I guess I'll just have this conversation with myself. :)
Gilder's argument and perhaps the capitalist argument for "serve" that is popular would go like this. Atlas Shrugged I is about to come out. Most fans don't even know they are fans yet. So a special website is designed to drum up interest for the movies and give the fans a rewarding valuable forum in which to meet and discuss-anything really. My point is this-the forum didn't fill an existing need expressed by consumers. The forum created the "need" tapped into something the creators wanted themselves. Scott developed the idea and what do you know-build it and they will come...
It is a myth that capitalism is built upon the foundation of business meeting peoples' needs. The disruption, the wealth creation that can only occur under capitalism are the inventions, that maybe only the inventor thought initially-"that's cool. I want that." Then he/she starts to build a case for the "need."

In the book "Great Again," there is an excellent vignette of Apple's origins-where they took the first prototype to trade shows and everyone was -I don't need that-what what I use it for." The investors said-the only one who would use a personal computer like that would be a housewife to keep and look up recipes. Entrepreneurs are not servants to the needs of the consumer or even other businesses. Often they solve "problems" no one knew existed. That's capitalism.

Good idea. I'll reach out.

George Gilder, an economic futurist and highly regarded by capitalists, talks here about the "serving" of entrepreneurs to businesses and consumers. He begins by giving a nod to Ayn Rand and then listen to what he says next about entrepreneurs- (btw) this mirrors alot of John Mackey's thoughts on capitalism as well. Totally the opposite of PEter Theil's foundations on invention and capitalism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baBDL...

I shared your response on my FB page where I shared the quote. I'd like to ask him, because after all, he is a Conservative and religionist. He'd be a great AMA.

good point

Serving? I agree khalling. A slave can serve a master. A slave can evolve into an emissary can evolve into Eddie Willers under capitalism. And perhaps much more. But I don't think the point was to get rich serving fellow man. I don't think Howard Roark was serving anything but his passion for architecture.

Do not equate the effect of non-initiation-of-the-use-of-physical-force with service... It's not that we don't want to serve each other, it's that we serve our sense of life. In a selfish sense. Under the trader principle.

I hate how the word "service" has been misused by the collectivists. Similar to the word "liberal".

Hello khalling,
Strange, I replied earlier and apparently did not follow through properly..
Anyway, I think it is okay as long as service in that sense of the word is not your objective, but a happy coincidence. Certainly to be successful, from the consumers perspective you must be providing a good service (serving your customer's needs). Otherwise you would not get far. Right?
Regards,
O.A.

'The concept of “service” has been turned into a collectivist “package-deal” by means of a crude equivocation and a cruder evasion. In the language of economics, the word “service” means work offered for trade on a free market, to be paid for by those who choose to buy it.' - Ayn Rand, The Objectivist Newsletter, March 1963

As Walter E. Williams is presumed to be well versed in the language of economics, I would think Rand may have given him the benefit of the doubt as to his usage and intent, no?

"Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man." "Serving" implies something altruistic? But I have read this phrase many times in libertarian philosophy. I don't think Rand would have ever agreed with this choice of words