Well, first off, yeah, so if you're born into the situation that I described above (which I was and I'm pretty most HNers were), I think it's pretty entitled and childish to pretend that your accomplishments are yours alone and you have no obligation to the society that produced you. But sure, technically, you don't legally owe anybody anything.
Second off -- if you're the boss, you take responsibility. Any CEO who wants to "go galt" can go right ahead -- they'll be replaced easily enough. There's a fundamental misunderstanding about capitalism -- someone's always ready to replace you. If you're the type of guy to whine about not being appreciated and "go galt" to teach people a lesson, you probably didn't deserve responsibility in the first place -- responsibility is all about being under appreciated.
Where did you get the idea that Galt/etc went on strike because they felt underappreciated? They left because they don't want to support a system they believed to be immoral - compare to conscientious objectors to military service.
Any CEO who wants to "go galt" can go right ahead -- they'll be replaced easily enough.
Rand is well aware of this point. You seem unaware that the fundamental conflict in the novel is between strikers (Galt, Wyatt) and scabs (Dagny, Reardon). For the strike to be a complete success, it is necessary for most/all of the high value scabs to go on strike so as to make replacing strikers difficult.
As for whether you owe society anything, I recognize that your moral principles are different from those of Rand. I'm just curious whether your criticisms of her go beyond simple disagreement.
Thanks for the reasonable response regarding the morals.
As far as "beyond simple disagreement", I guess "strenuous disagreement"?
The fans of Rand philosophy seem to hate the idea of union employees striking for dental care for their kids but have no problem attempting to shake down the system if you're already rich. I totally do not understand this.
Similarly, I think the whole "everyone's replaceable" thing is a fundamental part of reality that anyone over the age of 14 should have figured out. I find it ironic when I get told that if I were older and less idealistic, I'd come around to Rand's viewpoint. Seems to me she's the idealist, except it's bizzaro idealism that fetishises selfishness.
Finally, as I said elsewhere in the thread, the novel's viewpoint on leadership clashes pretty strongly with my own viewpoint on leadership. Leadership's not about what's in it for you, it's about what's in it for the group, or else you're a bad leader.
Presumably she agreed with him, since she published it in the Objectivist Newsletter.
And yes, you are quite correct that Rand's novels tend to be idealistic and fairly unrealistic. They are merely parables designed to explain/promote her philosophy.
[1] He was her biggest fan when he wrote that. He got kicked out of the cult a few years later, when Rand found out he was banging someone besides her and his wife.
Rand actually said at one point (sorry I don't remember where) that striking was a legitimate way for workers to correct a situation where they're being paid below market rate -- as long as it was done voluntarily. What Rand opposed was pro-union legislation that coercively stacks the decks in the unions' favor.
You've seriously misunderstood the book if you have actually read it. Before I respond in detail I have to ask you bluntly if you've read Atlas Shrugged in full.
I'm mostly concerned with the "Going Galt" bit, which I'm either understanding as originally conveyed or every summary I've read from both ends of the political spectrum was egregiously wrong. So if you'd like to correct me on what "Going Galt" means, please feel free. It looks to me like a total cop-out abdication of responsibility that would change precisely nothing - because everyone's replaceable.
You're taking the "Going Galt" concept out of context. In the context of the book it's at the end of a long dystopian spiral. The significance of it is that the characters have already been broken by the time they arrive there.
Frankly, the ending is a bit unsatisfactory on a few levels. First, it's not a prescription for how to run a society (it's a small utopian community in the mountains) and yet the book ends quickly at that point so we're left wondering how it turned out.
It was necessary as a plot element, but it's really the denouement rather than the climax of the book.
I recommend you buy the unabridged audio version of the book and give it a read while driving, commuting, etc. It has fairly good production quality and is a fairly effortless read on audio.
When I re-read it my reaction was that Rand uses some hyperbole in places where I (if I were the editor) would have recommended a slightly softer touch... but of course she is writing to the first time the reader encounters the story and she wants to be sure to lay down a solid plot foundation early so that the rest of the book can progress.
What I found remarkable about the book was that it's a pure novel of ideas. One can only imagine (while drooling) how amazing it would be if all the world's great thinkers had written a few books of quality fiction to help illustrate their ideas. So in my opinion Rand should get points added for the fiction work, not points subtracted.
I'm not taking it out of context. I'm pointing out how unbelievably stupid the context is.
Is the book in the fantasy section? Does it have a disclaimer "this context is nothing like the real world so don't apply any of these philosophies"? As I understand it, the book is attempting to make a point about the real world.
I'm saying that point is totally ignorant of how the real world works, particularly how leadership works.
I don't think it's fair to make that criticism if you haven't read the book.
The book is a novel of ideas and is, as such, an abstraction. You should not try to interpret it as a prescription for how society should work.
I think what you're looking for is some sort of political treatise or pamphlet. Atlas Shrugged is an argument about the morality of capitalism. If you are looking for more than that in it you'll be disappointed.
I do recommend you take my advice and read it though... I generally have a policy of reimbursing people in beer for the amount they spend on a paperback version. I'm sure that I or someone else would happily extend that offer :)
The tycoons in Atlas Shrugged went on strike because it was no longer moral for them to continue - which in Rand's context means it was no longer in their interest to conduct their business with the American public.
On other occasions Rand explicitly said the strike in AS was a 'if, and only if' situation and not applicable to the present world (ie. not justified. ie. not in anyone's interest). The point was that socialism/altruism had taken such a firm grip of the nation (and the rest of the world) that any grand enterprise that still existed merely prolonged the agony by feeding the ruling parasites. Once the protagonists finally realized this, they went on strike.
The strike worked because society had reached a point where those producers genuinely were irreplaceable, in that their likes were no longer being bred/trained by the industries. The book (and history) is littered with examples of the types of laws/systems responsible for this talent drought, and the young people who find themselves on the resulting scrapheap.
Second off -- if you're the boss, you take responsibility. Any CEO who wants to "go galt" can go right ahead -- they'll be replaced easily enough. There's a fundamental misunderstanding about capitalism -- someone's always ready to replace you. If you're the type of guy to whine about not being appreciated and "go galt" to teach people a lesson, you probably didn't deserve responsibility in the first place -- responsibility is all about being under appreciated.