>> Galt et al didn’t just leave because they felt like it, and civilization was already collapsing when they left. <<
No, they did something to flee... but they did flee.
>> Galt, Reardon, Mulligan, and the like all left society as a means of fleeing the inevitable collapse of a runaway socialist civilization. <<
Inevitable? Well Galt certainly abandoned all hope, but that’s precisely what’s so damned contemptible about the story. It divides humankind into two camps: a tiny number of producers, and a preponderance of leeches. But what about people like Eddie? Eddie didn’t build the railroad like Dagny did; he stayed within the corporation he rose up through, and so seems to have discarded as useless. Is he? He kept the railroad running while Dagny was experimenting with multiple sexual dalliances, demonstrating leadership, courage, persistence, intelligence, loyalty, and creativity. Galt and Taggart didn’t believe in God, and neither did Rand. So when they perceived they were losing, they abandoned hope and assured the utter destruction of everything they had created. In the end, they were LOSERS because they had no source of hope, in either God nor the inherent nature of man to desire freedom. Through Taggart and Galt, Rand expressed her belief that man was content being a useless serf to a socialistic totalitarian nanny-state. And because of that belief, Taggart and Galt surrendered in the face of that nanny-state. Contrast their behavior, say, to Frodo Baggins’.
>> Have you read the book yourself? <<
That’s a fairly insulting question, because the implication is that I’m parroting someone else’s interpretation. Have you read anyone else make similar points to mine?