FaxModem1 wrote:
Another thing that seems to bug me is, yes, they are taking 'exceptional people', such as scientists, artists, pianists, etc. People who have talent and are able to achieve great things for humanity. But what makes the CEOs with all the resources so exceptional? Are they all self-made men, or did they get lucky and build up from there? Is the ability to make a profit the same as writing a symphony, or inventing a wondrous machine, or discovering some new wonder in the cosmos?
This is the real comedy of Rand's Objectivism: it frames the heroes as not only self-made people, but also inventors. Guess what kind of person is severely underrepresented in objectivist circles? Actual inventors. Turns out, inventors DO largely get into the business of invention for the sake of helping people, and far less for making a profit for themselves. People who make profit from inventions far more often are managers and marketers.
I can easily imagine John Galt being mad at his supervising company for burying his free energy device. What seems ridiculous is his subsequent plan is NOT "be subversive and publish the plans anonymously", which would spark an energy revolution at the cost of risking his own personal safety and legal security. No, it's "I should have gotten paid a LOT more for this. Time to destroy the earth."
Remember, a CEO is the important one, whether their company discovered a new technique for acquiring oil, making a new alloy, or able to manage railroads. Not the inventor, engineer, train driver, foreman, etc. It's all about those at the top who own the resources. It's staggers belief that they aren't quickly replaced by a thousand other business majors when they go on strike.
