Prosecute the torture.

May 13, 2009

Going Galt! (maybe next week)

Pandagon notes that even the blogger for Going John Galt hasn't managed to get around to going galt. These guys are just like Texas -- secede already!

And, their post gives me an excuse to put up a graphic that I did back in March but never got around to using here. I give you Going Galt! magazine:


(Click for larger image)

.

7 comments:

Justin said...

These people don't seem to realize that if the market works the way they believe it does, they'll be replaced utterly and completely by other people more than willing to fill the spots they once occupied.

Even if going Galt was somehow a good idea in a tax-shelter vacuum, it's a ridiculous idea when taken in context of, y'know, the real world.

Jeffery Small said...

If you think "Going Galt" means completely dropping out of society, then you are correct that few people are in a position to be able to do that. However, if you more realistically see "Going Galt" as a state where productive people drastically cut back on their output, due to lack of motivation to work hard for the benefit of others, then I think you would be surprised to see just how many people have actually "Gone" already, and what impact it is and will have on the world.

Also Justin, you seem to think that people are interchangeable and that if one smart, productive person steps out of the way, there is another equally smart and driven person ready and willing to take their place. I will agree that there is a warm body to fill any vacant slot, but I certainly do not agree that there is a limitless supply of thinkers. If there were, do you think we would have had so many banks engage in sub-prime loans and credit default swaps, or that we would have car companies run into the ground? If these industrial leaders were not smart enough to avoid these pitfalls (and there were a few who were smart enough) then what makes you think that the next tier replacing them will do better? Your world view regarding the nature of human beings and the nature of society are quite different from mine. I wish I could say that we will just have to wait to see which one is closer to the truth, but the fact is that this experiment has already been run many time in the past and conclusively shown that the policies of the current administration, if carried to completion, will lead to disaster. I am sorry to you, and so many others, are incapable of seeing that.

The magazine idea is a great one. Can I use it?

Regards,
--
C. Jeffery Small
go-galt.org

Ol' Froth said...

you seem to think that people are interchangeable and that if one smart, productive person steps out of the way, there is another equally smart and driven person ready and willing to take their place.And yet, that is the case. No one is irreplacable. Sometimes, that person "ready and willing to take their place" is smarter and more driven. Sometimes not. Someone retires/dies/goes Galt/turns into a gibbering idiot, there always seems to be someone to fill his or hers shoes.

And what makes you think the next tier replacing them WONT do better?

Yes, this experiment has been run many times, and conclusivly proves that Ayn Rand was an idiot.

There's a reason why Objectivism has been described as "sophmoric." It is a gem for the 2nd year men.

Jeffery Small said...

Ol' Froth:

Well, you certainly make a well reasoned argument. I really cannot argue with the facts you present, so I will simply leave you to your self-satisfied opinion.

Regards,
--
C. Jeffery Small

EdHeath said...

If “Going Galt” is an excuse to reduce one’s output at work, with the intention of being true to one’s ideals (as personified in the Bush administration?) and thus punishing the rest of us or just those of us who voted for Obama, then I say good luck. Y’all are wrapped up in your own reality. If you have true talent, like Roark, then maybe you will get somewhere. But I am thinking that’s not going to be an issue if you decide not to demonstrate that true talent because you feel it is not appreciated by us small people.

Justin said...

Jeffery:

Most of us lose our jobs if we "drastically cut back on our output". That's the thing: this idea supposes so strongly that people are in control of their own vocational destinies that it is doomed to fail from the start.

If I decided that, essentially, I was going to refuse to do my job, I'd lose it. Then I wouldn't be able to pay my bills, I'd end up on the street or back with my parents, and I'd be a financial ruin--and it would be MY OWN DOING.

If my company's CEO decided to be a bonehead and go Galt, effectively scuttling a still-successful company in the process, several hundred people would lose their jobs and have a deleterious effect on the local economy.

THIS MAKES NO SENSE.

The truth is that there's nobody who's really in a position to do this where it won't cause a domino effect, making the problem worse than it already is. It's stupid, it's stubborn, it's childish, and most of all, it's completely counterproductive.

You folks are going to have to come up with a lot better ideas than this one if you plan on succeeding. There's a reason that objectivism never caught on, and you're living it.

Knuje said...

The first step to fixing our political system is to stop paying the "politician tax"....

Politicians are not like the rest of us.... they are keenly obsessed with "getting elected" as a measure of success, but although this would seem to suggest that they should care about representing the views of the electors -- the people -- it doesn't work out that way. With extremely rare exceptions, politicians preserve their interests by serving their party (whichever one it is) over the people, and by serving corporate interests and other special interests next to that, also over the people.... so where do we fit in?

They see us as votes and money, and many of us are suckers.... how many of you donated money to a politician or a party last year? The sad truth is that whatever you did donate was actually a tax imposed by the system through blackmail, one that you didn't have to pay at all, but volunteered.... I have to admit, I'm in that crowd, even though I only gave to Libertarian candidates (who all lost) and the amount I donated amounted to pocket change even in their meager coffers.... but I'd take it back if I could....

Look at it this way: imagine there are two bullies on your block, and both want to take your lunch money.... each says that if you "voluntarily" pay him, he'll protect you from the other one, and each one talks up how dangerous the other one is in order to convince you to buy protection... but the truth is, if you learn to defend yourself you don't have to give a penny to either of them.

That's what the Republicrats do -- each side uses the other as a threat to pry your dollars away in the form of campaign donations, and the first and biggest thing WE can do to eliminate donation-driven corruption from the system is to turn off that voluntary faucet of cash flowing out of our pockets.

In short: DO NOT GIVE ANY MONEY TO POLITICIANS!! not to a candidate, not to a campaign, not to a party, and if you can help it, not to a company that will pass it on to any of those (even a company that will hedge its bets by giving to both sides; in fact, especially such a company).... clean up our politics, do NOT pay the politician tax!!