context of rational praxeology. In both cases, capitalism works because the self-interested actions occur based on reason. I can't convince myself that a guy who believes that he should have a big family so he can get an extra-cool planet in the afterlife is living a life of reason. I don't think I do it well, either. But I'm not running for president or trying to get Libertarian and Objectivist votes. When I watched the excellent "Atlas Shrugged: Part II", my impression was quite different -- that Mitt Romney is the real-world equivalent of James Taggart, a prime representative of the crony corporatism that undermines true capitalism and replaces the economy of merit with the economy of pull. If anything, the rational implication of your film is that one should avoid supporting Mitt Romney and destroyers of his ilk at all costs. I invite you to read my review: "Rejecting the Purveyors of Pull: The Lessons of 'Atlas Shrugged: Part II'" at http://www.rationalargumentator.com/inde\\... and http://www.quebecoislibre.org/12/121015-\\... Capitalism is better served by letting Obama be re-elected and take the blame for the economic mess that is coming once Europe finally crashes followed by Japan, China and finally, the US. Although the President's powers over the domestic economy do not amount to much (Congress has the power to tax, spend, borrow and regulate), it is the President and his party who take the blame for the economy, especially during mid-term elections. That is why Democrats lost control of the House in 2010 just