of fighting it out east of the Appalachians. And in the process the 66% of the country ambivalent or opposed to the war being left to the tender mercies of the Red Coats. They didn't because they understood sacrifice for a cause greater than themselves

On your answer for question #2 I think there is a qualitative difference between soldiers dying in battle fighting for freedom and people getting crushed in a war of attrition by the productive elite against the looters. I see this as if I burned down my shop with some of my employees inside because I have the tax looters trapped inside also. I admit an imperfect analogy but you get my point. There are innocent people in Rand's world that are just trying to make a living. She pretty much rolls over them on her way to Nirvana.

My final point is that question #1 was a personal preference sort of thing. I would, personally, have trouble following John Galt. I get the feeling he would sacrifice all his troops to the last man to destroy his enemies. Sorry, but my guts and his glory, as they say, makes for a bad leader.

Thanks. I found this round of answers a little more explanatory than the previous ones.

I can't see holding yourself up in the Highlands of the Rockies, while the rest of the country goes down the shitter, as a particularly noble thing to do.

I take your point but have two points of disagreement. First, he isn't holed up in the Rockies 11 months of the year. He's lived in a shitty apartment on a track worker's wages for 12 years when he could have had a better standard of living by going along, and the vast majority of those he's persuaded to take an oath to shrug are living out in the real world as well.

Second, different enemies take different tactics and strategies. Just as the war on terror can't be fought using the same techniques that might have worked on 3 million Russians pouring through the Fulda Gap, so the most effective weapon against the looters may simply be to withdraw oneself from the field, or at least to withdraw one's brain from the market. I'm not saying this IS so, I mean the "maybe" quite literally.

There certainly is, but nations know there will be collateral damage, and while they try to minimize it, they will still fight a fight if they have to, even knowing that. People who defend the nuclear bombing of Japan often say that doing so saved not just countless American lives, but countless Japanese as well.

I see this as if I burned down my shop with some of my employees inside because I have the tax looters trapped inside also. I admit an imperfect analogy but you get my point.

I think the analogy is somewhat flawed in the sense that if you were Galt and you had any good honorable workers, you'd probably have convinced them to shrug, so there would be none left in the factory except those believing in the looters way.