The Randian view of this is just not very productive. Let's take a Randian hero, a self-made man (and it seems to always be men in her world) who is super creat

The Randian view of this is just not very productive. Let's take a Randian hero, a self-made man (and it seems to always be men in her world) who is super creative, independent and gets shit done. Maybe he runs a construction company. He's the 1 guy in the room. Now, he could build one house with his bare hands but then he would have one house to sell. OR he could hire another 4 people, build 5 houses and sell them all. Clearly in the second scenario he'd make far more money and create more. But in the second scenario, who are the "makers" and the "takers"? Maybe our hero had the creative drive so he deserves some extra credit, but surely the workers also did some making. The idea of "makers" and "takers" that animates the Randian world view doesn't really make practical sense. To make something at scale, no matter your personal genius, you need lots of others to join you in that enterprise. And to have what you made be worth anything, you need a lot of people to buy it. Bottom line: everyone is a maker and everyone is a taker, thinking about taxation in those terms doesn't hold up to moral or practical scrutiny.