Rex Little

As I mentioned above, this is one issue on which there isn't a solid libertarian consensus. However, your choice of words is interesting. If most Objectivists favor a war on Islam, rather than on the militant fascist subset of Islam, then there is indeed a big gap.

Because it's the part that's relevant. Criticizing libertarianism for its lack of metaphysics or ethics is like criticizing the Mona Lisa for its lack of depth (actual physical depth, not visual "depth"). It's a painting, not a sculpture; it's not supposed to have depth. Now, if you're judging a particular candidate for office, it makes sense to consider all aspects of his character and beliefs, not just his politics. For instance, suppose a given candidate favors free-market capitalism, but you decide he'd be an unreliable advocate for that position because he believes in God. That's a valid reason not to vote for him (although chances are his opponents explicitly oppose capitalism and also believe in God, so best of luck. . .). A couple of points regarding the War on Terror issue. First, "War on Terror" is a nebulous term which can cover a lot of ground. I only found this forum yesterday, so I don't know what opinions on the subject are held by most of the members. But if the prevailing view is an uncritical support for any and every action taken by this administration in the name of fighting terrorism, I must say I'm disappointed. Second, while the Libertarian Party may have an official position, individual libertarians are all over the map. I don't think there's been an issue of the LP News since 9/11 that didn't have a heated debate in the letters column on the subject. Final nitpick: it's Larry Elder, not Elders or Eldar.

I don't have anybody in mind for the ones you mentioned, Necessary, but I've got Tinky Holloway nailed. Remember how he was described as "a rat-faced tennis player"? Who but Stanley Tucci!

What most of you (Mr. Williamson is a notable exception) seem to be overlooking is that libertarianism is strictly a political philosophy. It doesn't pretend to be a fully integrated philosophical system like Objectivism is. Quite a few libertarians derive their political beliefs from Objectivist ethics; many others arrive at them some other way. IF you look strictly at political positions on political issues, without regard to how either camp justifies its opinions, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between libertarians and Objectivists.

Casting Atlas Shrugged has been a popular game since, probably, a week or so after the book came out. 30 years ago, I liked Charlton Heston for Hank Reardon, Clint Eastwood for Ellis Wyatt, Ricardo Montalban for Francisco, George Kennedy for Midas, and Jonathan Harris (Dr. Smith from the "Lost In Space" TV series) as Floyd Ferris, but it's obviously too late for any of them now. I agree that Angelina Jolie doesn't have the kind of features I associate with Dagny. This may sound crazy given her conniving-bitch image, but I think I'd pick Shannen Doherty for the part. Harrison Ford as Mulligan isn't a bad idea, but how about as Rearden? Maybe Glenn Close as Lillian? Mel Gibson as Wyatt would be excellent. Someone mentioned Denzel Washington as Mulligan. I can't see that, but I could picture him as Ragnar. Obviously you'd have to change the character's name and background, but Washington captures his essence. For Eddie Willers, Brendan Fraser. Orlando Bloom is way too pretty to play James Taggart. Someone who's about two parts Bloom to three parts Brad Pitt would fit my picture of Galt fairly well. For Taggart you need something like a younger Nick Nolte. Or maybe Jason Priestly? (I realize that the real movie, if it ever happens, won't use name actors in most of the parts. But we're just having fun imagining the possibilities. And we can't exclude anyone because of their real-life philosophical beliefs, or we'd never get the thing cast at all.) I agree with Necessary_truths that the best way to tell the story would be as a miniseries; 6 parts at least, probably 8 if you want to avoid making really painful cuts. I actually had that idea right after I first read the book, which was before there had ever been a miniseries on TV.

I had a similar reaction to Atlas Shrugged when I first tried reading it; bogged down after 40 pages or so, just couldn't get into it at all. Then I read a book which included key passages extracted from Atlas, Fountainhead and We, the Living. (I think its title was For the New Intellectual, but it's been a long time and I'm not certain.) Then I went back to Atlas and couldn't put it down. Reading the excerpts might not have been what provided the actual stimulus. At the time, I was desperate for intellectual ammunition. Richard Nixon had just imposed his wage/price controls, and I was horrified. I would scream to anyone and everyone about how wrong it was, but didn't have the intellectual framework in place to argue coherently. Reading Rand took care of that little problem.