Its the implied assignment of intrinsic social value to an arbitrary hierarchical class that I am incensed at. What if I suggest the terms "exploiters" and "craftsmen" be substituted instead? Language, as that great English socialist Eric Blair understood perfectly well, is not mathematics. It can be manipulated to communicate a purely subjective content, and it can be done in such a way that it comes across as precise and logical.

The producers are cast as innovative and creative risk-takers, true leaders of civilization, and the workers as plodding, lazy slugs who need the firm guidance, (or the swift boot up the arse) of the producers or they would quickly lapse back into their natural sloth and crime.

That's what Mr Romney was implying to his fat cat donor friends when he thought no one else was listening. That's why he wasn't saying it out loud, and proudly putting it in his platform. He and his class have contempt for anyone who isn't like them, and they are joined by the shameful sycophants and wannabees who see themselves as producers, even though they are just workers like me and thee. As for the 47% who pay no taxes, what about the 50-odd percent who didn't pay taxes in the past because they were housewives? What about children, and the aged, and the sick? There are lots of people who pay no taxes, including lots of "producers" who have cleverly gamed the system so they pay as little as possible. Most people throughout history have paid no taxes and did not produce anything of immediate commercial value. But they weren't fed and supported by the producers, they were the families of the workers who fed and supported them by working even harder. And what about those who would love to work and pay taxes and can't because the producers are doing everything they can, legally, economically, politically and technically to find a way not to employ them?

And what's the solution to the sloth and perfidy of these delinquent workers? It's always no unions, no regulations, no benefits, and always lower taxes for the producers. Sure, if we let the producers do anything they want, the jobs will just materialize, just like magic. And of course, no social welfare so the workers will remain docile and terrified of losing their income. Desperation is good for business. I would say that it would only mean a regression to the abuses of the Gilded Age, but you've already gone on record waxing nostalgic about the glories of that shameful time and history.

As for Ms Rand, I have the same comment as I do about Mr Heinlein. These are science fiction writers, they created arbitrary fictional civilizations rigged to support their own prejudices, and surprise! those fictional universes clearly demonstrated the flaws of those they opposed. At least Heinlein was fun to read, but Rand gave us a gloomy universe where producers cavalierly abandoned society when it no longer kissed their sweet-smelling entrepreneurial ass. As for her noble workers, one blew up the buildings he designed because the employers who paid his salary had the audacity to insist on having a voice in how they were constructed and used. Isn't that called "sabotage" when other workers in the real universe do it?

You're right. Although I read a lot of Heinlein, I never read "Atlas Shrugged", but I have talked at length to those who were favorably impressed by them. I don't like what I see there.