# Ayn Rand's philosophy on the middle and working classes **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 11, 2009, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381 "2009-02-11T16:26:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/101 "2009-02-12T13:18:56Z")
The **meritocracy** of the world of Atlas Shrugged (and why we are now emboldening the word **meritocracy** I’m not sure, but okie dokie) is only a **meritocracy** in the same way that, say, the world of the Justice League would be a **meritocracy** if it were the case that Superman, Aquaman and Wonder Woman ruled that society. Or perhaps a more appropriate analogy would be the world of NBC’s _Heroes_, if the Heroes decided to rule the country or the world, since their origins are “among us.” So, if rulership by a group of supermen is indeed **meritocracy** , then perhaps my objection lacks merit. However, if **meritocracy** is to be considered “rule by natural abilities” as it occasionally may be defined, I would have a problem applying it to rule by an elite group of supermen, given that “super” men and natural abilities are inconsistent with one another. And Rand’s protagonists are really a race apart. (And I know that I am NOT the first person to ever describe Ayn Rand’s protagonists as “supermen”, despite the CONTENT of the book being as it is.) Thus, my assertion that Atlas Shrugged really describes a **hagiocracy** or **Supermanocracy** rather than a **meritocracy**. Perhaps if she weren’t such a shit writer, or if she were able to think in more nuanced ways about her philosophy, she could have described a less cartoonish version of a **meritocracy** that would not be so jarring and different from reality. I’m just going to be chuffed all day that I was the first person ever to think of this! I should rule, if this were a **meritorious** world. ETA: **F.U. Shakespeare** , my hat is off to any man who can work a Smales quote into a discussion. Nice! ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/102 "2009-02-12T13:26:59Z")
> [@Madgolf](#): > > Hank Reardon was hobbled with a full time government “liason” who was, IMHO, the second most detestable character in the book. You’re not talking about the Wet Blanket, are you? If so, that’s not your only opinion of him, is it? Most detestable characters in AS to me: James Taggart is #1 A-hole by a length, with Liilian Rearden next. Probably Dr. Robert Stadler is 3rd, altho Ayn would probably have him as # 1, because he should have known better. James & Lillian were what they were with little pretense. Stadler knew better. A is A. ---
**Author:** ![SiXSwordS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@SiXSwordS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SiXSwordS)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/103 "2009-02-12T13:31:59Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > … In Fountainhead one of the greatest sculptors of his time pretty much languishes in obscurity…and after getting his big chance is basically panned by a group of people who definitely don’t want people of merit or ability to rise to the top. I think it is worth noting that the female lead in Fountainhead collects the works of that sculptor in order to drop them down a ventilator shaft and destroy them. She also seeks to destroy Roark and becomes his lover only after he rapes her. (In one of her letters, Rand describes the scene as a rape scene.) Rand mixed in equal measures of melodrama with her objectivist philosophy and any discussion of her work should take that into account. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/104 "2009-02-12T15:11:11Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > As for Rand’s philosophy of the working class, it was (as described above) that they should be happy to be serving the elite leadership and fall in line with whatever self-proclaimed visionaries demand of them…which is suspiciously close to the philosophy of the fascist and authoritarian socialist societies that Rand so derided. Could you give two specific examples from the book that demonstrate this? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/105 "2009-02-12T15:12:33Z")
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian] So, if rulership by a group of supermen is indeed meritocracy, then perhaps my objection lacks merit. However, if meritocracy is to be considered “rule by natural abilities” as it occasionally may be defined, I would have a problem applying it to rule by an elite group of supermen, given that “super” men and natural abilities are inconsistent with one another. And Rand’s protagonists are really a race apart. (And I know that I am NOT the first person to ever describe Ayn Rand’s protagonists as “supermen”, despite the CONTENT of the book being as it is.) [/QUOTE] While it’s true that Rand’s protagonists are a cut above, this isn’t the be all or end all of the characters in her books. There are a lot of examples of just ordinary folks who join with or befriend the main characters, helping them out or even joining their ranks…just guys who are very good engineers, writers, composers, or even construction workers or laborers. These folks are also given the same respect in the books. This is what makes her books about a meritocracy, since judgment is about the content of a persons character and the worth of their skills. If you go back and slog through some of the speeches the main characters gave you will see that this is exactly what they are talking about. I guess I can see now what you are getting at a bit clearer. Her protagonists are so over the top that you take it to be sort of like the Justice League, a rule by a very small elite of super humans. However, that’s not what her books or her philosophy is about…it’s about the constant striving for the best in each individual. -XT ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/106 "2009-02-12T15:20:15Z")
So we are to judge the heroes by their words but the moochers and looters by their deeds. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/107 "2009-02-12T15:25:20Z")
[QUOTE=erislover] So we are to judge the heroes by their words but the moochers and looters by their deeds. [/QUOTE] You are, of course, free to do whatever you like. I think the author intended for her readers to judge both heroes, non-heroes and moochers/looters/antagonists by their words AND deeds…and to see the underlying philosophy that drives both groups. Each of her novels is simply a vehicle to show and contrast her philosophy with that of collectivism/communism/socialism, and to work out in the novels the points she wished to reader to think about. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/108 "2009-02-12T15:26:38Z")
> [@HtheB](#): > > and why we are now emboldening the word meritocracy I’m not sure, but okie dokie That was me, sorry. I was just stressing the word to make the point to **xtisme** that I agreed with his main point about Rand’s book not having a specifically _class_-based elite. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/109 "2009-02-12T15:48:02Z")
**xtisme** , I’m just trying to understand your position, is all. I still have a soft spot in my heart for Rand. I think a lot of her underlying ideas were sound. Trivial, but sound. She could have done with a healthy dose of not conflating self-interest (good, everyone agrees) with selfishness, but I suppose stating something obvious is not as interesting as twisting the language. Also, it would have been nice for her to actually demonstrate anything that she claimed directly follows from the law of identity and “man’s nature,” whatever that means. (It is interesting that man can act against his own nature. This is not how I understand the term “nature” nor yet the adjective “natural”.) > [@xtisme](#): > > Each of her novels is simply a vehicle to show and contrast her philosophy with that of collectivism/communism/socialism, and to work out in the novels the points she wished to reader to think about. I am sure such stark comparisons made her think she had gotten to the heart of the matter, and in my time I agreed, but now I feel there is a difference between simplifying assumptions to make a specific point and simplistic reasoning to make a general point. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/110 "2009-02-12T15:57:49Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I guess I can see now what you are getting at a bit clearer. Her protagonists are so over the top that you take it to be sort of like the Justice League, a rule by a very small elite of super humans. However, that’s not what her books or her philosophy is about…it’s about the constant striving for the best in each individual. > > -XT I appreciate that you are able to at least see my point rather than simply dismissing me as failing to read or comprehend. I’m glad I thought of the Superfriends as a vehicle for clarification. And I would make a note than anyone who can violate the laws of thermodynamics and come up with a perpetual energy machine is pretty much super human, even compared to the rest of the elite, who are simply good looking people who never make false moves. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/111 "2009-02-12T16:05:12Z")
As far as a “meritocracy” is concerned: the last thing Rand’s heroes wanted was to “rule;” they had no interest in taking anything over. In fact Galt was tortured because he refused to run the economy. None of them wanted to take over the government or the economy or society. They just wanted the government out of their way. You know, Rand is always criticized for beating the reader over the head with her ideas. But apparently, even after being beaten over the head, some readers just didn’t get it. It’s appalling that people who (supposedly) read the book are left with the impression that she was talking about some fixed elite, and didn’t care about people of average means. I’d think that someone who was beat over the head by certain ideas would at least remember what those ideas were. In her personal life, Rand was extremely generous and supportive of anyone who exhibited rationality and competence, especially young people just starting out. And she was most critical of people who most would consider an “elite” who sold out their principles. She made this very clear in much of her writings and speeches. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/112 "2009-02-12T16:15:43Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > You know, Rand is always criticized for beating the reader over the head with her ideas. But apparently, even after being beaten over the head, some readers just didn’t get it. It’s appalling that people who (supposedly) read the book are left with the impression that she was talking about some fixed elite, and didn’t care about people of average means. I’d think that someone who was beat over the head by certain ideas would at least remember what those ideas were. Perhaps because someone who can adequately express her opinions in writing wouldn’t need to beat people over the head, figuratively speaking? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/113 "2009-02-12T16:21:45Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > As far as a “meritocracy” is concerned: the last thing Rand’s heroes wanted was to “rule;” they had no interest in taking anything over. In fact Galt was tortured because he refused to run the economy. None of them wanted to take over the government or the economy or society. They just wanted the government out of their way. You are correct; insisting things be done your way or you quit is not “ruling.” But if the people making this demand happen, by assertion (or, more charitably, “hypothesis”), to be the very glue of society, then it is a decidedly more complicated question. > [@](#): > > You know, Rand is always criticized for beating the reader over the head with her ideas. But apparently, even after being beaten over the head, some readers just didn’t get it. I am sure both sides find it perplexing. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/114 "2009-02-12T16:23:50Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Perhaps because someone who can adequately express her opinions in writing wouldn’t need to beat people over the head, figuratively speaking? If people insist on attacking her for things she never said, and never would have said, whose fault is that? The book is filled with examples of average people whom Rand considered heroes, people who would never be considered an elite. All you have to do is read it. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/115 "2009-02-12T16:50:47Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > As far as a “meritocracy” is concerned: the last thing Rand’s heroes wanted was to “rule;” they had no interest in taking anything over. In fact Galt was tortured because he refused to run the economy. None of them wanted to take over the government or the economy or society. They just wanted the government out of their way. I just wanted to come back to this assertion, because I’m not clear if you too are arguing that Rand did not propose meritocracy. You say that the elite, or the group led by Galt, if you prefer, didn’t want to rule, but they also did not want to answer to government. So, what system of rulership would that be? The government doesn’t govern, it defers to the Galt group. But they don’t want to “rule” according to you, so what do we have? Anarchy? How does that jibe with all the other Rand enthusiasts here who have read the book and have been arguing in favor of her asserting a meritocracy? Besides, I would agree with **erislover** that a group who has the ability to say “Do things this way or we’ll abscond with your society” is de facto ruling society, even though it be not written down in the CONTENTS. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/116 "2009-02-12T17:07:16Z")
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian] I just wanted to come back to this assertion, because I’m not clear if you too are arguing that Rand did not propose meritocracy. You say that the elite, or the group led by Galt, if you prefer, didn’t want to rule, but they also did not want to answer to government. [/QUOTE] I’ll take a shot at this, even though you asked another poster for his or her thoughts. In AS, Galt et al certainly did not want to rule. They had no intention of ever ruling. They simply did not want use their minds to further the current social structure…so they went on strike until that social structure had changed or had finally won. Galt et al were perfectly willing to work within the existing system…as menial laborers. What they were unwilling to do is to use their minds or talents to further a social structure or agenda that they were so opposed too. So, they WERE in fact willing to ‘answer to the government’…they simply chose how they would do so and on what terms. They had no desire to control the government (in fact, as was pointed out, Galt was actually tortured because he WOULDN’T take control of the government). What they wanted to do was to enact a fundamental change in peoples perceptions…in effect to kill off the concept of Robin Hood and the entire house of cards (in Rands mind) that makes up collectivism/communism/socialism. Once that happened the main characters in the book would happily live under the new system…their desires were not for power in this new system but for the freedom to pursue their lifes dreams unhindered or hampered by the old system. > [@](#): > > So, what system of rulership would that be? The government doesn’t govern, it defers to the Galt group. But they don’t want to “rule” according to you, so what do we have? Anarchy? How does that jibe with all the other Rand enthusiasts here who have read the book and have been arguing in favor of her asserting a meritocracy? No, not anarchy. More like the concept of small government Libertarianism (even though Rand herself was actually opposed to the Libertarian movement). Rand was in favor of complete deregulation and complete laissez-faire capitalism. I suppose that some would find that similar to anarchy, but she wasn’t really advocating anarchy by her own definitions. My own assertion of Rand envisioning a meritocracy didn’t really have anything to do with the main characters in the the books ruling…simply that she felt that people should rise on their own merits. My ASSUMPTION is that this would hold for her preferred form of government as well, though I don’t think she ever explored that in AS (she did in some of her other works, but I’m trying to stay focused on this particular book and not bring in stuff from other works). > [@](#): > > Besides, I would agree with erislover that a group who has the ability to say “Do things this way or we’ll abscond with your society” is de facto ruling society, even though it be not written down in the CONTENTS But you are turning around the entire plot by your statement there. The point of the book was more ‘We can’t accept your society, so if you insist on keeping it we will happily work in your system…as day laborers, mechanics, short order cooks, etc. You can have our bodies but our minds are our own.’. It’s a pretty profound difference from the way you are stating it. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/117 "2009-02-12T17:36:01Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Without the guy who created the wheel or fire (or all the other things we take for granted) human society would still be roaming the plains hunting and gathering…and without even stone tools (for which we have some other nameless individual to thank). > > THAT is the point of the books. Taking for granted that you’re right about this, it seems to me that it’s not even disputable that Rand had absolutely no idea what she was talking about and absolutely no understanding about how innovation, advances in technology and science, and human history actually operates. There was no “nameless indivdual” to thank for fire and the wheel, because almost certainly, it was not _one person at one time at one place_ who was reponsible for such discoveries or innovations. These innovations happened repeatedly, independently, at different places and times. Undoubtedly they were discovered/invented more than once before they caught on and started spread in local areas. And this is true of innovation and technology up to today. Yes, without _X_ event at _Y_ time, _Z_ wouldn’t have happened, but, you know what, it would have happened _eventually_, maybe at _Y_+1 year or _Y_+20 year or _Y_+100 year or _Y_+1,000 year. And that might have had effects on particular events, but overall, the technological advancement of human history would hardly have been disturbed. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/118 "2009-02-12T17:52:13Z")
Ms. Rand’s “philosophy” is a marvelous system for adding machines. But not for monkeys. Which we are. Monkeys are collectivist. Family, tribe, clan, nation, all the essential units of monkeyness are collective. Ms. Rand’s political views are little more than anarchy with enforceable property rights. Which, really, is all lazy fair capitalism amounts to: “I’ve got mine, Jack, you get yours or fuck you.” Ms. Rand purports to present us with a philosophy of pure rationalism, free from the taint of irrational constraints of altruism and empathy. But as anyone who has taken Philosophy 101 knows, that’s absurd, any and all such systems must be founded on an unprovable assumption, otherwise its turtles all the way down, now isn’t it? And as everyone knows, those who refuse to learn from Philosophy 101 are doomed to repeat it. Or was that History? I like to entertain the notion that Ayn Rand was a visionary who saw Vonnegut’s Bokononism before he did, and was simply experimenting to see how absurd she could be and still be taken seriously. But the leaden solemnity of her prose precludes any hope of whimsy. She was serious. Dead serious. More’s the pity. Never live for another? OK, I guess, till you have kids. Which is probably why John Galt didn’t have any. (It’s been near forty years since I recovered from Objectivism, so memory dims. Did any of her robotic heroes make any babies? How does soulless rationalism survive watching your baby sleep?) ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/119 "2009-02-12T18:27:50Z")
> [@Rand Rover](#): > > > [@Stranger on a Train](#): > > > > As for Rand’s philosophy of the working class, it was (as described above) that they should be happy to be serving the elite leadership and fall in line with whatever self-proclaimed visionaries demand of them…which is suspiciously close to the philosophy of the fascist and authoritarian socialist societies that Rand so derided. > > Could you give two specific examples from the book that demonstrate this? Thanks. I’m not **Stranger** and I think his wording may be somewhat exaggerated, but I certainly see his general point that _Atlas Shrugged_ does glorify the self-described “men of the mind” in comparison to ordinary workers. Parts of John Galt’s final speech, for instance, make that clear (no page numbers, sorry, but I’m sure you can find the passages in your own copies): > [@](#): > > When you work in a modern factory, you are paid, not only for your labor, but for all the productive genius which has made that factory possible: for the work of the industrialist who built it, for the work of the investor who saved the money to risk on the untried and the new […] > > If you worked as a blacksmith in the mystics’ Middle Ages, the whole of your earning capacity would consist of an iron bar produced by your hands in days and days of effort. How many tons of rail do you produce per day if you work for Hank Rearden? Would you dare to claim that the size of your pay check was created solely by your physical labor and that those rails were the product of your muscles? The standard of living of that blacksmith is all that your muscles are worth; the rest is a gift [!] from Hank Rearden. […] > > The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains. Yes, this sort of talk does rather contradict Rand’s implications elsewhere in the book that menial laborers are just as good as anybody else as long as they’re being the best menial laborers they can be. However, that’s Rand’s contradiction, not mine. This passage clearly demonstrates the fundamentally elitist thinking that posters here have been attributing to her: inventors, businessmen, scientists, philosophers belong “at the top of the intellectual pyramid” and are entitled to more than they get, while the working classes belong at the bottom of the pyramid and get more than they’re entitled to. (And I’ve never really figured out why Rand thinks that a modern steelworker should be individually entitled only to the standard of living of a medieval blacksmith, with all additional benefits being a “gift” from “the men of the mind”, while a modern scientist should be individually entitled to much more than the standard of living of a medieval scientist. Sure, the accumulation of scientific and technological developments since medieval times artificially enhances the productivity of today’s steelworker, but it artificially enhances the productivity of today’s scientist too.) ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/120 "2009-02-12T18:32:59Z")
Case closed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381.md?page=7)