In "Atlas Shrugged", Galt is not a leader, he is the man who says "no" to the socialists by going away. He encourages other productive individuals, men of the mind, to walk away from their work; to disappear, and thus deny the socialists the real capital on which they need to feed; the ability of the individual to think and produce.
So, instead of organizing a resistance and engaging his collectivist enemies in battle he just walks away? This smacks of “catacomb capitalism.”
I don’t think our Founding Fathers would have approved. After reading about Galt in _AS_, perhaps they would have thought: “a great and powerful character, but where is his sense of duty for and fellowship with his fellow countrymen?” Or am I missing Rand’s point?
I haven’t read _Atlas Shrugged_, but the more I read about it here on FR the more I think that it is more of a tool for analyzing and criticising the evils of collectivism and less of a program for political action (although it may be a CALL to political action). Or have I got it all wrong.