#%$^&*!@ (Thats the noise I am making while stifling back my laughter). I like your thought, but I just wish there were 50M intelligent voters. (Ok, I can already hear you laughing).

I don't have a perfect answer for you, but I myself look to history. There have been a lot of collapses throughout history although as far as we know of this is the first that may happen in a technological society. There is no precedent for this, but having contemplated the implications of a collapse I suspect that is why Ayn Rand never wrote a sequel and turned to teaching Objectivism hoping to prevent it from happening (those of you that have read more of her works than I have are greatly encouraged to comment on this).

Very briefly, during a collapse anyone not prepared gets swept away, along with those that are unlucky. What remains are basically two groups, the smarter, and the ruthless. The outcome of this will depend on the battle and the integration of these two groups, just like it always has been throughout history. Darwin's law.

plusaf, I, too, have not seen any Recovery Strategy outlined and it would be a fascinating topic. Nevertheless, human kind has destroyed and rebuilt many times in history and I have no doubt that it will happen. I agree with ibecame, below, on a likely scenario.

While the phrase itself was coined by Machiavelli, the philosophy was put most pointedly into practice by the Jesuit order.

Jan

I will provide a counterexample. President G.W. Bush got attacked because he would not condone the use of aborted fetuses for stem cell research. Consequently two groups (most notably Ishikawa's from Japan) developed a way to induce pluripotency into adult stem cells, effectively allowing one to turn one's own stem cells into a state consistent with when one was in his/her mother's womb. Now one can ethically do stem cell engineering. The process one chooses does make a difference; there will usually be more or dangerous byproducts to a poor process choice.

Not so. A process is a means to an end. Every process contains a morality in and of itself, as do the ends. Those who espouse that only the ends (and not the means) are subject to moral evaluation are the collectivists who seek to ignore individual rights in the name of the collective.

Both means AND end have a morality independent of each other. It is the reason why Galt did not sabotage other producers of electricity - he merely withheld his inventions. Same with Wyatt, D'Anconia, and others. Their means was not to impede the progress of others, but to allow the consequences of their own actions to bit them in their collective behinds.

Take a look at most of today's collective agendas and you can see the defunct moralities at play in not only the ends, but the means as well. Take abortion for example. Margaret Sanger - founder of Planned Parenthood - openly proclaimed that her goal was eugenicist in nature: she sought to destroy anyone of color and so bring about a master race consisting solely of white people. And her mentality has been embraced by many. It is fact that most abortions are not of whites, but of blacks - to the tune of more than 250 million so far in the United States alone - and all with the sanction of the Government.

Obama's taxes are yet another example. He institutes them claiming that the rich "haven't paid their fair share", but whom do they penalize in fact? The poor who can no longer find jobs because the "rich" have no more assets to invest! Minimum wage laws follow the same pattern.

In your example of the revolver, however, you cite only a part of the process. The process does not begin with the round being fired, it begins with the trigger being pulled - by a person. WHY the person pulls the trigger is going to be based on morality.

"Due process" is not value neutral. The "initiation of force" is also a process fraught with value considerations. Processes are value dependent. I do agree that "intent" is where the value evaluation (!) begins.

I understand where you are coming from-the SUV doesn't kill someone on the highway. A process involves people's intention to perform or not perform a process. I do not see how you separate that out in Ethics. A gun is a thing, not a process. In this case, process necessarily involves human interaction with said process. The process of murdering someone has consequences.

I think that 'grow in ones own image' can mean different things.

One meaning is 'use my philosophy as a rigorous template' the other is 'remove the impediments to growth and allow a bottom-up regeneration which I am willing to bet will spontaneously follow my philosophy'.

Once again, the touchstone of inclusionary vs exclusionary is helpful here: Stalin wants to Include only his directives (and everything else is illegal); Galt wants to break the back of the suppressive power structure that is preventing prosperity - excluding it from the geo-political canvas. He is willing to wager that what grows back will be a system that values freedom and the individual. He will seed the regrowing culture with productive individuals and a worthwhile philosophy, but (once the strongarm restrictions are excluded) everyone can make their own decisions.

Jan

Very good.

No. All ethics must be reality based, that is OBJECTIVELY based, otherwise A is not A. My point: JG and Obama's outcomes will be the same, destruction and, hopefully, rebuilding.

The process by which the goal is achieved is my issue, that JG's were objective, based on reality; Obama's are driven by his narcissistic tyrannical-minded megalomaniac NON-objective "values."

Romantic? Ah, pshawwww........ ;-)

Sounds like a gulch to me. :)