I'm not sure that I agree with the basis of the question. "resolve conflicts"- I don't see AR's novels to be about resolving conflicts. I see them as more about the self realization, often by the characters finding themselves forced into the discovery, that the society of which they're a part of has reached a level of 'taking, looting, and mooching' that is destructive to the innovator, inventor, producer, and self interested individual.

As to 'escape', I often use the analogy in explanation, of Brer Rabbit's battle with the Tar Baby. The recognition that battling certain situations or conditions will not lead to one's survival or even continued wholeness, and then choosing the path that allows for continued survival, even improved conditions, is not escape. Escape implies random fleeing and I think that AR's novels describes thoughtful, rational, and logical rather than emotional reasoning.

The title of the post, 'Where Do Objectivist Ideals Come From?' deserves some comment. In my mind, Objectivist Ideals simply arise from self awareness and logical analysis - and from that the recognition that emotional responses from the sub-conscious are not actualities or real things that one needs to base action decisions on. At one time in our evolution, emotional triggers and responses, ie. the fight or flight response, were essential to our survival, whether the interpretation of the trigger was correct or not for many situations. But as we have evolved and our modification of the world around us has progressed, those situations are more and more rare. In fact, those residual responses are often dangerous to the self in our lives today.

Just some thoughts.

Ideals come from within you; but they are not subjective - not based on whim - but objective, based on the reality and reason of your best interests.

Ayn Rand said in a little known and oblique statement that there is no such thing as "Objectivist art" but only art. So, too, is Objectivism truly one school of philosophy among many, but, at root, there is not "Objectivist" philosophy and "Hegelian" philosophy, but only philosophy. On some issues, some are right and others are wrong and some are close to the truth and others are far away, but Objectivism is always and only that search for the truth.

There are no "objectivist ideals" but only ideal - your own goals and aspirations.

Objectivism with a capital-O is only a specific school of lower-case-o "objectivism" which is the Enlightenment school of rational-empiricism or the scientific method. Ideas and facts support each other: contradictions do not exist.

If your ideals contradict your nature - for instance if you were a Christian - you would find yourself frustrated, blocked in your ambitions, forced to reconcile an altruist ethic with egoist goals, or mystical claims with a realist's demands. If you were a progressive, or a socialist, you would have to live with the same kinds of contradictions. Many did and do. Frank Lloyd Wright was a brilliant architect and an idiot about sociology. Henry Ford is held up as a hero by Objectivists, even though he did business both with Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. Thomas Edison was mean, vindictive, and cruel.

You identify the virtues of their achievements as those accomplishment reflect your own creations, discoveries, inventions, and innovations -- whether you are writing software or cooking dinner. It is the best of your own efforts that gives physical reality to your own ideals.

Logic. (?) Is it not logical to remove yourself from being destroyed by others? Bowing out, taking a pass, exercising personal choice and freedom, saying 'I no longer wish to be a part of this mess', moving on to greener pastures..rational self interest....hell, self preservation/keeping your principles in tact...
Am I not understanding the question? Who wouldn't try to escape the hell others have made around them???

If you grew up in post-revolutionary Russia, and saw people just waiting around to die-you want to say "wake up!" that is not escaping.
give concrete examples winn

More of a reset than escape... Also the base premise is that a successful objectivist does not need the socialist looter degradation of society, and will remove him/herself not just to save themselves, but to prevent the looter from stealing the value and worth of the objectivist to the destruction of that self-worth - you see this both in Roark and the residents of the Gulch. In fact... Take Roark... He understood the value of his own work... others may not have liked it, as is their right, but he refused to kowtow to ideals he knew he, himself could not subscribe to...