[Gorjus]

...according to Rand it's not...

Another assumption - which is to say, a faith statement. Frankly, I would not have said that was her philosophy, based on reading Atlas Shrugged. (I haven't read the Fountainhead.) Instead, her rationalist hero John Galt, was willing to sacrifice himself for the benefit of the other 'good' (= competent) people. The key is that John Galt had selected a group for whom he was willing to sacrifice that wasn't the same as the degenerate society as a whole had declared to be worthy. Ultimately, I support his right to make that choice himself, rather than having others force that choice on him because they have the 'knack' (as Plato put it) of manipulating the masses.

In the end, I guess it becomes essentially semantics. She (or you) may declare that it's not a 'sacrifice' if one is willing to make it - but that's not the way I would use the word 'sacrifice.' I would say that it is giving up something of value. Sometimes we do that in return for something we consider of even higher value, but I'd still call it a sacrifice. And so, I believe that John Galt (Ayn Rand) had some valid value judgments because I share some of the underlying premises even as I disagree with others, but the basic premise that one can make an entire philosophy that is purely rational without underlying faith-based assumptions is wrong.

[Taka No Kimi]

Oh dear. It's the "meaning of the word" again!
Actually, John Galt himself said in his three-hour long radio speech (which didn't need to be that long, I think) that if a man dies fighting for his country it's not a sacrifice. But, as I've said before, to each his own.