The world is socialist

The HOA is just an example of how creative solutions can be found, it is not an answer to every problem. Did you really expect me to provide a full theory with all solutions to all problems in this post?

Your tacit premise is: "Since you didn't show me how to solve every problem, then your general solution is false." This is like blaming calculus for not having worked out all possible calculus problems.

True, but epidemic prevention is an extremely small problem (and a very cheap one to address), at least in the US. Virtually no one across the political spectrum (including most libertarians) opposes it.

Near as I can tell, the OP wasn't talking about it either.

Sometimes I feel like there are two different versions of Atlas Shrugged out in the world and different people read different ones. I just don't understand how someone can read the book I read and think that "snowplow drivers" is a complete rebuttal. The book has a lot of themes and I don't agree with all of them but lets hit a few that I took away.

Rand is best viewed as a reaction to the abuses of Russian Communism. Atlas Shrugged is extreme in the opposite direction but offers some good critiques of collectivism as she saw it practiced. Communism was always at the point of a gun, so one of her primary complaints was the the use of force by the incapable to demand things from the capable was immoral. So, it's immoral to force those who have snow plows to plow your road just because you have a gun.

Using a snowstorm is a funny example because I think that is exactly one of her main points. Nature doesn't care about your feelings or what you think you deserve. You will either use you mind to find solutions to problems or you will die. If you choose not to think for yourself, you don't have a right to take from those who do just because you have a gun. So, to answer the article's question, "Who is supposed plow the streets during the snowpocalypse?" Whoever the hell has a snowplow and has the ability to drive it. Probably in exchange for money. That's some crazy talk right there. Did I just blow your mind? It's not "a detail she never seemed to have gotten to", it's just a stupid question. You don't plow streets with Rearden metal. You plow it with a snow plow. Rand's point was that streets didn't get plowed by moochers and people who claimed they "deserved it". It got plowed by every great person that designed a combustable engine and metal and manufacturing processes and ultimately applied their mind to the challenges of nature(snow storms) and created an f'ing snow plow. The point is that it is the human mind is what makes the world work, not whining about your "rights".

As for "great individuals", yes, I think she over sold it a bit. However, very focused productive people applying their minds to problems have more influence and leverage today than ever before. She also spends a lot of time talking about "teaching men to think". So she talked a lot about everyone using their talents to create things, not just the John Galts. There are lots of characters who play bit parts in Atlas Shrugged that are respected in the book. Same for the fountain head. Lets talk about the exceptional though. No Bill Gates may not be francisco d'anconia, but he did have a big influence on the world. Now he is using his money to have an even bigger influence. Just for fun, and in the spirit of Rand, think about the difference between how Gates is spending his money, vs the way the Government has spent it. Compare the way a person that earned his money is spending it vs "looters" that took it from others. Plus, Gates seems less John Galt than someone like Von Neumann or Newton.

I just get really sick and tired of people knocking down Rand strawmen. No, she didn't offer the solution all the hard problems of balancing individual liberty and collective action, but if you read it with some context and think about it for yourself, you may find that she did offer some good ideas about the perils of collectivism and the potential of human ability. If you are curious about Rand, go read Fransico' Money Speech, http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/08/franciscos-money-speec... and skip this stupid, pointless blog post.

If the point you're trying to make is that attacking a person's character is a poor substitute for an argument against their beliefs, then point taken. But you weren't doing a very good job getting that point across.

I'm assuming your points are: 1. John Galt used his talents to make the world suffer. 2. John Galt is obligated to use those talents for the common good.

1. In the sense of actively destroying things, nowhere in the book. Maybe he goes kicking around puppies somewhere off the pages, but he does nothing of the sort anywhere in the book. Ragnar Danneskjöd does, but that situation is hard to judge given the details in the book.

Galt did know that he had (assuming you mean the motor), the wherewithal to make the world a better place. But, a. He believed that doing so would only improve conditions in the short term, since the system in place was naturally errosive. Changing the system and then bringing forth his idea would provide longer term benefits. b. That assumes he was out for the common good. He wasn't. Doing what you proposed, namely comercializing his invention and "making the world a better place" would have led him through the same agony that Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart went through, trying to keep things together when they were clearly falling apart.

2. I disagree with you that anybody is obligated to do that.