Context. This is part of a discussion with many statements and explanations.

Ayn Rand's concluding statements in her article "What Can One Do?" in 1972:

"... These are some of the right things to do, as often and as widely as possible."

"But that reader's question implied a search for some shortcut in the form of an organized movement. No shortcut is possible."

"It is too late for a movement of people who hold a conventional mixture of contradictory philosophical notions. It is too early for a movement of people dedicated to a philosophy of reason. But it is never too late or too early to propagate the right ideas—except under a dictatorship."

"If a dictatorship ever comes to this country, it will be by the default of those who keep silent. We are still free enough to speak. Do we have time? No one can tell. But time is on our side—because we have an indestructible weapon and an invincible ally (if we learn how to use them): reason and reality."

Today there _is_ a "movement" against the progressively increasing statism and collectivism, and that is a good thing, but it is not yet the kind of intellectual movement required to combat the driving ideology of the statism and collectivism, and without that will not be enough. And it is no longer clear that "time is on our side", even with the right ideas and "reason and reality on our side".

Whatever happens, dropping out and 'going galt' into hiding (not just a normal retirement or need to cut back and redirect one's efforts to reduce the punishment) is a last ditch effort for survival for as long as that can last, not something "wonderful".

OK, I agree with your clarification then, but my analogy is still appropriate with how you worded your statement. The way it came across was that it was bad to cut back in order to being fleeced, which I would strongly disagree with.

Ayn Rand did regard libertarians as a kind of parasite when they "plagiarized half her philosophy and contradicted the rest". She also had no patience for "new country" escapists.

She wrote an essay entitled "What Can One Do?" emphasizing first learning what is correct and applying it, including, speaking out -- not dropping out aka 'going galt'. But she recognized the natural reaction to cut back in the face of punishment to minimize the sacrifice. She also wrote once that she pays more taxes than she legally had to in order to avoid being tripped up on some bureaucratic regulation, knowing that with her political views they would be all over her at the slightest excuse.

A lot of people today recognize and are stunned by the accuracy of her "prophecy" in Atlas Shrugged, but fewer realize what you do that she was trying to prevent it, not predict it and was not advocating 'dropping out', either as a life style or an alleged means to combat collectivism. Even fewer in today's public reaction recognize and understand the philosophy of reason she advocated as the only antidote.

How do you know that most wealthy liberals have inherited their wealth? In the 'blue' states, especially in the northeast and west coast where liberal politics dominates, there are many successful professionals in and business people who are politically liberal. Some are getting government favors and some aren't. It is a mistake to think that successful people must tend to be like Hank Rearden. Very many aren't. In today's culture people have mixed premises. Hank Rearden is an intentional abstraction in romantic fiction intended to emphasize philosophical points through illustration -- 'showing', not 'telling'. It wasn't just a novel that untypically showed businessmen as the heroes.

Ayn Rand said she wrote Atlas Shrugged to portray her idea of the "ideal man", showing what philosophy it represented and what it means in action. The theme of the novel is the role of the mind in man's existence, illustrated by the plot with the "strike". All of it is a lot broader and more fundamental than what monetary standard to adopt.

As for the issue you raised about using gold or silver to barter, the IRS doesn't have to track all your barters through a paper trail. They see people living beyond their reported income, rely on politically motivated 'tipsters' out to cause trouble for their enemies, track monetary sales of hard assets, set up sting operations, and "estimate" what you are earning to impose taxes and penalties. They don't have to prove it; the burden of proof is legally on the victim to prove his innocence to a bureaucrat who has already decided. Tax agencies exploit this power to politically persecute even people who are not hiding income. Your suggestion of a barter tactic here on gg is enough to make you a target regardless of what you actually doing.

It has nothing to do with not liking your job or spouse.

Having to cut back to avoid being fleeced by the government is obviously bad because you shouldn't have to do that.

Complete exemption from property taxes is very unusual, and depends on the state. It's good that you were able to do it, especially after all you have paid.

Because it would have immediately exposed her activities.

:)

Yeeeee Haaaa! Finally, Justice arrives! I've heard
of taxes being frozen for selected seniors, but this is
better -- and it's not posthumous! Way To Go,
America!!! -- j

"property taxes keep following us everywhere, don't they?"

No, actually they don't always. Without going into lots of detail involving our state laws, a disabled veteran who meets certain criteria in this state are exempt from property taxes. Being retired, and having closed my business to go on "strike" against this criminal administration I refuse to generate ANY taxable income that the looters can benefit from. I refuse to use my abilities to strengthen the hand of the looters who seek to hold my mind hostage.

You can dismiss this as rhetoric if you wish, but I can assure you that I live my ideals, not just "talk" about them. John and I placed a large portion of our lives defending the rights we enjoy as citizens of this nation. We placed our bodies up as collateral to purchase continued freedom for our way of life and now see our sacrifice and the total sacrifice paid by so many of our friends is tossed away by a person who has no idea of the real price we willingly paid. A price he totally dismisses and seems to think we were fools to pay.

I can also assure you that the cost of freedom is very, very dear to me. From buddies who were killed when I started my military career in the jungles of Vietnam to the loss of use of my legs 13 years later, freedom is not free. Yet we have a president who is willing to give all our freedom away for a vote or for a moment of peace promised from a terrorist who cannot be trusted.

Well said. I am in a similar situation. I retired 5 years ago, and now I live in South Texas (very south). Small community, huge taxes. Cost of living is very low. I'm trying my best, with what I have. I am very well protected here.

I disagree. Most wealthy liberals have inherited their wealth and standing. Theirs' is fleeting. I believe that what Ayn Rand was "showing us" is that we need to go back to a real monetary standard, and start using and promoting it. How can gold & silver transactions between private parties be tracked?

Greasing some palms??? Very commonplace where I live.

Your quote: " The fact that cutting back to avoid being fleeced with ruinous taxation and social controls is bad enough."

Bad enough? So what DID you mean by that?

Re the real topic here...
Lerner's non-paper trail, I'm looking forward to the legal challenges driving the NSA to reveal what they have captured of her communications. Let them prove they can add value to domestic government abuse as well as their charter of foreign threats. Those are the ones really needing to be watched.

An outstanding example of boycotting abusers is MLK and the ... City Bus company. The customers voted with their feet and the city capitulated. A perfect solution. All that was needed was a philosophical agreement among the boycotters.

ARI is doing its best to drive such a philosophical understanding to future voters through targeting their achools. clubs, etc. teaching them the rights and responsibilities of sovereign human beings.

Thank you for presenting a clear view of Rand's thoughts. I heard her speak many times, often in argument against those who felt that she ought to bless their particular "drop-out" scheme. She never granted support to anarchists or libertarians, and seems instead to have treated them as parasites, as leeches clinging to a misunderstanding of her philosophy.

What can one person do? You can live your own life by reason instead of by faith and force. You can work on selling reason as a suitable tool for living. You can speak out against anti-reason, against mere faith, against raw force, wherever you find them.

If we give up and retreat to caves we should retain our hopes, and we should have plans for leaving our caves.

Atlas Shrugged is a novel. The theme (as Rand herself said) is the role of the mind in man's existence. It is not intended as prophecy, even though it seems more and more to be coming true.

History is littered with failed Utopian experiments. Let Galt's Gulch be part of our minds, but let's not sacrifice ourselves to stupid tantrums. "I'll hold my breath until I turn blue and die, and THEN you'll be sorry," is appropriate only for a five-year-old who is testing the limits of authority.

yes, ewv, I really teed off an Obama campaigner in
2008 when I sent out a memo about the irony of a
half-black man reversing slavery to benefit Democrats
and their cronies. using our tax dollars.

taxes follow us everywhere....... -- j

Well, I'm going to keep working because I have to, if for nothing else but good health insurance (until Obamacare ruins that), and because, I guess, I love it. Not going to "let the bastards keep me down"! Yep, just like Dagny, but I don't have a John Galt to save me -- I'm a guy -- and there really is no Galt's Gulch, that I know of, to fly in to...otherwise I would.

A lot of people have cut back or retired early to put their efforts into more personal activities that the statists can't (yet) touch. It's a natural response to the punishment but not something any of us should have to do to mitigate it. If you have personal, productive values you want to pursue and can do it without a salary, then that is good. But you have noticed that you haven't really "hidden out" -- the property taxes keep following us everywhere, don't they?

ewv, I retired in 2008, after 50 years of work. like
stargeezer, I am also former military -- he army,
me air force. he is also retired.

I find retirement wonderful. I sought it at the earliest
possible time, and got it at age 59. my wife and I
built a home in a gulch. a rancher sitting on a
full basement, with a sub-basement at the level
of the bottom of the back-yard, the gulch.

we hide out, here. yet we pay oodles of taxes to
people who use the $$ to buy democratic votes.
it feels like reverse slavery. producers enslaved
to those who do not produce.

Yes, Rand taught that we should do everything
in our power to make the world *just* for producers.
striking *was* a literary device to demonstrate
the extent to which we might have to withdraw,
to show the contrast between producers, looters
and moochers. Rand was the most able defender
of the United States qua United States since
those who founded this place, IMHO.

I believe that richkinley, at the top of this conversation,
is seeking what my wife, also retired, and I, and
stargeezer are enjoying -- minimal self-sacrifice
while still breathing.

it appears that we all agree, using different terms,
and we're not dropping out, but graduating -- from
one degree of self-sacrifice to a lesser one.

Thank You for your contributions!!! -- john mason

ONLY when they want to. I am trying to collect a 185,000 judgement on my neighbor, and his income taxes showed he had paid his property taxes for the last 3 years (which he deducted) and they never caught that, he also wrote off 300K 5 years in a row on alpacas, which they never questioned. They re selective enforcers and I would not be surprised to find political and personal motives.

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.