While watching my new DVD of The Fountainhead, I was struck by how some of Howard Roark’s alleged heroism rested on his rejection of the Misean doctrine of consumer sovereignty. Mises taught that entrepreneurs prosper in the market by serving the wishes of the consumer, if an entrepreneur offers a product or service that is rejected by the consumer, the entrepreneur will either alter the original product to meet consumer needs or offer a new product that does appeal to consumers.

However, rather than try to accommodate his customers, Howard Roark demands that his customers accommodate themselves to him. While the fictional Howard Roark has inspired millions of libertarians, in my experience, architects (and other “creative professionals” such as artists and musicians) who share Roark’s scorn for “compromising their ideals” to meet the demands of the marketplace tend to be among the most outspoken advocates of the cultural welfare state (e.g. the National Endowment for the Arts). After all, since the market rewards “second-handers” and not the those of vision, then the market needs corrected by government programs destined to give the masses want they need, instead of what they want. In the real world, failed businessmen, architects, artists, etc., are unlikely to serve as potential recruits to the cause of liberty, and are poor role modals for libertarians, even if the claimed reason for their failure is because they held fast to their “ideals.”

Mark Skousen called attention to the conflict between Rand and Mises in 2001.