Nah. The book is a big metaphor used to explain the philosophy. Making the characters like that means they're harder to relate (I think to some degree, Rand thought she was Dagny) but easier to understand. Them being physically superior to me is a bridge between the abstract and the concrete of the philosophy, in that the characters embody their beliefs. As for the presumption that her philosophy is true as a premise for the book, I guess it depends on how you see objectivism, and let's not kid ourselves, where on the political spectrum you consider yourself to be. To me, it's about inspiring to be competent, self-sufficient, reliable, virtuous, and that the pursuit of that is what gives life meaning. To others, from what I've heard, it ranges from being a selfish asshole to a worse 50's version of Twilight. As for that world looking nothing like ours, I agree 3 times: 1 You and me probably live on different universes; 2 This world looks almost nothing like the gulch, and 3 our world is way worse than the one in the book :)

It's not a challenge to write a fiction book that paints a picture of a world that is better than ours. The problem isn't so much that the fiction is bad, it's that it's just entirely insufficient to be persuasive about real issues. It's like watching Star Trek and then deciding we should all live in a socialist utopia. Star Trek is very compelling, but there's a limit to how much it instructs us about the real world. Rand operates closer to a Peterson style self-help book than a real political philosophy.

150 years later and Bastiat still got it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bastiat Thank you. I did not know Bastiat.

Would you look at that. Turns out there's a word to describe the utopia high level language programmers use to justify the bloated software they use and produce.

> My thinking is more so from a position of minimizing suffering

Don't you think that's unfair by nature? How do you justify it?

Fairness isn't an end in itself, but unfairness can cause people to revolt, which then leads to more suffering.

It's just a matter of how you weigh such considerations: https://www.utilitarianism.net/types-of-utilitarianism

I know what utilitarianism is, as someone who leans more to the side of deontological ethics. The problem with fairness not being an end means you can't have justice. Your moral ethics culminates on the never ending struggle we have right now of shifting the blame for what happens and what doesn't, and you're fine with it because you're blinded by the hope that it'll work. If you're willing to tell me why, as well as why you're proud of your relativism, why the means justify the end, I'm all eyes. If you're not, I'll understand.