The thing to keep in mind about Roark and Rearden is that they are naturally gifted and not everyone is. While it's true that you can accomplish a lot with hard work, all of us our born with our unique psychologies and abilities. For instance, no matter how hard I trained at football, I could never be as good as Tom Brady. What you're referring to with collectivism is a critique levied by many intellectuals. When you create a society that is based on comparative value (equality is defined in outcome), everyone is counting their possessions to make sure they have as much as everyone else. In contrast, in a truly individualist mindset, a person only thinks about if he has as much he wants.

Just to put my two cents in, I believe that you may have missed a couple of important characters within Rand's work. There was Eddie Willers, who by no stretch of the imagination was a Galt or Rearden, but still was a big part of the story for the purpose of his moral integrity. Also, there was Cheryl (Taggart) who ended up killing herself. And in Anthem there is International 4-8818 (forgive me if the name is wrong) who saw Equality discover the tunnel, but decided not to turn him in, knowing full well the consequences of his choice. These characters are more "realistic" interpretations of the people that Ayn Rand is trying to portray, and, in my opinion, are some of the true key characters of her story. They are the mediators of an Ideology and the real world.

Check out The Romantic Manifesto. In it, Rand speaks a bit about this and goes on to discuss why she uses fiction to express her philosophy. The medium allows her to present her philosophical "ideals" embodied as larger-than-life fictional characters. Creating the images of these "Randian heroes" in readers' minds has a much greater impact, stretching far beyond the story - even if no real person could live up to the same standards.

When faced with a difficult decision, I tend to ask myself "What would John Galt do?" then add my interpretation of the result in with the rest of the moral imperatives churning around in my brain at the time. The character in my head remains the heroic ideal, even if I cannot (or will not) behave as I believe he would. It's the closest thing to religion I have, and I fear no judgement save that of my own mind.

I believe it requires a certain state of mind. I'll tell you this from my personal experience. There was a disciplinary tribunal against 6 of us for plagiarising in a moot court competition. For me, moot courts don't matter and never will. So I cooked up a story where person A accuses me and I accept. I knew that the tribunal had nothing in their power, no penalty they could impose that would honestly affect me in any way. The other 5 saw it as a big deal, and others saw it as a some sort of sacrifice. But it wasn't and I was clear about that. What was done was purely selfish because 1)I was honestly 'sacrificing' nothing plus 2) The thought of doing something 'noble' was kinda gave me an adrenaline rush.
So point is that it was all done for my own interest. Not for them. Yes it was successful and yes, it served them well. But this according to me was as close to following Ayn Rand as I could get.

First, let me say that I don't think Ayn Rand would agree. She parted ways with many friends because of their "impurity." I do, however, believe that Objectivists are not necessary at all as long as the law of the land supports it's ideals. Then, as we all know, most will earn what they deserve. Does everybody need to be an Objectivist for society to work? No. For a civil society to function all must recognize that Objectivism, and therefore reality, is the path to our greatest value, life.

"In contrast, in a truly individualist mindset, a person only thinks about if he has as much he wants. "

I don't think "wants" is proper for that statement as it opens up the floodgates on personal greed. A true Individualist mindset is focused on having what one needs to be comfortable and content while being able to look oneself in the mirror.

A very good "shades of grey" way of putting it. Nothing is ever completely black & white. But is allowing these shades achieving the ideal? I think not.