Your_Name_Goes_Here wrote: "I would argue it to be a requirement for one to go Galt so as to begin forcing the repair of a system that our Founding Fathers gave us". That "requirement" is appalling. What Ayn Rand is he talking about?

The 'strikers' in Atlas Shrugged went to the Valley and otherwise stopped producing for the economy specifically to "stop the the motor of the world" in order to accelerate the collapse of the system, and then return once the looters and their controls had been rejected and out of power. That was an artificially accelerated plot device to illustrate the theme of "the role of the mind in man's existence", not a recommendation for people to drop out of working in the US or strike to achieve reform.

Ayn Rand was not advocating that people drop out but hoped to prevent the decline and ultimate collapse instead by letting people read and understand the philosophy of the novel without having to live through the events. She consistently advocated that only philosophy could ultimately save the country. She did not advocate going on strike either to live supposedly better in a "new country" or to achieve reform by damaging the looters through a "strike", and thought that either would be futile. She did recognize that people naturally cut back their efforts in response to punishment. See her "Is Atlas Shrugging?".

If there is a better city, town, state or country than where you are for your life and it is practical to go there to live then by all means do it. But this is still overall a mixed system of government, not the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, and for the most part there is no better country to go to and no idyllic Midas Gulch (which was portrayed only to illustrate a superior philosophy and way of life, not as a practical option complete with its own "ray screen" to keep intruders out).

There is no place to go with the promise of what this civilization could have and should have achieved, and nothing practical to gain even at a simpler, lower level of economic activity and technology because of the state of the entire world.

If the decay becomes much worse, such as through a sudden collapse, then you have no choice but to seek a relatively safer shelter, in a cave if you have to, for as long as you can survive against the elements of nature and roving looters or government agents.

But in no case is the necessity of having to move or go "underground" in order to escape injustice "wonderful". The closest anyone has come to "wonderful" in this context was the existence of the significantly freer America that immigrants could move to over a century ago, though they should not have had to do that.

I did not say you have to be bound to anything.

Leaving aside your dramatic speeches about rulers and servitude, this is still a mixed system, not a communist 'utopia'. In comparison with other countries, let alone primitivism and tribalist butchers like Islamic Nazis, America IS civilized (and so is Israel), and for all the worsening problems there is still no better and safer country to go to than America, though there are some differences among states. 'Dropping out' to 'go Galt', even if it becomes necessary, is not "wonderful", would be yet another loss, and is not what Ayn Rand advocated.

All or most of the real producers, most of whom are people with mixed philosophies and many of whom are political liberals, are not going to 'go galt', and "creating their own economy" invisible to the government is not possible.

Ayn Rand's point was that the time and effort is required for enough people to understand the right philosophy, after which dropping out is not required.

No that is not my reasoning and is not remotely what I wrote.