Do you believe John Galt is real?

No, but other elitist pricks are real.

DONT no he is

You mean "real", like Jesus and Mohammad?

You do realize there is literally no question that Mohammad existed, right? You also realize that no credible historian or Religious scholar believes Jesus wasn't real, right?

Then, John Galt is real to some extent.

John Galt is real to the extent that he was an idea of freedom. A concept meant to inspire individuals to advance beyond the shackles society has bound us with.

I always laugh when people attempt to say that certain people never existed, because it suits your own needs to satisfy your own beliefs.

The name Yeshua (Anglicized: Jesus) was a very common name among Hebrews. It is all but certain that there was a Yeshua from Nazareth, and one who was executed by crucifixion. Very likely, there was a philosopher by the same name. It is doubtful that they were the same man; and no credible historian believes in the miracles or the resurrection.

Oh yes, like your opinion matters. Stop believing yourself to be relevant little ant. You know nothing as every human knows nothing, you can barely wipe your own asses let alone figure out what exists beyond your tiny little planet. Understand, you are not relevant, as much as you wish to be. Your opinion will not change destiny or what is to come. let me put it this way, you don't matter. Let me say that again, You Don't Matter.

.

Well gosh, you sure told me. Of course my opinion doesn't matter. Neither does yours, or that of anyone else on SH. It's just fun to argue.
Speaking of which, nothing you've just said has anything to do with what we were talking about. Care to try again?

You were attempting to state that because you don't believe in miracles, then they therefore must not exist. And that there was a separate Jesus who was crucified and a separate Jesus who was a philosopher but that the Jesus spoken of performing miracles did not exist.

Get over yourself you idiot.

You also grouped yourself in with the so called credible historians attempting to place yourself on a superior intellectual level.

Please tell me, Who are the credible historians you speak of, please enlighten me. I would love to see your list.

Are you stating that Jesus was not real and nothing more than a figment of societies imagination?

Even going back thousands of years?

It is fiction. But a very good book.

If anyone does, they're an idiot. Don't you people understand the concept of a novel?

And what if he is real? Something is going on and can you figure it out? If you tell me you can, you are a liar.

Are you really 16, Because then I can understand your foolishness. The conceit and arrogance of a teenager, there is truly nothing like it.

Said the guy who constantly asks whether he's handsome.

Whaaaaaa.? Who.!? Why not.?

who?

He's just a fantasy of certain libertarians who want to believe that the world couldn't possibly survive without them.

??? You know nothing of our political philosophy. Clearly.

Anybody who thinks that by withdrawing from society, that society would collapse, simply doesn't understand how capitalism works.

Yes, I see how well it is working.

...actually the housing crisis was fueled by a "too big to fail" attitude in Wall Street and the insurance industry. Nobody should be considered so important that they cannot be replaced by someone willing to better serve consumers and the society at large.

That's what this country has always been, where have you lived?

Like I said before, if that's how you define capitalism, then you shouldn't any problems with the way things are going.

No one thinks that though. That isn't libertarian-ism. Our view is that government should withdraw significantly from society (both the individual and the economy). Society should do no such thing. You know, Tyler Durding in Fight club's ideology was not entirely dissimilar to Libertarian philosophy, other than that we emphasis individuality and want to accomplish our goals without violence or property destruction.

Tyler Durdin was the bad guy. Is that really who you want to align yourself with?

Tyler wasn't the bad guy. He was the conglomeration of a pony mindset that evolves from monotony, doing the "daily grind." There is a reason I used the words I did. I said his ideology was not entirely dissimilar to the libertarian views. Again, we are as a group generally pacifistic, unlike generic, other end anarchists who are the groups ponies see throwing Molotov cocktails and flipping cars from time to time. But our ultimate goal isn't to overthrow the economic system, but to create a free market system and end the reign of crony capitalism, while freeing our selves from oppressive coercion. In contrast, Tyler's is to over throw both. I said we were somewhat similar, and was only attempting to work within a frame work Lurx clearly understood.

He represents the untamed aggression of The Narrator's personality. He represents the dark part of each of us that we have to suppress, in order to maintain a functioning society.
The Edward Norton character, in the beginning; represents the weakness. It's only at the end, when he finds the balance between these two, that he's able to become a functioning person.

"No one thinks that though."

During the main storyline of the book, Galt has secretly organized a strike by the world's creative leaders, including inventors, artists and businessmen, in an effort to "stop the motor of the world" and bring about the collapse of the collectivist society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

...apparently Ayn Rand did.

That isn't the belief that if we (libertarians) withdraw from the world, it will collapse. It is the idea that if all of the productive leadership of the world withdrew, it would. Which is a fact any logical pony can figure out. If every business owner pulled out of the world, there would be no jobs, no food, no new homes, no construction companies, no repair companies. If inventors pulled out, society would hit a stand still. If artists did, culture would hit a stand still. That is a fact, no matter how hard you try to dispute it.

But it isn't even 1/100th of our views. My statement still stands. You don't understand our philosophy at all. Even Rand wasn't attempting to suggest that we actually do so. She was calling attention to the value that these groups have to society, in a time when all of them were being attacked at all sides. Artists and Inventors were "destroying society" and "progressing for the sake of progress." Business ponies were being attacked for creating jobs and being profitable.

"You don't understand our philosophy at all."

Actually there is no common philosophy of libertarians, since there is no single form of it...

http://civilliberty.about.com...

That isn't true at all. We have a core philosophy. To say there is no common philosophy is foalish. That logic means there is no common philosophy for conservatism, since there are Neocons, palocons, crunch cons, social cons, econ cons, and MMs, or for liberals, which have eco-warriors, socialists, communists, neoliberals, social liberals, economic liberals, pacifists, anarchists, etc. there is a common theme that binds us together.

"That isn't true at all."

Civil Libertarianism:
Classical Liberalism:
Fiscal Libertarianism:
Geolibertarianism:
Libertarian Socialism:
Minarchism:
Neolibertarianism:
Objectivism:
Paleolibertarianism:

...what exactly is the "common theme" that unites these different groups together?

Classical liberalism. Classical liberalism was the core idea that spawn all of these views. Small, non-invasive government. Free market principals. These are the ties that bind.

How does that apply to Libertarian Socialism?

Libertarian socialists agree with anarcho-capitalists that government is a monopoly and should be abolished, but they believe that nations should be ruled instead by work-share cooperatives or labor unions instead of corporations. The philosopher Noam Chomsky is the best known American libertarian socialist.

...or Civil Libertarianism?

Civil libertarians believe that the government should not pass laws that restrict, oppress, or selectively fail to protect people in their day-to-day lives. Their position can best be summed up by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' statement that "a man's right to swing his fist ends where my nose begins." In the United States, the American Civil Liberties Union represents the interests of civil libertarians. Civil libertarians may or may not also be fiscal libertarians.

I don't accept lib. Socialists as really libertarians. As to civ libs, we are covered under classical liberalism.