Atlas Shrugged In Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead

Letter of Marx and Reprisal
In the way it seems to teeter before falling into dystopia, Atlas Shrugged is distinct from the categorical dystopia of Anthem and the less worldly scope of The Fountainhead. It renders a plausible trajectory of the real world, populated by approximations and denials of the Objectivist philosophy. Those productive few that live in their own interest while at no one’s expense (similarly Objectivists) find themselves in short supply, thus it would seem they must act within humanity’s sub-moral framework. However, “there are only two modes of living left to us today: to be a looter who robs disarmed victims or to be a victim who works for the benefit of his own despoilers. I did not choose to be either” declared Ragnar
The naturally emergent feedback mechanism of profit and loss coordinate man’s limitless want with reality’s scarce resources in the way man’s subjective valuation most demands. Industrious individuals succeed in this system only in so far as they can forecast and accommodate demand whilst mitigating loss, in so doing efficiently economizing on scarce resources. This system’s tragic downside however is the unavoidable surplus of dormant and scornful commissars. In their free time the commissars take it upon themselves to stir within the masses the sentiment that the efficient allocation of resources itself, or ‘profiteering,’ is guilty for the world’s scarcity of resources to begin with. Society appoints these commissars to bureaucratic posts regulating companies in their dominative economic sectors, ensuring they do not benefit society to an excessive degree. It is understood these commissars are more qualified to direct production, as the capitalists conventionally lack even the most rudimentary of gold-embroidered epaulet. Rand by contrast called for utterly unregulated markets, famously prescribing a “separation of state and economics.” This form of capitalism derived from Objectivism is termed laissez-faire, or ‘unfettered’ in common parlance. ‘Unfettered’ in this case means something like unfettered in the way
A general sentiment among the book’s antagonists, it is first articulated as such in regards to the heirs of the Twentieth Century Motor Company and their plan to “put into practice that noble historical precept” by ensuring that “everybody in the factory, from charwomen to president, received the same salary— the barest minimum necessary” (301). This particular attempt at oppression is amateurish, as they have forgotten to employee the coercive power of the state. Although more traditional approaches are seen in the ‘Equalization of Opportunity Bill,’ ‘Directive 10-289’ or simply in the income taxation being shipped overseas, merely the prevalence of this attitude ignites John Galt’s retaliation and Ragnar’s privateering. The intrinsic injustice of a system that positions want itself as a mandate to extort is one so blatant that it requires multiple years of rigorous academic training to miss. The claim to one’s labor, justly acquired material possessions, skills and insights all stem rationally from a philosophical recognition of corporeal self-ownership. The concession of the mandate of want, then, is that the question of who claims what body’s labor and to what