True to form or Right Wing Trainjacking? - Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011) Discussion

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] johnmichael-2 13 years ago

I'd say it was about 80% a low-budget and somewhat disappointing, if admirable, attempt to adapt the book.

There was, however, an unsettling bit of definite Tea-Party hijacking, especially in the closing John Galt monologue of the movie. Also in the extras and minor characters, who look like they were cast directly from right-wing Fundie churches.

What's the bet that, if they get to Part III, they cut out everything that disdains religion? The right-wingers wouldn't like that.

Proud member of SHREWS (Society for the Honor Required of Eyes Wide Shut)

reply

[–] gabby_bm 13 years ago

There was a closing John Galt monologue in the movie?

Please tell me where!

I only heard/saw John Galt maybe twice and neither of those times could even remotely be construed as a monologue.

I don't think that this film has any devotion to the right-wing any more than it does to the left. That's the ideology of Rand- it is a philosophy devoted to the human individual.

Frankly, why the right-wing crusaded for it is beyond me. Obviously they aren't familiar with the philosophy any more than the liberal detractors who, by all rights, should have been the ones crusading for the film as rand's philosophy is about as liberal as it gets.

Speak louder, Mr. Hart! Fill the room with your intelligence!

reply

[–] johnmichael-2 13 years ago

There was a closing John Galt monologue in the movie?

Please tell me where!

You didn't see him; it was a voice-over when the oil fields were burning.

Proud member of SHREWS (Society for the Honor Required of Eyes Wide Shut)

reply

[–] gabby_bm 13 years ago

Oh yeah! It was his "recruitment" pitch for Ellis Wyatt. I forgot about that. Man, I have got to see this again.

Speak louder, Mr. Hart! Fill the room with your intelligence!

reply

[–] TriumphReq 13 years ago

This movie like the tea partiers, seems to be advocating corporate power, or power of the few and the elite and then calling them individuals when they aren't and advocating that power over the rest of us who are individuals.

reply

[–] gabby_bm 12 years ago

But if you noticed, the "elite" weren't really forcing anything on anybody in this film. The real power-mongers were the thugs of the government enacting force and aggression against these individuals. So in that capacity, I don't really see this film as some sort of tea-party propaganda film. It reminds me a lot more of "Tucker: The Man and his Dream" and that film's protagonist's closing argument in court. (a far cry from what the Republicans or Democrats have been doing over the last 50+ years)

i don't recall if these businesses were standard corporate structure. I don't remember the film saying either way. But i can assume, in today's environment, these owners/bosses/CEO's were operating in a corporate structure of some sort- though they were still operating the companies they or their families had built (rather than the CEO of a soft drink company jumping to CEO of a office supply chain, jumping to a retail chain, etc.) these elite corporate leaders had a personal vested interest in the success of the company rather than setting up a golden parachute for their next jump.

I think there are two ways to read Rand. There are those who read it as a blueprint for society. I think that's taking in the wrong message and from what I can tell, the Republican elite who get behind her works don't really understand it well enough.

I prefer to look upon her works from a personal and individual perspective. Should enough individuals take her ideas to heart, society will take care of itself. In the meantime, one can live their life to their own fulfillment to the best of their ability. This doesn't mean one has to disregard their fellow man. Quite the contrary. it means one can work to fulfill their own ideals. That can mean hoarding all the gold you can. It can mean giving computers to poor African schools, promoting scientific and medical ventures or helping a family member get their college degree. Freedom allows a man to do as he chooses, living his life for himself.

And that is just one small but very significant aspect of Rand's philosophy.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] ninjagaijin 12 years ago

It's the philosophy of selfishness. I'm glad she died alone and miserable.

The new Atlanteans are scum.

Randists are scum. My 3rd girlfriend was one. She was also a Satanist. Just goes to show. I didn't know either of those things for a while. Randist, or Satanist, either way I run.

Altruism FOR THE WIN

reply

[–] keykeyx100000 12 years ago

I am a Conservative LIBERTARIAN who supports the 2nd Amendment and Tea Party.
This is not my favorite book, and I would appreciate if you didn't speak for me. You should also consider not associating the fact that you disagree with someone with how you believe they are. You seem immature when you do that.

I disagree with a lot of what liberals, progressives, and democrats believe, but I would never go as far as to call them idiots, or say they have favorite books without reading them besides glancing at a cover. Members of both sides are capable of being intellectuals and idiots.

There was nothing to hijack as far as the film is concerned, in my opinion. The characters and dialogue stay true to the book from their body language to delivered lines verbatim. I think that's what I enjoyed about it the most. I also like that it was "updated" to 2016, although not changing much about the concept of social welfare without budgeting or capitalism.

reply

[–] rball4042 12 years ago

The thing that you have to understand is that Ayn Rand grew up in the Soviet Union and experienced Communism first-hand. She knew the signs of a nation falling to Communism from her own experiences, watching Czar Nicholas fall from power. After coming to America, she used her knowledge of such events to fashion a future fall to Communism by America...one that we see unfolding before our eyes now. We are becoming the dystopia she imagined. Now, are we close to where the movie takes place? No. I am a Tea Partyist and I can tell you that Obama, while he may be looking to sink America, is nowhere close to the totalitarian government of Atlas Shrugged. However, Rand warns us that should we continue to follow the trend of electing radical liberals to office and adopting more radical ideals that America can sink to the depths seen in the book and the movie.

reply

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

her "knowledge" of communism was gained from age 12 to 20, which probably explains why her portrayals never get much beyond the traumatized teenage fantasy level.

anybody who even remotely imagines that obama is some radical liberal or is "looking to sink america" is operating on the same intellectual level as rand.

if anything, atlas shrugged shows how utterly inept a government run completely by and for business interests would be.

reply

[–] rball4042 12 years ago

OK, so, in your mind, a government that takes over businesses, repurposes them to serve the public equally and screws over the business owners, regulates business transactions, regulates business owners by limiting their ownerships of other businesses, freezes the national economy in place, uses the media to nullify public confidence in businesses, regulates the consumer by declaring economic martial law, and declares that "capitalism doesn't work" is run by business? Did you even watch the movie, phantom? Do you know how stupid you sound?

reply

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

uh, since all those actions were done at the behest of business owners, particularly james taggart, orren boyle and that gang, that pretty much indicates that yes, government has been taken over by businesses. none of the government policies had any input at all from "the people".

no, i haven't seen the movie yet (it's not on netflix yet, guess they don't have much interest in rushing this bomb onto the streaming service). but unless the movie is drastically different from the book, i'm afraid you're the stupid one here.

reply

[–] rball4042 12 years ago

A couple things:

1. James Taggart is a do-nothing piece of work that leans whichever way the wind blows.
2. Orren Boyle only joined Mouch's squad because he was promised by Mouch that he would run the U.S. steel industry once Rearden caved. He did it for greed and as a final screw-you to Rearden.
3. You have to see that Dagny Taggart and Henry Rearden are also big business owners that want nothing more than to control what they do with their own businesses. With the directive that limited the number of businesses that the rich could own, consolidation ground to a halt. The directive was passed only to hurt the last holdouts against the government taking over their businesses.
4. What Atlas Shrugged shows is that when you restrict capitalism to combat a stagnant economy, the result is a failure of the economy. Up until the Great Depression, the capitalist economy was thriving. Under the Depression, FDR took office and instituted hundreds of programs using taxpayer money in the New Deal to help "spread the wealth". However, the Depression only worsened as time went on. The Depression virtually disappeared in WW2, when, you guessed it, defense contractors and their networks of smaller consolidated companies were able to sell to the military and assist in the war effort. This, in turn, banked millions upon millions for the national economy, as the consumer, though they had little, could now feel safe re-investing in the economy. Business boomed, consumers got money from their investments, and the booming economy of the 1950s resulted. History has already shown us what capitalism can do when it is allowed to run with no government restriction. What Rand shows us is, in essence, what would happen to the national economy should the government turn to relentlessly restricting capitalism during a recession or another depression as opposed to allowing capitalism to jump-start the economy as in the natural procession of economics.

reply

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

a couple things back:

1) no he's not - he's very adept at making sure the wind blows his way. even though he's terrible at running his business, he's definitely a business owner and supports all the crazy new government regulations since they're to his advantage.
2) no, mouch works for boyle - at least initially.
3) strictly a business vs business battle, with those that have their hooks into the government able to use that leverage to their advantage. if even a single member of the gang was even semi-intelligent, perhaps they could have created a stable system. but all rand's villains are stupid (and ugly!) so that wasn't gonna happen.
4) atlas shrugged isn't about restricting capitalism, what it demonstrates best is that corrupt crony capitalism is a recipe for disaster. like that's some great insight.

your revisionist history on the great depression was pretty entertaining though. maybe you should go into fiction writing too and put out a sequel...maybe call it atlas sneezed or something.

for starters, if capitalism was "thriving" so beautifully, why was there a great depression to begin with? fdr didn't take office until three years into it, so blaming everything on his efforts to "spread the wealth" makes no sense. and you make it sound like creating jobs for people when the private sector isn't doing so, and there's no financial safety net like we have today, is an evil thing. you'd rather people starved in the streets? "get a job!" only plays when there are actual jobs to get.

ww2 was the most mammoth government spending program of all - employing millions of men in the military, and charging up the manufacturing industries making weapons & such. massive government deficit spending boosted the economy.

the 50s were prosperous for the usa because we were the only country not devastated by the war, had little industrial competition, and spent billions rebuilding the world economy. again - economic progress boosted by government spending.

yes, history has shown us what capitalism can do when it runs with no restriction - look at the late 1800s. that's why we have restrictions now: because business can't be trusted to do anything but what's best for itself. and that's fine, as long as there's some balancing force. you think times have changed? you really think that if bill gates & steve ballmer (to pick a few random names) had a free hand we'd have anything more advanced than windows 3.1 right now? dream on.

government doesn't relentlessly restrict business simply for the fun of doing so. any restrictions are supposed to level the playing field so that businesses can succeed on their merits while providing some degree of protection for the populace. the us government does a fairly decent job of that. if you really want to turn back the clock to the "good old days" of unrestricted capitalism and the option of working six 12-hour days a week or starving in the streets, i don't think you'll have many takers.

what rand's fictional story says is that if the government is controlled solely by people who are so stupid they practically need to be reminded how to breathe, then it will fail. not exactly a revelation, there. not remotely reality, either.

reply

[–] rball4042 12 years ago

Now I can agree with you on one thing: some government regulation is tolerable, such as the FDA in the case of food or drug products. Government INSPECTION and the government setting standards as to what is safe for public use is perfectly fine. That is protecting the people.

And we have a misunderstanding as to the FDR thing: I did not say that FDR caused the Depression (that would be impossible) but his programs DID drive us further into the muck. One thing that DID drive us into the Depression was that Hoover began to embrace some socialist ideals.

The New Deal was the real expenditure by the government and broke the Constitution through the establishment of Social Security. Social Security forces indivduals to surrender money to what can be compared to a federal safety deposit box, not allowing citizens to keep all untaxed money. This violates the Constitution in that the federal government can not collect citizens' money unless it is specified as a tax.

Also, during WW2, FDR initiated the Office of Price Administration, freezing prices of goods and only allowing people to buy certain amounts of goods. This program, although it helped the military by its rationing system, can be likened to Directive 10-289 in that it was one major step towards the economic martial law seen in the book.

Something that is very corrupt in today's society are tax "hikes", in which Congress authorizes the increase of general federal tax. Not a big deal so far, right? It is well within the right of Congress to tax. And it wouldn't be a big deal, however, the government exploits this loophole in the Constitution to use this money to fund government-sponsored welfare programs and other programs. If the federal government separated such taxes from the general federal tax, states would have the right to exempt such taxes.

Now, a major misconception among the Democrats is that business owners, in their greed, bank any money they get to keep through government tax cuts. However, doing so is economic suicide, as business owners usually use this extra money to help expand their business further. Anybody who banks the extra money is a fool, as their would-be equals have used their money to grow their business to outshine the fool, their competition. That's how capitalism really works, one guy using what they have to get the advantage on the other guy. This leads to lower prices through supply and demand, which benefits the consumer. If the business underproduces goods and sells at high prices, unless they hold the only business for the product and the product happens to be product is just that popular, they lose the game, simple as that. Had FDR allowed tax breaks or incentives for business owners that produced vital goods for the general population during WW2 and for all businesses during the pre-WW2 era, the economy would have healed much quicker.

reply

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

ok, so we're agreed that fdr didn't cause the great depression. blaming it on the rabidly anti-communist/anti-marxist/anti-soviet/pro-business hoover's so-called "socialist ideals" (which were...?) is a total non-starter. that pretty much leaves the wonderful unfettered capitalist system you're so in favor of as the cause of its own demise. fdr's policies attempting to promote full employment (an extension of hoover's stimulus attempts) were not remotely socialistic giveaways.

uh, the social security tax is a tax. so that argument is null and void.

during ww2 rationing happened - big deal. extraordinary measures for extraordinary times. nixon's wage and price freeze in 1971 would be a better example...and that was clearly intended to be a temporary measure.

your notion that government general taxes cannot be used for whatever purpose government sees fit to use them for is simply irrational. there's no constitutional restriction on what the government can spend taxes on. your knowledge of the constitution regarding taxation appears to be very weak.

since only foolish businesses don't spend all their earnings to expand for the sake of expansion, why are companies currently sitting on record amounts of retained earnings? did the entire business community simultaneously take stupid pills?

fdr allowing tax breaks for business owners to produce goods that people don't have jobs generating income which would allow them to purchase those goods would be a total failure. you can't buy that tax-incentivized new car if you don't even have money for gasoline. government austerity (which all these tax cuts would force) is a failure at jump-starting stalled economies.

and i'm not clear on how fdr allowing special tax breaks during ww2, when the economy was humming at top speed, would have retroactively healed the depression faster. how would that time travel effect have worked?

reply

[–] rball4042 12 years ago

I'm starting to wonder if you took one with Kool-Aid to wash it down.

Social Security is NOT a tax. It IS, however, a collection of money from each person's paycheck that is put in retirement funds for each respective individual. Social Security, because the money collected in the program is not used for any government purpose (as is the Constitutional definition of a tax), does NOT fit the bill of a tax and is therefore an illegal deduction from the consumer's paycheck.

The Republican Party does not in any way justify Nixon's price and wage freeze, or, for that matter, the majority of his policies, economic or domestic. We also don't approve of the Watergate BS he pulled either. The only thing we even remotely like Nixon for is his foreign policy (except Vietnam, I don't like him for the calls he made there at all). Otherwise, he was an idiot. And for the record, Obama bugging the Associated Press office and then covering it up is literally EXACTLY what Nixon did.

And, I seriously do not understand how you can't figure this out, but the reason companies are pulling down record profit is because of SUPPLY AND DEMAND. Prices drop, sales go up, companies bank more money, companies re-invest a lot of said money, business grows, prices drop, sales go up, I think you get the picture. It's called capitalism.

With FDR, when I say goods, I don't mean cars. I mean offer tax cuts to owners of offshore oil drillers so they can drill more oil and lower their prices to levels where the consumer can afford. Offer tax cuts to dairy, grain, and poultry companies so they can produce more food items at lower prices where the consumer can afford it. All you have to do afterwards is kick back and let the system in the last paragraph work its magic.

The economy, though it was in much better standing after WW2, was not completely healed. We were in more of a recession than a depression at that point. Had FDR done what I suggested in the last paragraph, the economy would have exploded by the end of the war.

reply

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

clearly you have no idea what social security is. first of all, it is a tax, despite your denial of the facts:

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), upheld the program because "The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way". That is, the Social Security Tax was constitutional as a mere exercise of Congress's general taxation powers.

secondly, social security tax revenue is not stuffed in a box hidden under the stairs for your later withdrawal. it's added into the general tax revenue, for use immediately by the government.

i've often wondered who the spokesman for the entire republican party is, thank you for taking on the job. i'm sure it must keep you very busy.

obama bugging the associated press offices is exactly like watergate? i'm a little confused though - what office was the associated press running for during the course of this supposed bugging? how is getting phone records (simple call records, no content) in the course of a criminal investigation the same thing as bugging a political office to hear conversations regarding opposition election strategy? where's the political similarity? where's the content similarity? where's the coverup similarity? non-existent, as far as i can tell. this is "exactly" the same because rush limbaugh tells you it is? ooooookkkkayyyyy! you might want to engage your own brain sometime, dittohead.

the nice little lecture on supply and demand is very...nice. it doesn't remotely reflect the current reality, but i'm beginning to think you aren't well acquainted with the concept of 'reality'.

so when you say 'goods' you don't actually mean, y'know, 'goods'. got it. i'm beginning to see a pattern here.... you still haven't explained how a person with zero income because they're unemployed can afford even the cheapest chicken. oh yeah, they're supposed to kick back and let the magic work for them. yeah, your entire economy runs on magic - that's a heck of a policy you've got there!

and i guess i'll just politely ignore your last paragraph since, again, it's not even close to the truth.

where do you get this nonsense? did you dream this all up while sleeping through history class, or do you have some stash of double top secret facts that are too dangerous for the general public to know?

or do the aliens just beam this knowledge straight into your brain?

reply

[–] rball4042 12 years ago

What's a dittohead? And where did you get that little pasted section? Wikipedia?

I'm not a spokesman for the Republican Party by the way, but I'm beginning to think you would make an excellent spokesman for the Obama administration because you make just as little amount of sense as they do.

I don't actually listen to Limbaugh either, for the record.

And I don't believe in aliens, but I must say they make for a good sci-fi movie.

Now I've been talking about how I think society should be, with trickle-down economics at the helm and a limited federal government (as the Founding Fathers intended it) and you've had your rebuttal. How about we swap places? You tell me what you think society should be.

reply

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

yes, that's from wikipedia.

since you apparently know what wikipedia is, i'm reasonably sure you can figure out what a dittohead is all on your own.

you certainly talk like you speak for the republican party, when it's convenient for you.

and i'm sorry, since you have such difficulty understanding common english, have minimal knowledge of basic history, and still believe in the laughable trickle-down economics concept, my saying how i think society should be would simply be a waste of both of our time.

reply

[–] rball4042 12 years ago

No, no, go ahead. Tell me. And I don't even get the common english dig.

reply

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

ah, you're priceless! so far in this thread you've said:

(atlas shrugged department)
1) rand knew the signs of a nation falling into communism first hand [as a 12 year old]
2) we are becoming the dystopia she imagined [no we're not]
3) rand warns us about electing radical liberals [no she doesn't]
4) in atlas shrugged the government takes over businesses to serve the public equally [no it doesn't]
5) james taggart is a do nothing who has no influence over events [but he does]
6) boyle works for mouch [when mouch works for boyle and jim taggart]

(real world department)
1) the usa economy was thriving until the depression [it was cyclical, as always]
2) the depression worsened under fdr [actually it got better]
3) ww2 caused poverty stricken consumers to invest in businesses [no, it didn't]
4) history shows what capitalism can do when unrestricted [more bad than good]
5) unrestrained capitalism naturally jump starts all economies [no, it doesn't]
6) fdr worsened the depression [the worst year was 1933, before fdr policies could take hold, so again no. the 1937 recession was due to tight monetary policy and/or decreased government spending to balance the budget]
7) social security is unconstitutional [the supreme court disagrees with you]
8) social security is not paid for by taxes [the supreme court disagrees with you]
9) ww2 rationing was like directive 10-289 [no, it was not]
10) congress is corrupt for spending taxes for the general welfare [no, it's not]
11) states can exempt themselves from federal taxes [no, they can't]
12) all democrats believe that businessmen are greedy [no, they don't]
13) greedy businessmen bank all profits from government tax cuts [no, not all. but retained earnings are at an all-time high currently, tax cuts or not]
14) retaining earnings is economic suicide [no, it's not]
15) if fdr had allowed tax breaks in ww2, the depression would have ended sooner [was fdr king? did he veto these supposed tax breaks? how does an action in 1941 affect the situation in 1934?]
16) the economy needed healing tax cuts after ww2 [no, mild recessions were caused by dramatically decreased government spending]
17) herbert hoover's socialist ideals worsened the depression [he had no such ideals]
18) people will buy consumer goods when they have no money [impossible]
19) the entire republican party repudiates most of nixon's domestic and economic policies [where is this stated? i guess nixon was king too? nixon passed his policies strictly with democratic support?]
20) supply and demand! [means nothing in isolation]
21) when you say 'goods' you don't mean 'goods' [i believe that]
22) more people with no money buying stuff [still impossible]
23) economics is magic [makes as much sense as buying stuff without money]
24) business growth causes price drops [unrelated]
25) trickle down economics works as advertised [totally unproven to have any positive overall effect]

you've demonstrated no capability of understanding what i would say. so...nah...just make something up for me that fits your version of reality.

reply

[–] rball4042 12 years ago

Sorry man you are a prime example of a typical modern-day liberal. your not telling me what you think society should be like isn't simply a refusal. It's because, just like pretty much everybody Obama-ite out there, you have no idea how society should run. Republican supporters have a plan; Democrat supporters don't. All you do is drink the Kool-Aid and poke holes in strategies that you can't even begin to back up with your own. I think it's funny how you don't have anything to say except to reflect back what I say and say how stupid it is when you don't even have something to bring to the table to match me with.

Conversation over.

reply

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

oh, and what's the republican "plan"? there's no such thing beyond lies, fantasies and magical thinking. sorry, but your feeble inability to defend any of your wild claims with actual facts tells me that this conversation never started.

go back to lala-land with your other wing nut buddies so you can tell each other how smart you are, you're no use to us here in the real world.

reply

[–] Symphony40 11 years ago

Yeah, I see that this thread is old, but here goes.

The part about FDR worsening the Depression (not causing it, as you misinterpreted it) comes from a study by UCLA (not exactly a bastion of Conservatism http://www.uclaprofs.com/articles/affiliation.html) that finds FDR's policies likely prolonged the Depression by around 7 years:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/fdr-s-policies-prolonged-depressi on-5409.aspx

reply

[–] phantom2-2 11 years ago

it was the other poster who claimed that capitalism was working great until roosevelt started spreading wealth around, neglecting the fact that the capitalism-incited depression had been in full swing for over three years before roosevelt entered office.

an interesting article, but since they choose an ending date to the depression four years after the commonly accepted end of 1939 it looks more like they're redefining the terms than coming to a groundbreaking conclusion. comparing the depression figures to 1929 numbers runs the risk that the 1929 baseline is what's distorted. if they really wanted to isolate the "roosevelt factor" then they should have used the 1932 numbers as the baseline.

to say that if roosevelt hadn't enacted that one policy the depression would have worked itself out in only three more years seems to be quite a stretch - especially with the dust bowl and a global depression in full effect at the time. of course, doing nothing but saying "the only thing we have to fear, is fear of letting the markets work their own self-correcting magic" was not a politically viable option.

it also appeared at the time that the roosevelt policies were working. the situation was improving through 1936, only to crash again in 1937. not having access to the full paper i don't know if or how they explain that.

i also wonder if they did a comparable study on the wage & price freeze of the nixon years.

it's an interesting notion, but i don't think it's sufficient to say that if only roosevelt hadn't made that one mistake the country would have been in great shape by 1936. perhaps that one didn't work out, but if he hadn't done the rest of his plans the depression would have lasted til 1950. who knows?

reply

[–] jshreckhise 11 years ago

well for starters, the tea party was basically politically hijacked by the right wing of america because they were committing political suicide and needed to be bailed out, what better way to do that than to jump on the liberterian bandwagon and then claim that was their battle cry all along?...make no mistake, both democrats and republicans are evil, two extreme sides of the same coin...two equally devious instruments of destruction that capture diametrically opposed segments of society, which they both helped create to divide the population...they do this to keep up the illusion of choice, when both choices are equally terrible...shifting the power back and forth so nobody figures out who really to blame, and so they think that any change is going to fix the problem...when in reality both bring us closer to destruction by the year...just as communism and capitalism are both the same kinds of machines...aimed at crippling the population in order to stay in power over them...but i think that the film actually was faithful to the strong thread presented by rand in her book...

on the one hand you have greedy capitalist cut-throats at the heads of corporations willing to sell out their own for greater profits, using political leverage, agreeing to government payoff and other underhanded means to hang on to their status, and on the other hand you have basically communist entities being driven from within the government that use political leverage and underhanded means to destroy the competition for them, but veil it to the public as "fairness" and "equality"...and rand unveils this doublespeak artfully, which is not lost in the films at all...

then you have the mavericks...those corporate leaders that have the means to be innovators, yet the will to defy both the extreme evils they are struggling to overcome, in real tangible ways...rebuilding and rejuvenating the rail infrastructure...re-creating a free energy motor...both of which will benefit many in the long run and free them from the stagnation of a nation and a world enslaved to fossil fuels and big governments...

i think they did well in staying faithful to rands insights...

reply