Rearden would understand this discussion and probably add to it, that is what he does.He deals with rational processes.
OTOH, Jim Taggert wouldn't, he doesn't use concrete, rational thought as a way of solving a problem.
The clash of these two distinct thought processes is the basis of AS.
As a machinist, you couldn't consider emotion in the design and manufacture of a part.
Jim Taggert couldn't design and build a part because he would have to include irrational elements thus spoiling it's intended use.
Taggert could, however use others to build it for him.
To do so he needs to make them feel as if they are indebted to him in some manner.
That is what the looters and moochers do.
If you look at my previous posts, I'm sure that you'll see that I don't agree with Ragnars destructive actions, I'm with you on this. The destruction of wealth is not condoned by the producers because they understand that it is a regression that will have to once again be overcome if they can continue living as they do.
How can we deal with irrationality in a world that we view as rational? Something has to give.
I think Ragnar's actions square with Galt's principle that force may (must) be resorted to when force has been used against one, in this case, through unjust tax law backed by the government's guns. As you say, his fellow strikers disagree with his methods, but primarily because they pose an unwarranted danger to him personally. But, of course, he is free to pursue his understanding of the correct action.
Kirk