The whole premise of Atlas Shrugged is based on the productive members of the US abdicating from an encroaching socialist State by retreating to a secret utopian enclave called Galt’s Gulch. Thus the libertarian phrase, “Going Galt,” or refusing to be coerced into producing for an overreaching State. Of course, this isn’t as practical when there’s nowhere else to go.
However, it is still possible to withdraw your support from the regime. Since the whole enterprise is based on money and tracking financial transactions, you just have to reduce the amount of money you contribute to the system. So going “Galt” you need to do the following:
1) Lower your expenses and get out of debt. The fewer dollars go out your door, the less the State can grab in transit.
2) Shorten your supply train and buy local. The fewer stops between you and the producer of what you buy, the less chance the Sate can grab a slice. And if you buy something off of Craig’s List, or pay cash for eggs to the person who owns the chicken, the State might not see a dime from it. Hey, and your going green too.
3) Lower your taxable income. The less you “make” the less the State gets. Negotiate a lower salary for equivalent fringe benefits that aren’t taxed: vacation, retirement, dental coverage.
4) Donate as much as you can to charities, especially charities that produce tangible goods. (Habitat for Humanity) There’s a triple whammy there, the State gets less taxes from you, no taxes from the Charity receiving your income, and reduced taxes from the sector of the economy where they’re producing goods.
5) When you can, barter.
6) Save what you can in commodities and physical goods. Gold and jewelry are wealth that is invisible to the State. (Buy buy a safety deposit box.)
7) Grow your own food and brew your own beer, at least in part.
5 Comments
michelle · July 9, 2009 at 9:34 am
After having read #7, I’d like to re-address the issue of getting a feeder pig and a few chickens. How can you tell me “no” and tell others to do it?
Daemon · July 10, 2009 at 5:03 am
Socialism isn’t actually scary. Rand’s philosophy, on the other hand, is blood-drenched nightmare.
S Andrew Swann · July 10, 2009 at 7:26 am
I don’t know, actual bloodshed on behalf of the collective is easily in the millions. How many people are killed in the pursuit of Objectivisim?
Or are you just saying that your hypothetical nightmare scenario is worse than my hypothetical nightmare scenario?
michelle · July 10, 2009 at 9:44 am
From where I stand, Socialism is just plain evil. It is designed purely to keep the populace dependent on the government and thus enabling those in power to continue to get more rich and powerful, all the while convincing the masses they have their best interest at heart so the population won’t rise up against them. Communism takes this to a further extreme of dependence and abject power. Objectivists, on the other hand, expect you to stand on your own two legs, or not, you choose. But YOU choose.
ryan Costa · July 11, 2009 at 12:51 pm
After reading Atlas Shrugged twice I interpreted it as a work of pure fantasy. America’s old days industrial heroes were mostly guys who benefited from federal favors and grants before later generations.
most of today’s conservatives are big into the military, big into pro-life, big into suburban sprawl and highways and oil addiction, and their biggest bloc wants to go to Mars.
the ideal small government of the past relied on giving away a shitload of land, and protectionism. the low population densities and settlement of new land greatly reduced the power of established lawyers, professional organizations and guilds, the clergy, and government. it was small government by default and low standards, not by principle.
we have democracy. vote for the protectionists, vote against Monsanto and the enormous subsidies its clients require, vote against the highways and for well regulated rail, vote for low education standards, vote for lower medical guild standards. vote for juries rights to dismiss cases for drug posession, abortion, euthanasia, and acts of vigilantism they agree with.
Comments are closed.