The Critics are right. There is no Galt's Gulch. There is no Electro-static motor. There are no Ideal Objectivitst Heros acting as titans of industry who would make everything collapse if they walked away. Ayn Rand wasn't  a Saint.  The Book isn't  Holy Writ, nor is it a literal truth. It  will not give the world  a Utopian society, and it doesn't read like Shakespeare. But that describes most works of fiction. The The absurdity of the Straw man of Literalism as opposed the the current political movement  is addressed here

But regardless of the current politics, Liberals have always been  desperate to ignore what the book is saying, because what it is stating, with perfect clarity, is the basis of Liberal Morality:  The idea that Virtue can only be found in an altruistic and unselfish act in which the actor receives no MATERIAL GAIN. However, Liberals believe they receive a spiritual gain from this activity – and that through such acts that can  they greedily accrue a form of spiritual currency by which they can command respect and justify the imposition of their wills on others, appointing themselves the enlightened moral judges of mankind.  Altruism of this sort demands a constant supply of people “with needs”, and an endless supply of things to give them. To obtain such a supply, they must abandon the Founding Principles of America, Limit the Pursuit of Happiness of others, and despotically deprive the people of the right of conscience to enslave them  into the service of their “altruistic” giving.  

Liberals wish to be admired for such intensions, with complete disregard for the real world consequences of their actions. Liberals want material wealth to be distributed without reference to effort, without having to earn it, with no question of if the recipients deserve it, and regardless of what consequences ensue from that practice, or what behaviors it encourages. They proclaim collective responsibility  so that the consequences of their actions can be blamed on society, instead of themselves. Their only goal is the Prideful  collection of  “Spiritual Wealth” by which they can  justify their own existence.  Of course, such Pride is simply Spiritual Greed.  Liberals confiscate the ability to do “good deeds” from others, in order to narcissistically highlight their own “good Deed” as the supreme goal and justification for their existence. To prove they are better and more deserving than those who accomplish and produce THEIR OWN material or spiritual wealth. Liberals laud the idea of equality of result, and define giving to the undeserving as the ultimate hallmark of Spiritual Excellence and Virtue. The confiscation of the abilities of others IS THE “good deed” so beloved of Liberals , for it prevents others from excelling and standing out. Liberals believe they become Spiritually Rich and enlightened by demonstrating this virtue.

Liberals denigrate the keeping of the sweat of one’s brow, produced either in risk or in labor, as the definition of the sin of Greed, but really it is the Liberal sin of accomplishment.  Accomplishment leads to discrimination between individuals and judgment of them based on what they can contribute, what they can do, what they can risk.  It leads to inequality of both material and spiritual wealth, and a system in which you must EARN both. Liberals prefer an indiscriminate system – one that does not make judgments, nor demand results, and accountability is placed on the anonymity of the group. Tearing a man down is easier than building a man up, especially if that man is yourself.  

In Atlas Shrugged, the Nation has become the Victim of such people. Accomplishment is seen as depravity.  “Abilities” that are confiscated for the benefit of those with “needs”, deprive the entire human race of the alternate uses of those abilities. Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a night. Teach a Man to Fish, and you will feed him for the rest of his life. Liberals would rather do the former so they can take “pride” in the giving. They abhor the latter, because teaching requires effort and accomplishment, both on the part of the teacher and on the part of the student. Liberals would rather take resources from those who might teach the entire race to cure cancer, who might create a new invention, who might risk a business enterprise and teach others to work, and allow them to accomplish as well.  Instead,  Liberals seize the abilities of others and almost invariably allocate those resources to individuals who have a decided inability to do these things, otherwise known as a demonstrable “need.” The Liberal never wants to actually solve or eradicate  these “needs”, for it is by temporarily satisfying such needs at the expense of the accomplishment (real or potential) of others  that they justify their own sense of worth, and demand  the obedience of others. If other people actually provide for these needs by teaching someone to fish, they are "unfairly" robbing Liberals of their source of Spiritual Wealth, of their daily affirmation that they are worthy and good people.  Thus any accomplishment, no matter how noble or worthwhile to the human race, is denigrated as “greed” if the person presenting the accomplishment gains by it. This is why Liberals troll conservative websites – they come to sneer, to glory in their moral superiority over those who derive meaning from their accomplishments rather than by self-righteous navel gazing.  

The Phrase “Who is John Galt?” is a lament, a shrug of the shoulders, an expression of helplessness.  The most simple translation is this: “This is not what I want to do,  but this is what conditions  incent me to do.” John Galt is the personification of the incentives presented to each individual. Liberals simply refuse to see the consequences of their actions, and the incentives they create. To see it would rob them of their “virtue”, of their greedy seeking after undeserved “spiritual wealth”  and confront them with the real  world where “Life isn’t fair” and “a man must earn his bread by the sweat of his brow.” The definition of slavery is making one man make bread so another can eat it, and that is what the Liberals require to justify their “enlightened” morality.   

People with a choice, however, will produce less because they find it is in their self-interest to do so. Why display abilities and work for something you will not be allowed to keep or keep as much of? Why not ease off and enjoy the other things life has to offer such as friends and family. Why not choose to become someone with “needs”?  These changes to not need to be absolute. No one must  to walk off of their job, or move to the mountains. Production is incrementally scaled back as reward is scaled back. Year after year the looters will have less to steal and distribute, until they are forced to enact laws that establish slavery.  Don’t believe me? Look at the GNP per Capita and laws of any socialist nation.

In the end, Atlas will shrug regardless of how many people read Ayn Rand, agree with her ideas, or think of her as good writer or a good person. Atlas will shrug no matter how much you malign the novel and the ideas.  Atlas will shrug without Ideal Objectivist Heroes acting as Titans of industry, and without a Galt’s Gulch to run to. The Motor of the world doesn’t have to Stop, it can merely slow and thereby reduce the standard living of mankind and dim the light of human achievement.  John Galt existed long before Ayn Rand named him and put him in a book, and will exist long after her books have turned to dust. He is an immortal part of the human spirit. You may call him the Selfish part if you wish, but that will not stop nor banish him. Atlas will Shrug because of WHO JOHN GALT IS.