A final thought about Atlas Shrugged

One axiom I almost forgot is that the only possible reason anyone could aspire to do anything is money. Esai Morales, for example, argues that Rearden should just walk away because he can’t make any money: The government’s going to bleed him dry.
I’m not saying money’s not a motive, or that it’s a bad motive. But it’s not the only one. As witness that even when we had 90 percent tax rates a few decades back, people still went on producing (they are still a bad idea, but they did not kill the economy).
Consider, for example, the brilliant concert pianist we’re shown going Galt in Part Two: After he disappears, we learn he also destroyed his entire body of work (I will be generous here and assume Rand meant his everything he was working on, because it’s very unlikely he has the only copies of his finished compositions). How much money does she imagine he makes? You can be successful and rich as a classical composer—though that’s not the way I’d bet—but the vast majority of even good creative artists are not (and many of them throughout history have relied on government patronage). Even under the dystopian socialist regime of Rand’s story, it’s hard to imagine he’s making so much money that the government has to smack him down and suck him dry the way it does Hank Rearden or the Taggart company.
So why is he walking away? And why would he destroy his work instead of taking it with him, which is certainly what I’d do?
As a creative person, I like making money, but if that was my only agenda, I’d have quit years ago.
As an actor I’ve done community theater for years for zero money, just the applause and the fun.
Yet apparently a great pianist, clearly admired and respected (and presumably successful) is so oppressed by taxation that he has no interest in working further or even preserving his work. Short of the government announcing it was going to plagiarize my work and let other people take credit, I can’t imagine doing that.
It’s surprising Rand can. Sure, she liked money, but from most of what I read, she was one of those creative types with a hell of an ego, very proud of her success and her influence (she bitched a lot about libertarians cribbing from her work).
And going back to the point of Part Two, how exactly is this going to stop the world’s motor? Almost nobody in the creative arts is indispensable. Take away one writer or musician and another will emerge to fill the gap. Unless you start from the assumption that anyone who isn’t successful already must have no talent, one performer more or less will not derail the world.
And on that note, I’ve said enough.