I suppose I should have emphasized the If when I posited my hypothetical, "If a Randian utopia, a Galt's Gulch were established..."
Point being, no great civilization, society or nation comes into being without people recognizng a cause or bond greater than self. So the notion that such a place would come into being in the first place is purely hypothetical. Why would I expect they wouldn't band together to defend it? Because I've read Rand. If the Randian Army were to have any chance of effectively defending itself, they would have to establish a hierarchy of soldiers, NCOs and officers (as you say, "organize"). The officers and NCOs would have to order subordinates into harm's way, which would be against that individual soldier's "self-interest" (unless perhaps it was a Frederick the Great type system in whch the soldiers were taught to fear their own leaders more than the enemy). In either case, being ordered into a duty against one's self interest is entirely antithetical to Rand's highest moral purpose which is the achievment of one's own happiness.
FReepmail.
Well, I would suggest that when thousands [or millions] of individuals recognize a cause that is valuable to them personally and join with other thousands or millions of individuals, great things can happen. But it all starts with the individual.
In either case, being ordered into a duty against one's self interest is entirely antithetical to Rand's highest moral purpose which is the achievment of one's own happiness.
Wow. You really do have a warped impression of her philosophy. If a man desires liberty but must go to war to defend it or regain it, then the fact of being put in harm's way is not against his self interest.
Really, your understanding of Rand is inaccurate and, actually, pretty insulting.