The individual of individualist ideals can be divided up into two types.
Most people – whether they look at themselves this way or not – believe in succeeding in a world that’s “fair”. Only in a world of justice does their failure tell them anything about their true ability. If they fail in an unjust world, then it isn’t their fault.
Others – real men, specifically men, and those who can lead men – believe in succeeding in a world which in not fair, and yet they succeed anyway. They would seek to lead ordinary men to a place where they can achieve “according to their ability”, which is another way of saying, according to standards they would like to be measured by, not the standards that are. Leaders look terrible odds in the face and find a way to succeed anyway, with no one showing them a yellow brick road upon which to find guaranteed success. They would typically seek to make the world more fair, for the sake of others.
This is how it always rolls for the leader. Authorities create justice out of an unjust world. Ordinary people enjoy the created world, and soon enough take it for granted.
The leader would like some appreciation, but creating justice merely garners only temporary thanks which soon vanishes, and rightly so. The standards of fairness are purely relative; an old man’s “too easy” is a young man’s “too hard”, as befits the trials of their time.
Of course, ordinary people never get tired of tales describing incompetent leadership. Absolution is delicious.