Not to derail the thread back to the OP’s original question. But why does the OP think that trash collection in Rand’s world is a “Great Debate”-y question? The answer seems fairly obvious to me. The trash would literally sit there and pile up or people would have to deal with it individually until some enterprising person says “I’ll take care of your trash problem. What’s it worth to you?”
IIRC from the book, wealth earned outside of Galt’s Gulch was largely irrelevant. You couldn’t just move there, hire a bunch of servants and live like you’re at a resort. You still had to find meaningful work, whether that was starting a bank or sweeping the local restaurant. But the advantage was that you got to keep what you earned and could do whatever you like with it.
The answer is “depends”. The sort of moocher CEO you are referring to is more similar to James Taggart in the book. Taggart basically pulls down a CEO salary, but doesn’t really do anything other than peddle influence. His sister Dagny actually gets stuff done.
Rand’s ideal of a CEO is more similar to a Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Howard Hughes or Henry Ford. Brilliant (if imperfect) men who built their companies through their own business prowess and ingenuity. Sometimes from scratch.
Workers aren’t “forced” to support any lifestyle. If you can get a better offer for your skills, you are free to move on. Or develop better skills. That’s why in the real world, there are plenty of people who work in large, successful companies making a heck of a lot more than $30k. It’s also the reason why the guy who empties Gate’s garbage pail at night doesn’t (and shouldn’t) earn millions.
In the book, (have you read it? I lose track what with so many people proudly proclaiming their ignorance about a topic on which they nonetheless have fairly strong opinions) it is not a nonexistent distinction.
Which is another issue with the book: in a world where a company’s performance depends on political connections and cronyism, the guy who’s in charge of forging political connections and lining up cronies is being productive, and looking out for the company’s best interests. The system may be condemned, but the participants in it are rational actors.
ETA: To be fair to Rand, though, game theory was in its infancy when she was writing AS.
What’s the issue? I think Rand does portray their actions as rational, just unsustainable. The actions she presents as irrational are those of the ‘producers’. And it is by making them see this that Galt gets them to strike.
Your comment does make me wonder - a character type that doesn’t make an appearance but would have been interesting to see is the ‘corrupted’ producer. One who has/had the ability but saw there was no point and turned their talent to looting/mooching. But perhaps in Rand’s black and white world, such fungibility of abilities had no place.
But her philosophy isn’t quite as bendy as that(a flaw), and if you accept her premises this is not an issue. Rational self interest should lead them to see that what they’re doing is wrong and unsustainable. Had she actually promoted naked self interest of the sort that her detractors often accuse her of doing, then you would be correct.
ETA: I realise that I just contradicted myself here. Will express better later.
That’s a feature, not a bug. Point being, those people make it harder, not easier, for the folks like Dagny who produce stuff. Not only are they not needed, they are actually a drag on production. That’s one of the key reasons Galt went on strike. Let the world see how well it gets by when the moochers and looters are all that’s left. How do the trains run when the guy in charge knows only how to schmooze politicians in DC?
There are a couple of examples of them, to one degree or another. Fred Kinnan, the labour relations head who forms one of the ruling party towards the end, is certainly portrayed as shrewd, and someone who knows exactly what they’re doing but has decided that their best hope of survival and power lies in riding it out. He refuses to talk to Galt because he knows that it would be a waste of both of their time: Galt is “right,” in the context of the story, and Kinnan is just taking advantage of what’s left, feeding off the decay in the world.
He’s still a villain because he knows that what he’s doing is wrong and does it anyway, but he still comes off as the smartest and most sympathetic of the group of rulers. Rand tries to write him as a cynic with a snarky deadpan and a sense of humor, and he’s loyal to his men, which I suspect means she thought of him as at least less venal than the others, although I don’t know that I would go so far as to say he was meant to be representative of someone living the only possible way in that society.
But Dr. Stadler is the closest to fitting that archetype. He was clearly very smart; he taught the major striking figures at university, and he’s one of only two or three people who realize the value of Galt’s invention. He could’ve been one of them, but he decided that the only way to advance his interests was by playing to the society (in the book*)'s love of “the common good” to fund his research. He’s notably different from his colleague Dr. Ferris in that he’s not a true believer in that society, and he thinks that he’s applying his talents in just as correct a way as the heroes of the book are.
It’s almost the closest Rand gets to subtlety. In my view he and Willers are the closest the book has to truly tragic figures —both because of flaws in their personality, albeit very different flaws. They’re both presented sympathetically, and even Dagny has a hard time not affording Dr. Stadler respect for his (misapplied) genius. And I suspect a number of people think that trash would wound up being collected by people like Willers, who are good followers, but I don’t think that’s really the point Rand was making, because of course the book is pure fantasy.
It’s really not clear to me — maybe John Mace or someone else knows better — how close the book’s society really was meant to be to the United States. It’s located in the same geographic place, but it’s alt-history or fantasy at a pretty substantial level. The Constitution is quoted, once, but there’s never any mention of any functional government. The only “presidents” are of companies and societies; the political leader is just “the Head of State,” and there seems to be central planning commissions or soviets but no senate or legislative body. Calling it “America” is a real stretch.
The distinction is that James Taggart is a main antagonist and a cautionary figure in the book.
The issue is that in the real world, there are often non-corruption, non-crazy reasons for politics. Namely that companies are not all 100% beneficial or destructive and that people and groups often have conflicting interests. Rand’s world never seems to experience any unintended consequences. There’s no downside to using Rearden Steel.
In aggregate, sure. Individually, they are needed by any firm that wants a chance at success, in the world of the book. Taking a moral stand and refusing to play the political game is a path to ruin. From the perspective of any one firm, the influence-peddler is just as important to the company as the head engineer.
Well, that’s the thing-- you can’t count on the Sanction of the Victim. You don’t get to claim someone stabs you in the back when you’re sucking the blood out of them. A rational person would not expect to be able to do that indefinitely.
I am aware that it all came to ruin in the book. My objection was to how Rand portrays the motives and value of the antagonists. But, like I mentioned, game theory was just starting to coalesce into an academic discipline at the time, so maybe it’s unfair to criticize Rand for portraying the influence-peddlers as she did.
It could be rational, short term, to try and live the life of a moocher, but it was not a rational long terms strategy in the book. Whether it is IRL is another matter.