turn of which century?

yes, I think objectivism is a utopian philosophy. Like socialism, it requires people to hold certain views and values in common, and to behave in certain ways and not others.

That's why my first post here was if they'd let people like me into the Gulch. I don't take things as given. I'm industrious and creative, but I have absolutely zero zilch none nada interest in business. It bores me.
As a teen my brother was fanatical about cars; for me they've always been nothing more than a way to get from here to there. Likewise, there are people who want to gear all of society around acquiring money for its own sake ("all I want to do is make money") . Sure, Rearden wants to make his metal to *earn* money. But he makes the metal to earn it. He already has bazillions; why would the dollar value of his metal matter to him if the craving inside him was to create, rather than to make money?

For me, money is a way to keep my belly full, a roof over my head, and a means of acquiring computer toys. It has no value to me on its own, not even as a benchmark of 'victory'.
Yes, I want to produce; but only because I am compelled to create. The story I'm working on, and hopefully the ones that follow, won't be created to make myself the next Rowling. They'll be created because I *must* create, somehow; I also *must* tell stories. I'll try to sell them because I *must* eat. But the need to create is what drives me, what preserves my last remaining virtue.

Suppose nobody in the gulch wants to buy what I try to create? I'll have to spend my time on doing work somebody *does* want done in order to acquire the money to eat and keep a roof over my head, while continuing to ache with the need to create.

I'd be better off in the gulch under those circumstances... how?
And how long before I became a disruptive influence to the peace and harmony of Vaal, or Landru, or Omicron Ceti III (Star Trek TOS references, Google them), or Galt?

I now wonder if Howard Roark (The Fountainhead protagonist, not Eddie's father in Roarke's Drift) would be welcome in the Gulch.

Oh, btw...

You haven't seen me rant.

:facepalm:

I'm not interpreting it. That's called "sarcasm".

And I think Rand's quotation is paraphrasing Chauvin. I think.

The point is that y'all are trying to paint this big, smart, powerful bazillionaire (significant because he was smart enough to acquire the bazillions) is a poor, picked on victim because he married a woman who holds values which he not only disagrees with, but won't understand.

My last attempt at an analogy:
Francisco sold shares in the San Sebastian mines to people who had no knowledge or understanding of the copper business. They got hosed, and none of the protagonists have any sympathy.

Hank entered a relationship he didn't understand, wouldn't put in the work and research to make it a success, and got hosed.

Orrin Boyle didn't have the foresight to buy his own iron mines, so no sympathy for him when he can't compete with Rearden.

People are two dimensional, not one dimensional; one axis is reason, the other is emotion. Hank is almost squished against the reason axis; Lillian is almost squished against the emotion axis. Why is she more responsible, why is she more culpable, why is she a worse person, than he? He spent 10 years neglecting her. You spend 10 years neglecting your car and see how long before it breaks down.

It doesn't *matter* that she doesn't share his values; he was not drugged, he was not brain damaged, he was not mentally ill when he entered into marriage with her. Either she became what she is in the course of their marriage, or she was always what she is and he shouldn't have married her. If she became in the course of marriage, he *must* accept some responsibility for that. If she was already that way, he *must* accept all responsibility for it. Because he freely entered into the marriage.
If I buy a turd knowing it's a turd, I can't complain later that it's supposed to be a candy bar.

They're not anti-Hank rants. They're balancing rants. You place everything on Lillian. All Hank has to do is show up (when the mood strikes him) and she's supposed to go along with him (when he wants her to).

You're absolving him of all responsibility for his decisions and actions. I'm not talking about screwing Dagny; I'm talking about 10 years of being distant and distracted and obsessed.

Lillian *was* trying to make the marriage work. She had learned (apparently six months in) to live without the emotional engagement and attention which were hers by right.

"Dear Hank, Why did you give 4,000 tons of Rearden Metal rails that I contracted and paid for to the Phoenix Durango railroad? Love, Dagny".

Is Dagny wrong to be outraged that Hank gave metal that was rightfully hers to a competing railroad, just because he felt a bond with Dan Conway that he just doesn't feel anymore for Dagny?

yes, that's sarcasm, and an attempt to put it in terms you can understand.

Only because you didn't know mine... :)

My point is, just because Lillian and Hank had different views of and goals in life didn't mean he was a victim and she an oppressor. Marriage has conflict in it. You don't ignore it and/or throw it away just because of the conflict.

It sounds to me more and more like Hank married frivolously, and you want to protect him from his foolish decision...

Yes. Words mean things; don't say them if you aren't willing to stick by them.

But, in fact, I've already established that I'm not that strict; no schtuping the Taggart broad til AFTER the divorce.

Okay, he can break his vows, stay married and bang Dagny... and surrender his integrity. Or, he can get a divorce and *then* bang Dagny... and keep his integrity intact.

Khalling brought my parents into this (and for obvious reason they're on my mind today), so let me share too much again (blame khaling):

My parents met, dated 3 weeks, and were married for 50 years. The stereotype is that they were blissfully happy and of one mind for all those years. In the words of a famous wordsmith... bullllllllllllllllllllllllshit... there were plenty of fights, even separations.

December of 2000, after he passed away, my mother was *devastated*. I was totally shocked by her reaction. I could name the times in my life I'd seen her cry on the fingers of a hand; before she shut down, she had huge, long crying jags. I won't go into some of the things they said about and to each other during the hard times (and they sure weren't bazillionaires where their only conflicts were over what dessert to serve at their anniversary parties), but a lot of hostility was traded. I remember having Thanksgiving dinner with my father (1973?) at the Holiday Inn, because they'd had a fight and he'd left, and I tagged along to try to get them back together.

One time he was working in sub-freezing weather with the flu; when he got home, she peeled his frozen (filled) underwear off and put him to bed, worried sick herself.

He came home from a convention or some such drunk one night (this was before they had kids, and he was *not* a drinker). In the middle of the night he's hugging the toilet, calling to my mother for help, declaring that he was dying. She marches into the bathroom and tells him, "Any grown man who goes out perfectly healthy and comes home like this deserves to die." and went back to bed. HE was the one who told me this... more than once... with amused admiration in his voice.

(aside; Meg Ryan's definition of "love", from the movie "Addicted to Love": sitting up all night picking maggots out of your dog's butt so he won't die. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33rn0-2sB...
That's the only definition of love that ever made sense to me.)

The only time I ever saw my father truly frightened in my life was when my mother's gall bladder had exploded and she had to undergo emergency surgery.

So maybe I have this high freaking standard for marriage because I had a high freaking example to judge by.

I repeat, blame khaling. She's the enabler.

With... or to?

Yes, I understood what you meant. Again, the blackmailing, the banging of James, all happens after he gets involved with Dagny.

And so what if his wife was frigid? Maybe her uncle mo got a little grabby when she was a kid, or maybe she's gay, it doesn't matter. Was he on mind-altering drugs when he took his wedding vows "for better, for worse"?

my point in saying he was a heartless money-grubbing jerk was that it was as true as the statement that she was (inherently) a wretched bitch.

I get it, I really do. He can do whatever the hell interests him, and she's just a peripheral in his life, and if she's not interested in molding ores into metal objects, then she's a wretched bitch and he's a victim.

"If the public good means that I get nothing for my efforts, that I have to be a *victim*."
Well, apparently Lillian is the public good, since poor picked on Asperger Hank was her victim.

You are removing Hank from all responsibility for his behavior in the marriage.