If each individual is contributing to the same project, that's called collective effort (i.e. teamwork). The fact that they each have unique talents doesn't change that.

As for Obama's infamous "you didn't build that" quote, what he said was actually true, albeit very poorly worded. What Obama SHOULD have said was, "You didn't build that alone. You had the help of mentors, coworkers, and employees, all of whom helped contribute to the success of your company." Mitt Romney said essentially the same thing in a speech during the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah:
____________
"You Olympians, however, know you didn't get here solely on your own power. For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers encouraged your hopes … Coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We've already cheered the Olympians, let's also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities…"
— Mitt Romney, 2002 Winter Olympics

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susa...

I see people who are more successful than others, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are more successful as a result of their genetics. Environment, upbringing, and other factors within society all play a huge roll in the development of every individual, to the point where any argument which rests exclusively on genetic causes for success, talent, and/or intelligence seems not only completely untenable, but slightly fascist...

https://www.khanacademy.org/youcanlearna...

And does John Campbell have any evidence to back up such a claim? Because if not, that's all just pure speculation and conjecture.

"Well, saying everybody is equal isn't quite the same thing as saying everybody is the same. That's a common misconception a lot of conservatives tend to have."

If we get that "misconception", it's from listening to leftists abuse the concept of "equality".

" Lopsided superiority, with compensating hopeless deficiencies, would be tolerable, of course. A Steinmetz, a brilliant cripple, wouldn't be anti-democratic, because, of course, his physical deformity makes him average out not-superior. The genius must be crippled, one way or another, either physically or mentally, or he is unacceptable in a hyperdemocratic concept. The brilliant scientist must be an oddball of some sort, or he's unacceptable. To suggest that individuals exist who are genuinely, innately superior, is, in the hyperdemocratic concept, intolerable.

And I'm defying every rule of our present hyperdemocracy by bringing these propositions into the open. I'm suggesting that there are human beings who have innate, unmatchable-by-education talents of genuine superiority that you haven't got a prayer of achieving – things that neither training, practice, education or anything else can ever give you or me."
- John W. Campbell, "Hyperdemocracy"


Maybe someone should tackle a sequel to "Atlas Shrugged". They could title it, "The Gods Walk Among Us".

Well, saying everybody is equal isn't quite the same thing as saying everybody is the same. That's a common misconception a lot of conservatives tend to have. In truth, everybody has their own strengths and weaknesses, and no two people are alike. Even if person A is better than person B in one category, person B might be better than person A in another category. For example, suppose we have two people, Jacob and Aaron, and Jacob is a better mathematician than Aaron, but Jacob struggles with interpersonal communication and lacks social skills, while Aaron, though lacking in mathematical ability, is incredibly sociable and an excellent salesman. If we were to stand Jacob and Aaron side by side, and ask which one of them is superior than the other, it would be impossible to pick just one or the other in an abstract sense. Our choice would have to depend on the specific task needing to be preformed. And because no single individual person has all the necessary skills and abilities required to achieve success and prosperity on their own, every company and corporation must necessarily be a conglomeration, a collection of multiple personalities and skill sets, each with their own unique specialty and focus. When we recognize the reality that all successful companies are built on the principles of teamwork, cooperation, and organized collective action, does it really make sense to say that some people within the company deserve a significantly greater share of the profits? In America we tend to think so, but in other countries many people would say no. In France, for example, there are some companies where profits are divided equally between all employees and managers, including the CEO, and no one gets paid more than anyone else. And even when there is a disparity in pay, it's generally pretty small and insignificant. It's not a parasitical demand saying that the Haves must subsidize the Have-Nots, but rather a recognition of the connected interdependence of the entire team, and the acknowledgement that no one succeeds alone. All profits are produced by the collective effort of the entire team, and therefore should be shared by the entire team. This is reflected in the thinking of John Locke, who believed that taking the product of a person's labor constituted the theft of that person's property. THAT'S what the principle of equality means.
___________________________________
"Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others."
~ John Locke, "Second Treatise of Civil Government," Chapter 5

http://desmailesviews.com/col112.htm
http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.h...

Thanks.

This reminds me of a time when my father, brother and I were bricking a house... I was 13 or 14 maybe. Behind the house was a pond, fresh from a rainstorm, and there were thousands upon thousands of mosquitoes. My dad and brother both lit up cigarettes. The mosquitoes left them alone and began driving me insane (was working the middle of the wall, too.)

So my dad eventually gave me one of his cigarettes, told me if I inhaled he'd kick my butt. Who knows, maybe the cloud of smoke saved me from malaria. /sarc
Proof that nothing is 100% bad. Except Obama...

So I'm not even a conservative.

People are not equal. Period.


" Suppose two individuals, Tom and Dick, are given equal opportunity to develop their individual abilities. Tom winds up a millionaire, and dick winds up on a skimpy retirement pay. The objective evidence clearly shows that Tom and Dick did not have equal opportunities, doesn't it?

Yes, it does. Tom had superior opportunities, he had the gift of learning very rapidly, so that, exposed to the same information sources, and the same situations Dick was, Tom learned fifteen times as much. Tom, going to the same school Dick did, learned that Columbus discovered America... and that Leif Ericson probably landed in Labrador five or six centuries earlier. That various French and Spanish pioneers explored the area of the western United States, but the Lewis and Clarke expedition was more important.

And Dick, having answered the school examinations properly, knew that he had learned what the proper citizen was supposed to learn.


But Tom, having answered the school examinations the same way Dick did, learned something quite different. “It doesn't do much good to open a pathway if people don't want to go there. There's no point in discovering a continent until people need a new continent. There's no use exploring a new territory until people are present to move in, and want a new territory to move into.” That was a great help to Tom in later life, when he was organizing the companies and enterprises that made his millions."
- John W. Campbell, "Hyperdemocracy"