I only have a couple brief observations to share. I’m mainly interested in others’ perspectives because every now and then on this sub I see someone compare Musk to Rearden and it makes me cringe; I want to know if any objectivists actually think they are similar and why.

My two cents: whatever context you want to present Musk in, one fact remains: he is one of the single biggest beneficiaries of government contracts and regulations in the United States. The U.S. government awards SpaceX Billions of dollars in contracts, and it also practically subsidizes the electric vehicle market with regulations that favor owning EVs. These deals with people in Washington allow him to draw a very significant part of his wealth straight from Americans’ tax dollars. He is the biggest looter I have ever seen, more like Jim Taggart than any other person I can think of.

Presented without commentary. Enjoy!

So this book came out recently. Anybody read it? It’s mainly a science book, but one written through an Objectivist lens. Looks cool! 🙂

The word "objectivism" is problematic. People who have only heard leftist screeds against Ayn Rand think that it means we think we have a perfect, objective view of the world. Those who worship at the alter of Peikoff think that they have a monopoly on the use and meaning of the word, and are busy redefining it to mean "whatever Ayn Rand Thought as channelled by the prophet Peikoff".

So, forget that. I'm following Galtism: The philosophy as taught by John Galt in the Book Atlas Shrugged.

Now, of course, I don't worship Galt. This is a philosophy, not an ideology or religion.

But this also means that Rand's non-fiction writing (much of which is illogical, contradictory, or confuses her personal opinions and biases for philosophy) is not relevant.

I swear by my life and my love of it, I will not live for the sake of another man, nor have another man live for my sake.

Thus, the Peikoff demand that you must believe exactly what you're told to believe is right out.

The non-aggression principle is in. Which means that libertarians (defined as "people who believe in the non-aggression principle") are our allies-- as they've always been. This means all galtists (as all objectivists really already are) are libertarians. (and of course Peikoff and Yaron Boork who advocate genocide against millions of innocent people are out as well.)

This means that you must use your own rational judgement to the best of your knowledge and abilities to decide waht's right for you. And that nobody, not even Peikoff, has the right to dictate how you live your life, what are you like, what food you eat, etc. etc.

And above all, it means think for yourself. Don't submit your mind, mindlessly, to the opinions of others.

But when you disagree, pursuade. Provide argument. Provide argument backed by facts and philosophy-- not a claim that some other person believed something.

"Ayn Rand said..." or "Peikoff said..." or "[some book by either of them] said..." is an evasion of critical thinking-- it's telling the other person they should live for the sake of Rand or Peikoff or the writer of the other book.

I've given up on getting "objectivists" to think critically. I welcome all Galtists to declare themselves along with me.

I'm omnipedia, and I'm a galtist.

A lot of today's trash in the culture came out of leftist queer spaces on college campuses in the US where LGBTQ people had been crazy discriminated against and were never ever given the space to exist as who they are in the main society and no philosopher ever stood for them and championed their cause...

Left on these college campuses have them all these hedious collectivistoc ideas based on class hierarchies, power structures thereby preaching them to self sacrifice and work for the commune.. they basically reinvented Marxist and postmodernistic bullshit in this hetetro -racw based class framework and the whole world is now paying for that..

I honestly think it is foremost the grave error of Philosphers including Rand and then of the objectivist to have never taken their cause and fought for them for rhte same reason you would want to fight for any unfair socioeconomic system... I say this in the spirit of how Ragnar Danneskjöld.in atlas shrugged fought against injustice (in that case it was for capitalism) bit one can argue one can use the same principle for standing for any and every objectivist principles and fight for any kind of injustice including racial and LGBT in this case... So I think it is a moral failure on the part of objectivists also to let it happen and never give ideological support to this cause, thereby giving space to the evil leftist ideologies to take over the political vacuum..

I think still LGBT people probably are in the MOST need of an individualistic rational philosophy that validates their individuality including their sexual and gender identities and advocates for pursuing reason even to face their harsh climate and try to find a purpose in their life, if at all possible...

And after having read through so much about objectivism, I feel nothing else can ever come close enough to save them... And there is a reason to save them for the same reason there is to save any part of humanity, else it will be a moral failure of objectivist intellectuals to never care for them when they needed them the most...

In that spirit I want to open this channel and hope that there will be more objectivist who really care about these ideas to understand this crazy social issue, see how left has absolutely taken over and destroyed theeor culture, whose effects we not just limited to the LGBT people but to everyone and we are seeing the aftermath of that in the rest of the culture as well... And the only way to save everyone is by looking at this particila issue philosophy with the same passion or even more as objectivists champion for capitalism. I think economic injustice is still of less importance than human political injustice, and the latter needs much more attention...

Idl if it will really kindle anyone but my hope is there are still active thinking rational souls who are passionate about objectivism and want to make the world a better place based on its ideas and will do that in this capacity....

Yes I'm gatekeeping now deal with it 😎

EDIT: There has been a lot of good arguments for and against. And I would like to alter or clarify my statement based on that input. Elon Musk as an industrialist, inventor, entrepreneur, and an autodidact, he is LIKE Henry Rearden. With his collectivist political beliefs and his whim worshipping public attitude, he is most assuredly NOT LIKE Henry Rearden. I won’t posit either that he’s a perfect example of a Randian hero. However, I do still admire aspects Elon Musk like his industriousness, and self-mastery of engineering and technical concepts.

I’ve seen a bunch of comments saying Elon Musk is James Taggart or Orrin Boyle. I disagree. There isn’t a perfect comparison, but I posit that Elon is actually much closer to Henry Rearden. And here’s why:

1. Musk has the inventor/industrialist mindset. He’s has pioneered technologies in electric vehicles, space craft and exploration, and renewable energy. His companies are progressing faster than older, more well established, better funded, but bloated competitors.

2. Musk seems to excel in things that convention wisdom says is impossible. SpaceX’s renewable rockets and Nueralink are evidence of this.

3. Musk is often ostracized from conferences even though he’s an industry leader. A little while ago, Tesla wasn’t invited to a summit at the White House concerning electric vehicles because Tesla doesn’t have a unionized workforce. Even though Tesla is responsible for 74% of all EV sales in the US over the last 3 years. He also has Starlink, which would be perfect for connecting people with high speed internet in areas where they normally couldn’t afford it and it hasn’t been awarded a dollar.

4. Even though Musk has received government funding over the years, he has criticized excess government regulations towards businesses and would rather not have excessive government interference.

5. He’s risked his personal wealth to achieve his goals. He works long hours, and sometimes sleeps at his factories. He slept in a custom trailer/tiny home he helped design while working at SpaceX.

There are definitely differences. He’s active on social media and has a very public persona and Rearden didn’t. And Rearden rejected all government favors and subsidies. Is it a perfect comparison? No, of course not. But can anyone think of one person who aligns better with Henry Rearden?

Great conversation about Elon Musk and whether he's an Ayn Rand hero. They talk about his productivity, DOGE, with clips about risking both his main companies to lose neither. They even talk about his belief we're likely living in a simulation.

They also try to untangle what's going on those who claim to be Rand fans but hate him, presumably for his politics. Excellent discussion with the always great Sunny Lohmann. She found the opening clip from Yaron Brook which is really something else!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIMSeH65_oY

BlackRock is an asset management company, and perhaps the most hated company in the country (I know Elon Musk is controversial, but he receives the hate himself, rather than any company). The reason why BlackRock is hated is because it’s good.

As objectivists, we know that the self is the standard of value, and selfishness is virtuous. Think about the other options, if you held another person as the standard of value, it would be immoral to eat, because whatever you view as the standard of value deserves the food.

The most heroic thing you can do is to make a profit in a capitalist country. Under capitalism, you cannot force someone to buy a product or service (some people say you’re forced to buy food, water and shelter, but these are requirements of life, and not something a corporation forces you to buy), so when you buy something, it’s because you value what you are receiving more than the money it costs. While I understand we do not live in a fully capitalist country, the subsidies and aid from regulations BlackRock receives is minimal.

If you are producing value, and enriching yourself through trade, how can you be called anything but heroic?

I've gone from thinking the Libertarian party was very close to the correct political platform to realizing their entire platform is garbage except for their economic philosophy and social policy. While the Republicans are generally a bunch of socially backwards religious morons who always seem to compromise important principles, their political platform and philosophy as such is largely correct, far more so than any other major political party I've ever heard of.

I agree 100% with the economic and social policies of the Libertarian party.

However, I favor a big, well-funded, expanding military, military intelligence, and foreign influence.

We should chase terrorists to the ends of the Earth and annihilate them. We should take down any dictator, country, or anybody else that threatens our interests as we please, and get everyone else on our side with every combination of positive and negative incentives we can bring to bear, etc. As far as I'm concerned America has been and should be the shining beacon of freedom, opportunity, justice, and overall righteousness on this planet, and everyone else can either rise to our demanding standards or be prepare to have their leadership replaced with those that will.

I have several other problems with the current Libertarian party platform, but that's the main point.

It's largely moot at this point as Obama's entire agenda is to break down the integrity of all those principles which make us morally superior, destroying American exceptionalism and making us just another failed European socialist tyranny among all the others in the West - and apparently the American people are ready to put that kind of leadership in office, repeatedly.

btw, feel largely the same about Israel.

"We are asking- no, telling- the Israelis that they must dance with Palestinians and the Arab world. Let's be more succint. We are telling these Jews, that have contributed so much to society and have elevated our culture to heights unknown with their contributions to art, philosophy, medicine, all the sciences and virtually every endeavor known to man, that they must sit down with the very barbarians that threaten to annihilate them in the name of God." - Sigmund, Carl and Alfred

So I really want to watch Cloud Atlas, however having the full experience of reading Atlas Shrugged is more of a priority. I read through ~300 pages, but want to start the book over in a couple months and read it through and through. In the meantime, will watching Cloud Atlas hinder my Atlas Shrugged experience?

In case you believe it matters, I've read The Fountainhead and am familiar with objectivism as a philosophy. Thanks, all!

EDIT: A friend told me the movie was based on Atlas Shrugged, and I didn't want to read the synopsis out of the fear of spoilers. He was obviously incorrect. Thank you for the clarification!

If Romney wins, we will finally be able to test the hypothesis that electing Republicans will bring us liberty. Maybe it really is that easy-- vote in Republicans and they'll roll back state intervention.

But if Romney wins and the hypothesis is proven false, would those libertarians and Objectivists who currently subscribe to this belief change their minds? Or will they make excuses to allow them to hold onto this theory in the face of contrary evidence?

As for me, I'll accept whichever side the evidence supports.

Is this what Rand was talking about when she said US is and has been the greatest nation in the world?

And is this what objectivists also think what the greatest nation looks like ?