>>>Wealth was never their goal. Power was their goal.
>
>I seem to recall Francisco d’Anconia telling Taggart's moochers that "Money is made- before it can be looted or mooched- made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability…" and then Galt goes to some lengths on the radio to explain that the villains seek to divorce money from its origins. According to Galt, the concept of MAKING profit is split from the concept of HAVING profit which has no point- "as if wealth, the effect, could give you ability, the cause."
>
>Seems to me that Rand wanted people to earn their crust, not just to have 20 loaves of bread. For some reason she is quoted to support what appears to be a mooching viewpoint where "having" takes the place of "earning," which IMHO is the wrong end of the Randian stick.

Of course Rand respected (as well she should) individuals who rose by their honest work. But here's where you fall victim to the false dichotomy (and again, I'm sorry, but you and others here are just raising fallacy after fallacy). There's another piece to this - the concept of ownership and rights to retain wealth. Rand also respected the concept of private property (against the trend of confiscation of wealth and the means to wealth) - and respected that a person could use their wealth on whatever they wish

Look, if I ever made millions of dollars, I'd certain leave a good amount to my family to make sure they would do OK, and I'd give the rest to charity. But here's a concept that (sadly) others miss......the money is MINE. That's a concept I wish people would understand....the money would be MINE and I can do with it as I please. Now, me being a reasonably upstanding person, I want to do the right things with it. But if I elected to give it all to my kid, it's MY decision. The govt has no right to decide to tax it heavily, and quite candidly I'm extremely disappointed in those people who think they should have a say/claim on how someone leaves his fortune.