Olivia Thaler Atlas Shrugged Reaction

    Atlas Shrugged has become one of my favorite books. Now that I am far enough into the book to understand the situations at hand more clearly, I am now able to make assumptions as to the questions I have been asking during the book.
    The most interesting part of the book so far, in my opinion, was Rearden’s trial. When Rearden finally took a stand against those who wanted to take advantage of him, I really felt compassion towards what he was preaching. He chose not to give in to society. He did not care what punishment he got, as long as his point and his beliefs remained intact. Rearden successfully pointed out the hypocritical nature of society by making them realize that by taking away his rights to something he created, destruction of society will inevitably occur. Why stop the great minds that allow for progression in society? While reading, I noted how ironic it was the Rearden was trapped behind bars, because it can be compared to how society is trapping creativity and progression that can only be brought about through people like Rearden.  This is exactly what Francisco D’Anconia wanted Rearden to realize all along. Rearden finally found the courage to stand up for himself, and I believe
D’Anconia was the source that ignited that fire in Rearden.
    They call Rearden greedy and unwilling to do what is best for the common good when in reality they are being selfish and unfair themselves. In reality, it is men like Rearden who allow society to advance and progress, taking away the rights of these great minds only makes them want to revolt against society, causing the reverse affect to occur. I assume that this all has led to the situation involving “the destroyer.”
    All the great men in the steel business have been disappearing because of what Dagny calls the “destroyer”. I believe what this “destroyer” is doing is not actually destroying the steel industry, but rather he/she is trying to prove a point as to the unjust nature that has become of the industry. By taking away all of these master-minded men from the industry, we will see that it will cause havoc. Society will realize how greatly they need the minds of those who are more intellectual than them only when they disappear. The saying "You don't know what you got till it's gone" is very fitting for the situation. The kind of impact that will occur once the destroyer has taken away the sources of creativity will be grand and I am excited to see what will happen and especially how society will react. This is exactly what the “destroyer” wants. Personally, I am an advocate of what I believe the “destroyer” is trying to accomplish. I was especially excited when I found out the Dagny is most likely the next great mind that the “destroyer” wants. Hopefully the “destroyer” will take Rearden too.
    Rearden points out that society’s perception of what they believe is “public good” is incorrect and hypocritical. The judges and other mediocre businessmen believe that they should have access to a great invention and it should be shared with the public without question. Although I see Rearden's point, I do believe he is not completely right. If you have a cure for cancer, are you going to let one person make a huge profit off of it or will they do what is better for the public good of the people and require that it be shared and therefore sold for less. But the more important question is: will people invent things if people are going to steal your ideas and take credit for it? If that is the case, inventors will find no motive to invent as they will feel stolen from.
   Ayn Rand is trying to reveal the unjust nature of business. She wants to say that people of greatness cannot be leveled down just because the average man is not capable of doing so. In our world, there will always be those who are more capable than others at being innovative and intellectual. So society must ask, is it fair to take away from those who are more capable in order to balance out the playing field? Or, is it necessary to take away from those intellectuals in name of the betterment of society? In order to answer these questions, we must realize that the world will never be perfect and there will most likely never be a perfect system to balance everyone out.