Which choice makes the story more interesting, more exciting and more dramatic?
And more realistic!
Found the quote, from the intro to centennial edition of this book, where she mentioned boredom:
I seem to be both a theoretical philosopher and a fiction writer. But it is the last that interests me most; the first is only the means to the last; the absolutely necessary means, but only the means; the fiction story is the end. Without an understanding and statement of the right philosophical principle, I cannot create the right story; but the discovery of the principle interests me only as the discovery of the proper knowledge to be used for my life purpose; and my life purpose is the creation of the kind of world (people and events) that I like— that is, that represents human perfection.
Philosophical knowledge is necessary in order to define human perfection. But I do not care to stop at the definition. I want to use it, to apply it— in my work (in my personal life, too— but the core, center and purpose of my personal life, of my whole life, is my work).
This is why, I think, the idea of writing a philosophical nonfiction book bored me. In such a book, the purpose would actually be to teach others, to present my idea to them. In a book of fiction the purpose is to create, for myself, the kind of world I want and to live in it while I am creating it; then, as a secondary consequence, to let others enjoy this world, if, and to the extent that they can.
Her characters in their lives in the story also chose not to teach lessons either, but sought to teach them all a lesson, instead. Yet, she lectured and spoke and wrote much nonfiction later though, in our world, appealing to minds, not actively trying to collapse it all on their heads.
In our age, what we are facing, is the zombie culture - it’s crucial to know whether or not we can appeal to their minds, as that is what is standing in our way mainly and what to do when or if we can’t.. We of course may choose various creative ways to get them out of the way, like when Galt and crew struck, etc. Right now, mainly we, as Rand did to, is to appeal to minds, those still open to any reason. Spread ideas and thoughts and so forth. But are such things effective on zombies, vampires, sheeple, lemmings, etc? are we not just flattering them when we try to appeal to their minds?
One thing is clear, they were out to teach them a real lesson alright. Choose to perish or learn. I guess they thought that their minds would be more open to them then, rather than before striking, or as I see it as, let’s not even try to appealing to minds, let’s just collapse it all upon their heads instead.
Is that just? You never know for sure. Perhaps one lesson is sufficient to wake someone up. Do you wished to be doomed by a single mistake on your part if correction is possible? If not, then you should not be too anxious to doom others.
Personally, I prefer to cut someone some slack if there is a reasonable chance of getting his attention.
ruveyn1
He didn’t surrender completely. He worked on the side as a philosopher, I expect; just as Galt did his experiments and Francisco is shown designing a blast furnace. He decided to stop giving to those who gave nothing and worse: to those who took when he gave.
You may be missing the point that galt has no guilt. He does what he wants and doesn’t care. Galt feels humans have their own choice so he blames them when they don’t do what he wants.
Is that just? You never know for sure. Perhaps one lesson is sufficient to wake someone up. Do you wished to be doomed by a single mistake on your part if correction is possible? If not, then you should not be too anxious to doom others.
Personally, I prefer to cut someone some slack if there is a reasonable chance of getting his attention.
ruveyn1
Galt was giving them a chance with his speech. He gave the answer and said, basically, “accept or perish.” He always left the choice up to them. What else is there? You wanted him to say “accept my morality, perish, or come and live off of me”?
Galt was giving them a chance with his speech. He gave the answer and said, basically, “accept or perish.” He always left the choice up to them. What else is there? You wanted him to say “accept my morality, perish, or come and live off of me”?
Not at all. Cutting a reasonable amount of slack for another person is not the same as becoming his doormat.
ruveyn1
Intellectual Ammo, you claim that you don’t hold a duty-based system of ethics, but that’s what you’re implicitly advocating. You’re upset that Hugh Akston and Ragnar Danneskjold simply “gave up” the debate before they even started, implying that it was wrong (or perhaps distasteful?) of them to do so.
The fact is that nobody has the duty to educate the rest of the human race. If they want to try then they can, but if they don’t then they can do something else.
If you found a technique for creating infinite and free energy, (speaking purely hypothetically) would you be morally bound to tell someone about it and how it works? What about two people? Does it have to be at least a dozen people, the rest of the species, or just one other person?
What if they think you’re full of it? Are you doomed to dedicate the rest of your existence to helping them discover it, or are they allowed to walk away? I think that if you stop to consider it a bit more, you’ll realize the answers to your own questions. 
You are right, in so far as Galts primary concern was the best, not the rest:
From Rands journal:
The strikers have won, not because the parasites have learned anything or because the parasites have collapsed physically, but because the last of the strikers (Rearden and Dagny) have learned the lesson that Galt wanted to teach the best brains of the world - the lesson of not supporting their own destroyers, and the creators’ nature, function, and proper code. From now on, the exploitation of the best by the worst will never again be permitted by the best.
In a note AR wrote to her publisher (of We the Living) Feb.2,1936:
I do give a good deal about human beings. No, not all of them. Only those worthy of the name.
I didn’t say or mean to imply what Akston did was wrong, just wondering as to why.