Most people have not "maxed out" their potential, but of course what "maxing out" your potential even means is questionable as people have a lot of different responsibilities and goals, not all of which are compatible.
Yes people have many goals. What right do you have to complain about the people who pursued goals congruent with wealth attainment? Some goals obviously are not congruent with wealth attainment. But if your goal is to be a teacher, along with that you need to accept that you probably aren't going to be filthy rich.
My point is that the "Atlas" figures of Rand's book aren't heroes. They're selfish jerks that profited from the society they then choose to abandon. That's ultimately the failure of objectivism. It fails to acknowledge that the individual's success is often built upon the scientific, economic, and social advances that came before and the acceptance, in either a scholastic or monetary form, of their work on the part of the world around them.
I would say then that you didn't read the book very well. Because apparently what you missed were the expectations that society put on them. They expected from the likes of Rearden what they would not expect of themselves. The society expected to be simply given what the 'heroes' had to work for and build on their own.
Your 'no man is an island' argument is one made by many and is extremely faulty. If all they did was gain wealth off the work of others, as if that's all it takes, why aren't more people wealthy? You're not so naive or disingenuous as to think more people would be if not for their righteous souls are you? As with any successful business operator the characters found a product or service that was in demand and found they most efficient way to deliver. Would that require hiring man power to meet demand? Of course. By doing so, by building a business they are supplying a demand that would otherwise go unfilled. So why are they not entitled to the profits of building that business?
Saying 'they did it on the back of others' is disingenuous as well. It implies the business owner sits back while his workers slave to make them money. Also not true. When you sign on to work for someone you agree to their terms. If you don't like the pay you don't work for them, simple as that. Either someone else works for them instead, or they are forced to improve compensation until someone will. You of course will say some people just don't have a choice. Again typical lib selling people short and making excuses for them. They're is ALWAYS a choice.
The characters in the book founded their own society because they were tired of whiners like yourself who don't know aspect one of running a business. People that assume business owners sit on couches doing nothing while the money rolls in thinking they are entitled to the same because they don't know jack shit about the choices their boss has to make day in and day out to keep all of the cogs in the wheel spinning smoothly. They left because not only did people feel they were entitled to what they worked for and built. They left because people like you were not only unappreciative of it, you condemn them for it.
