There are social constraints to be considered also. For example- In the USA one has to have prescriptions to buy drugs. Not all cultures have those restrictions. Some cultures force you to go to government medical providers- like in Canada. In the USA you cant practice medicine without a government license- not all places have those restrictions. I am a little too old to really plan on moving at this point, but if I were younger I would investigate and most likely find places more suitable than the current USA- particularly if the democrats take over in 2020.

I agree that there wont be one today, but the reason is that it cant be protected from collectivists, even if it were started by strict indiviuaists. At the point where it could be defended, I think there are enough strict individualists even now to make it work.

We live in a country started as a republic with a constitution outlining to a large degree individual rights (although not calling out the right to property). But slowly its changing to a democracy more and more every day. One could argue about when its murder and when its just abortion, but its being decided by majority rule.

I understand. The exact reason I stopped making medical devices in the face of FDA regulations. It wasnt worth the hassle to me. The FDA is doing fine without my work and they probably didnt even notice what happened.

In the case of systemwide collectivism, there really is no escape. Basically a person cannot live under a system where more and more of what they are allowed to produce is simply taken away. One has to hope that the system will collapse quickly and just go away, and about the only way I can see that happening today is a straight up collapse. Without changing basic philosophical ideas, another version of collectivism would simply spring up again.

This whole process will take way longer than I will live, given that the collectivists will just use their powers to stretch the rubber band ...

That said, I think that it is very self defeating to feed the beast. I try any way I can to reduce the amount of money that flows to the collectivist system without directly meeting the wrath of the powers that be.

Thats why I say that the default position of human is NOT to think, and it takes work and discipline TO use ones mind. Thats why AS failed in its attempt to change the world, and I think that the only way that people can be made to wake up and even consider thinking as a way to live more effectively is to let them see that NOT thinking produces plain disaster- and they have to feel it personally as described in AS in what you would call fictional form.

But Americans are indeed going to experience the collapse noted in AS, just as Venezuelans are experiencing it now.

It amazes me that so many people really think we live in a democracy (defined by Miriam-Webster as "a government by the people, especially the rule of the majority"). We don't; we live in a Constitutional Republic.

In a true democracy, if majority really rules, then if 55% of the people believe that murder should not be illegal, then we could all--literally--get away with murder. If 55% of the people believed we should be required to eat broccoli every night, then it would be illegal to eat green beans instead of broccoli on Sundays.

Ignorance isn't bliss; it's damn dangerous.

I think you are minimalizing AS as a "story" and not acknowledging how it accurately portrays human nature in all its glory. Today, its a very accurate and factual account of the path a country will take based on essentially the percentage of "reason" employed by the participants.

Reason takes work; the lack of reason is easy.

That might have been her intention. What it did in practice I think is to embolden the collectivists to continue on while the producers fund their game. Thats why the novel had little or no positive effect like she had hoped.

I didnt take it the way you are portraying. I could see full well that I was just feeding the beast that was consuming me. I was left with getting what I could out of the system until the point where I dont need to work anymore and can let the system crash on its own. I voted for Trump to gain a few more years before the collecivists finally take over and bring on the final sinking of the ship- just as portrayed quite accurately in AS. Democracy is a terrible thing, right up there with dictatorship.

You're right. My statement was badly worded. Everything came into focus for me during that first reading, just like Galt hoped it would for everyone like me listening to his speech.

rainman9720: "I could have been one of the people John Galt was talking to at the end of his speech, one of those who knows something is wrong but can't quite quantify it sufficiently.".

You were one of the people he was talking to, i.e., who Ayn Rand was talking to when she wrote the novel. That is why she wrote it that way.

You aren't giving them anything. That would be self-defeating. They are taking it, and given that context you have to decide if the degree of their "take" from your production is worth your continuing.

That was the conflict among the heroes of the novel -- those who sought to bring down the whole system versus those who did not want to surrender what they had in the conviction that they could still succeed while carrying the miserable parasites. At some point it is not worth it.

Part of the resolution of the heroes' conflict was the recognition and acceptance of the moral principle -- Dagny, and especially Hank Rearden, had been willing on principle to be beasts of burden when they should not have been, well beyond the point at which it was "practical". That was the "self-defeating" you saw.

But the purpose of the plot was not to advocate quitting, let alone striking, in a still semi-capitalist mixed economy of the US, but to show in fiction the role of the mind in human life and society -- and what happens when it is withdrawn. It shows how reason and individualism make success possible, and what happens when they are prohibited. The "strike" was a fictional, artificial acceleration of a natural reaction to the looters punishment, and was formulated the way it was in the novel to explicitly show the role of the mind.

Our nature is the requirement to use reason in order to live. Doing that is a choice. We have the choice by nature; behaving like a sub-reason animal is not a built in nature. If people were "basically animals" the country would not have thrived. And when reason is abandoned it will not thrive.

Ragnar was controversial among the heroes. The looters hated him for beating them at their own game; the heroes disapproved because they didn't think it was worth the risk to him. In the plot his accomplishment was to accelerate the decline, which was the aim of the whole fictional "strike", but his actions and success at them were among the least plausible of the romanticized story.

Avoiding punishment. A "strike" is organized to pressure for change. When we stopped renting our property to vacationers because it was no longer worth it with new taxes and bureaucratic harassment and threats we had no illusion that it would change state policies. It simply wasn't worth it. Stopping meant everyone lost and that was it. Continuing would have been worse for us. We weren't the only ones to quit, but there was no organized movement and no intent to cause change or even lash out at the state, it was just a naturally expected result.

Then where do you propose to go to get a "better mix of advantages/disadvantages" just to pay less in taxes? If in the future it is much worse here, it may be possible, but it would be worse than what we have here now.

There isn't going to be a "gulch today". It is a utopian fantasy. There are no "practical necessities" to consider beyond that.

The society in Atlas Shrugged collapsed because they denied reality. Ayn Rand did not make the separation into "two groups" that don't combine.

Yes and no. The socialists didn’t tend to openly deny reality. They felt people such as Dagny and Ragnar were the ones denying the way things are. Although some later learned that they actually were denying reality.
Other characters, like the doctor who wrote “ The Metaphysical Contradictions of the Universe“ did openly deny reality and talked a lot about how objective reality did not exist.

What bothers me more and more is the idea that the more money the looters get, the tighter the noose around my neck. It’s self defeating to give thieves your money. A line by Oren Boyle comes to mind about “their success gives us the tools to bring them down”- referring to hank rearden as I remember

I would say what built this country is a desire to rise above the animal nature and use reason. America is losing that pretty rapidly these days

AR did see some acceptance of her character Ragnar in the book. Personally I didn’t see much usefulness in what he did, except perhaps to prevent the looters from actually benefiting from their looting

What would you consider “stopping work” because you no longer want to contribute to the collectivists ability to oppress you?

I would agree in general withbthat

If we actually wanted to start a gulch today, we better consider those practical “necessities’ or it would fail. The ideas would be critical, or why bother with it all

Ayn Rand made no such separation. The 'socialists' in Atlas Shrugged did deny reality. Ayn Rand advocated an integrated philosophy of reason, egoism and individualism with a political system of capitalism. She opposed mysticism, altruism and collectivism.

You left out the role of ideas in John Galt's motives and strategy, and the whole point of the novel and her philosophy. What she wrote in fiction to make a romanticized plot seem plausible is not being aware of "necessities" for an irrational fantasy strategy.

Ayn Rand did not approve of becoming a pirate as a way to change the country and did not share your cynicism that people are "basically animals". That is not what built this country.

Retiring is not a "strike". In the face of punishment people have always cut back, changed what they do for work, or quit. That is not an organized means of changing the trend in government policy.