History Headscratchers / AtlasShrugged

** When it was published in 1957, the story took place TwentyMinutesIntoTheFuture. However, nowadays it ''feels'' like AlternateHistory because TechnologyMarchesOn (what with the huge plot significance of trains, steel mills, etc). As to all the "People's States", that was Rand projecting her fears of the american Progressive movement, combined with the communist/socialist movements of Europe of the time; but SocietyMarchesOn as well. A more accurate label for it nowadays might be DieselPunk. Meh, what's [[GenreBusting in a label]]? Do we need to [[TvTropesWillRuinYourLife classify everything?]] Who is [[RuleOfThree John Galt?]]

*** Being quite the [[MarySue Marty Stu]] Galt instinctively knows how every person in the room will react with 100% certainty. As such he knows that they will not be helped by his display of knowledge, and is free to use it to further his goals.

** Atheists in the United States who lean right-wing (there aren't as many as there are liberal and left-leaning atheists) consider Cultural Christianity as part of the package of American patriotism. Rand endorsed ImmigrantPatriotism, and there is no indication that religious belief is illegal in Galt's Gulch (unlike charity, which is illegal). It just seems that the Gulchers were largely self-selected atheists or secular folks. Rand's own family's religious background was Jewish, but many assimilated Jews embrace Cultural Christianity, and Cultural Christianity has legal precedents in the United States routed in a concept of "negative liberty" that is controversial for many non-Randian atheists. Rand was less likely to criticize belief in God itself as a social evil than the altruistic elements of religion (charity, sacrifice) which she also associated with communism. Compared to the majority of atheists who lean liberal or further left, she had much more in common with religious conservatives who believe in "negative liberty" but are hostile or skeptical to "positive rights" (which are typically protections like Civil Rights or non-discrimination that workers, women and minorities- including religious minorities and nonreligious persons- gain under democracy). While she personally was an atheist, most people who argue for secular government and church-state separation support some form of positive rights for atheists and religious minorities, which Rand certainly did not, and they would likely not find her views compatible with their own. They would probably articulate an argument that a PrivatelyOwnedSociety would benefit religious persons more than secular persons because of the negative liberty vs. positive rights issue. This is a common point of disagreement between atheists who identify as Libertarians or Objectivists and those who do not. This (and reading Rand selectively by cherry-picking, or not at all) is one of the reasons that many religious conservatives in politics (who are also in favor of a form of Laissez-faire capitalism) credit her work with informing their worldview. Rand's appropriate of nondenominational references to God helps them swallow the other parts of her ideology.

** Atheists in the United States who lean right-wing (there aren't as many as there are liberal and left-leaning atheists) consider Cultural Christianity as part of the package of American patriotism. Rand endorsed ImmigrantPatriotism, and there is no indication that religious belief is illegal in Galt's Gulch (unlike charity, which is illegal). It just seems that the Gulchers were largely self-selected atheists or secular folks. Rand's own family's religious background was Jewish, but many assimilated Jews embrace Cultural Christianity, and Cultural Christianity has legal precedents in the United States routed in a concept of "negative liberty" that is controversial for many non-Randian atheists. Rand was less likely to criticize belief in God itself as a social evil than the altruistic elements of religion (charity, sacrifice) which she also associated with communism. Compared to the majority of atheists who lean liberal or further left, she had much more in common with religious conservatives who believe in "negative liberty" but are hostile or skeptical to "positive rights" (which are typically protections like Civil Rights or non-discrimination that workers, women and minorities- including religious minorities and nonreligious persons- gain under democracy). While she personally was an atheist, most people who argue for secular government and church-state separation support some form of positive rights for atheists and religious minorities, which Rand certainly did not, and they would likely not find her views compatible with their own. They would probably articulate an argument that a PrivatelyOwnedSociety would benefit religious persons more than secular persons because of the negative liberty vs. positive rights issue. This is a common point of disagreement between atheists who identify as Libertarians and those who do not.

** They did have sex, they just didn't derive any joy from it. Unless this Troper mixed the Taggart and Rearden couples, there is a passage where Cherryl is described as coldly engaging in sex just because its her duty and then going back to reading her book afterwards as if nothing interrupted her.

** As far as I remember he only invites them to the Valley after they vow not to squeal. So if they said no, he simply wouldn't have brought them to the Valley in the first place. The book's premise is that the real world is so monstrously bad that the people he approached would have went anywhere with him merely because he suggests an alternative. Galt is also so amazingly awesome that he has unfailing knowledge of when to ask people, that is to say he knows when exactly to wait until their fate in their business fails (they were allowed to take their families with them, presumably because everyone was married either to a suitably Galtish individual or a Lillian with no in between), that's why he never actually approached Dagney throughout the book. The Valley also started as merely a summer retreat for the like minded rich that only met once a year. It's only in the recent time frame of the book do people start living there permanently. Presumably anyone that didn't agree to live their permanently for one reason or another took their chances in the real world just as Galt himself does in the final act.

* I'm sorry, but I never read the book, and it's been ages since I saw the films, so I have to ask: what would have happened if someone that Galt invited to his utopia said no after listening to the entire pitch he had to say? I can't imagine that everyone that he approached would want to join him, since they might have families or feel a responsibility to their companies. Not everyone can agree on everything. So what happened if someone decided to say no?

* What are the military applications of Project X? It seems to be a immovable facility that can only attack the area that it's built in, which means it has absolutely no defensive applications and even as a means of authoritarian control it's severely limited as it can't target the entire country and would only really have any effect against mass targets (and it would also annihilate absolutely everything between it and the target giving an insane amount of collateral damage if used to stop something like a riot). I could see it being used to defend against naval vessels (and giving Ragnor's prowling the seas, that would be an effective use for it), but it's built in Iowa which is completely landlocked. There seems to be absolutely no advantage to Project X over something like a plane carrying nerve gas. I know the government are meant to be idiots, but are they really so idiotic to build a big costly super weapon that has absolutely no military application?

* What are the military applications of Project X? It seems to be a immovable facility that can only attack the area that it's built in, which means it has absolutely no defensive applications and even as a means of authoritarian control it's severely limited as it can't target the entire country and would only really have any effect against mass targets. I could see it being used to defend against naval vessels (and giving Ragnor's prowling the seas, that would be an effective use for it), but it's built in Iowa which is completely landlocked. There seems to be absolutely no advantage to Project X over something like a plane carrying nerve gas. I know the government are meant to be idiots, but are they really so idiotic to build a big costly super weapon that has absolutely no military application?

* Rganor refers to Robin Hood as a real person, he says he's someone that died many hundreds of years ago and talks about the meaning that survived. Given that Robin Hood is a confirmed fictional character in our universe...does that mean Atlas Shrugged is set in the Robin Hood universe?
* Why did anyone in the administration think that Galt could help them in any way? He made a pretty length speech decrying their world views and talking about how he's systematically destroyed their economy, why do they immediately jump to the conclusion that he's a super genius that can effortlessly turn everything around? There's only one passing reference to his engine, but that's a feet of engineering, not of economic theory and they don't seem to have any interest in it at all, just in him and his super amazing faultless mind. I don't see why they think he, who is after all a complete nobody, lengthy speeches aside, has proved any more credentials to know how to fix the problem than the likes of Dagney who has displayed actual resourcefulness. Or to put it another way, Galt could talk the talk, why did they think it meant he could walk the walk, especially when he was talking about something else entirely?

* Rganor refers to Robin Hood as a real person, he says he's someone that died many hundreds of years ago and talks about the meaning that survived. Given that Robin Hood is a confirmed fictional character in our universe...does that mean Atlas Shrugged is set in the Robin Hood universe?

*** Let the record show that Ayn Rand's philosophy ''rejects and hates'' the looters' system where innocent people like Cherryl and Eddie "[d]ie for being filthy moochers, or serve their betters like slaves until a moment of weakness allows them to demonstrate their superiority." The question even asked why they hated it, and the above, despite its tone, actually explains ''why''. A system where "admirable, heroic characters who ''aren't'' filthy rich" must "[d]ie for being filthy moochers, or serve their betters like slaves until a moment of weakness allows them to demonstrate their superiority" is the system the heroes spend the novel fighting (the original question asks why the novel portrays such a system as wrong), not the system they set up.

*** Let the record show that Ayn Rand's philosophy ''rejects and hates'' the looters' system where innocent people like Cherryl and Eddie "[d]ie for being filthy moochers, or serve their betters like slaves until a moment of weakness allows them to demonstrate their superiority." The question even asked why they hated it, and the above, despite its tone, actually explains ''why''. A system where "admirable, heroic characters who ''aren't'' filthy rich" must "[d]ie for being filthy moochers, or serve their betters like slaves until a moment of weakness allows them to demonstrate their superiority" is the system the heroes spend the novel fighting, not the system they set up (as the original question asks).

*** Die for being filthy moochers, or serve their betters like slaves until a moment of weakness allows them to demonstrate their superiority like Ayn Rand's philosophy demands. What a lot of people miss is that Ayn Rand's philosophy lifted a lot from Social Darwinism which was popular around that time. Actually it lifted a lot of stuff from other philosophers...

** It may have been less of a 'deserved to die' as a different motif -- the ''very'' worst of the villains all notably escape immediate death, and those who were only 'guilty' of being told or taught the Moocher ideology were in the train. The one person who pushed the lever for the train tunnel disaster, for example, jumped out of the train before entering the tunnel. [[{{Gattsuru}} This troper]] came away with the impression that the point was that all the beliefs and platitudes and good purposes were little or no shield against what other people, not held responsible for their actions, could do, just [[WastedAPerfectlyGoodPlot written horribly]].

** Told people that they needed to be ready to make more sacrifices for the good of the country, blamed some of his underlings for all the problems, criticized the greedy capitalists, and reminded them of how much better things were compared to the past a la [[NineteenEightyFour Oceania]].

*** Three, even if the filthy rich heroes considered this an honorable, practical solution for them, what about the admirable, heroic characters who ''aren't'' filthy rich, like Cherryl, Jim Allen, and Eddie Willers? They and everyone like them don't have the resources to buy politicians for permission to live and work freely. What would they do if that was the acceptable way to survive?