America's second most influential book after the Christian Bible is a favorite of mine, as it is of many or most libertarians. This entry a bit ago got me to wondering: not everyone appreciates it for the same reasons and exploring the differences, amongst those who like it, could be an interesting study. Offhand, I'm thinking of the central theme or device of the novel; that is, the producers (those to whom capital naturally flows because they know how to turn it) go on strike. Of course, anyone with an introductory high school understanding of economics can predict what happens. Unlike the fraudulent implication underlying strikes by employees (that they are particularly needed or particularly valuable), the world goes to hell in a hand basket. It's one thing to have a (temporarily) vacant job; quite another to have no jobs to be vacant and no resultant fruits of production to be had at any price. To me, that's more or less the entirety (essential) of the message: the world ought to be on its knees daily thanking the God of Capitalism for its very existence. In terms of public policy and those who strive to influence it (government, religion, big...