What Would Howard Roark Do?

Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead was published May 7, 1943 and has sold more than 6.5 million copies in more than 20 languages. Matt Kibbe breaks down the lessons he’s learned from this classic novel. Fight for your dreams, know what you want, do what you love, innovate, learn to say no, and never disappoint your 16-year-old self. What did you learn from The Fountainhead? Let us know in the comments.
#aynrand #fountainhead #mattkibbe

Free the People’s mission is simple—to make the values of liberty entertaining, accessible, and human. Free the People deliberately explores issues that bridge the partisan divide—topics like criminal justice reform, health care choice, and opposing corporate cronyism. We produce documentary films, video web series, and podcasts that illuminate the people and ideas changing the world for the better. We reach audiences across the political spectrum as a rational but passionate voice for liberty.

Free the People specializes in video production, creative storytelling, and social media engagement. We are building a community of people who believe in the values of freedom, entrepreneurship, individual responsibility, choice, and peaceful cooperation. Free the People finds and tells stories of people affecting positive change in their community through entrepreneurship and innovation. We defend free choice in everything from drug policy, to health care and retirement, to every aspect of the sharing economy. Our values, like "equal treatment under the law" and "innocent until proven guilty," animate fights for criminal justice reform. We tell the stories of people who have lived through the hardships of authoritarianism and collectivism throughout history. We show our viewers that beautiful things can happen when free people come together to make the world a better place.

[JacobGrahamFit]

Awesome stuff. I love Howard Roark. Changed my life.

[PhilippinesFarmLife]

I watch the summation speech at least once a month and read the book several times a year. Thank you sir.

[duckpd]

"But I don't think of you." Thanks for posting.

[MrWS]

Great one Mr. Kibbe, time I took that great book off the shelf and gave it another read.

[robertcgage]

For us not so smart we have to dig septic tanks or any work we can find to put food on the table. I'm glad you love your work, Your one of the lucky ones.

[oliviaa.lastre]

*_I love Rand, i love this book, and i love this video, thank you very much!_*

[TitanTubs]

Striking it out on your own, alone and always fighting. You will succumb..

[JC-omnr]

Read this when I was a freshman in high school as well, now I’m a senior.

[mustang]

Conformity seems to have become contagious. Even virus like. Like if you don't conform you could be canceled.

[Nafosat_Toshtemirova]

Such a great book, have read it in Russian and English on Kindle, and it is full of clippings❤❤❤❤

[nathanfobear]

I've read Atlas Shrugged, maybe it's time to get this one too.

[hankrearden]

Which is the name of that HQ Book?? Where you quote in your video

[rotorairgroup]

CONTRADICTIONS THAT I FIND IN THE PLOT OF "THE FOUNTAINHEAD"
Preamble:
The interest that this book generated at the time was because it was by Ayn Rand, which leads me to assume that her characters were applying the philosophy that she preached.
1. “Heroes” committing actions far from being heroic:
The character of Peter Keating is identified in the book as an "antihero", weak, false, dependent, hypocritical etc. Howard Roarke was quite the opposite, an upright guy, with great strength, creativity, individual values etc. But from the beginning these two supposedly opposite characters are partners in a deception that gives rise to the entire plot.
The weaknesses of the characters in Rand's novels suffer from immense egos and a false superiority that they fail to truly demonstrate in their part of the plot.
Roarke had a dream of being able to build his ideal building but had neither the means to do so nor the relationships that would allow him to achieve it. The idea of allowing someone else to present his design as his own must have been detestable to him, but the eagerness to see it made was stronger than the prudence of biding his time to do it on his own. Perhaps it was due to a lack of confidence in his abilities that he preferred to negotiate with Keating in this sterile and amoral way. The moment he let Keating present it as his own design it became what he was criticizing Keating for, and the agreement they made about not being able to modify the design in the construction was not real because it was not Keating's prerogative to make that decision. Roarke seemed to feel cheated, but it was obvious that he knew from the beginning that Keating couldn't assure him of anything. They were also both clear that they were deceiving the architectural firm first because the design was not by Keating, and then because if the firm had known that a madman could dynamite the building if they did it as their needs demanded, they would surely not have used the design. but any other. Another important factor is that Keating assumed responsibility for Roarke's design, but after the changes that the architectural firm made it was no longer exactly the same design but a very similar variation on which Roarke could no longer demand anything.
Really analyzing the participation of each one in ensuring that the building existed, it must be made clear that it was constituted by the design, the materials with which it was built, the labor necessary to build it, the place where it was built, and the economic investment that allowed integrating all to its conclusion. Obviously Roarke didn't have all this because otherwise he would have made his building without having anything to do with Keating or the architectural firm. Since he did not have all those things, he could not decide what would happen to the building as a whole but only with the design plans that had been his contribution.

[voluntaryist]

I have always been a free thinker, i.e., I make choices based on my self-interest, not sacrifices to a mystical collective. Most do the opposite, and feel guilty when they don't. This is the result of early indoctrination in the public school system which teaches obedience to authority, unquestioning loyalty to country expressed as servitude. What did you think "I pledge allegiance to...the country..." meant as you recited it hundreds of times? The answer is: You didn't think. You followed orders, as a captive for 12 years. You continue to do so when you stand for a ceremony to honor your unfree life, your victimization by petty tyrants who boss you around, who violate your rights daily. Being fully human requires being sovereign in thought and deed. I refused to pledge from 9 onward. I refuse to pretend I am living in a free country. Such mass displays at sporting events are symptoms of a worldwide delusion, a dangerous, destructive superstition. I would rather focus on creating value by non-violent (voluntary) cooperation. That is psychologically healthy and builds self esteem. Being a "god-fearing, tax paying, good citizen" does not.

[penthaughtz]

Interesting, I have never heard of Howard Roark before.

[alcoyot]

The first thing he would do is not react emotionally.

[Saltybuher]

Cameron doesn't win but then maybe he did in the way that mattered most.

[caseyfergus]

I remember Rand lost me in that scene where she explains why a city skyline is more beautiful than a mountain range. "Objectivism" my ass.

[TitanTubs]

Good message, but I can never trust I man with a perfect mustache, not again..

[MrNaishadh]

Wow, firght for your dream? Seriously?
When did Howard Roard had any dream? Sure, he fought for his vision but dream?