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

They don't need a "paper trail". They watch your life style and attribute income (called an "estimate"). They don't need proof. They are the IRS. You are guilty until you prove your innocence to a bureaucrat who has already decided otherwise.

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.

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.

If all (or most) of the real producers, inventors, intellectuals, etc. disappear from the federalist's radar, and create their own economy, it will certainly have a huge effect on society. The real challenge is persuading them to play ball. Takes a lot of time and effort.

So using your reasoning...

If you are working at a job that you are unhappy with, you should stay in that job.

If you are in an unhappy, abusive relationship, you should stay in that relationship.

No. The fact is, you have a choice to make. As humans with free will, we can make the choice to "Go Galt" and abandon that which is biting the hand that feeds it.

How can a transaction be documented when both parties are satisfied, and there is no paper trail? What can they subpoena?

ewv, the folks who followed John into Galt's Gulch did not 'abandon civilization,' imnsho, they chose to leave a decaying society and establish a different, safer, 'better' one where they could live by their own moral, ethical (and economic) rules rather than have other rules imposed on them by brute force or coercion.

I see that as a huge difference.

Going Galt 'is not "required," it's recommended or suggested as an alternative to living in the status quo hell Outside The Gulch.

If their 'dropping out' will 'make no difference to the course of civilization,' the end-game won't change, but the Gulchers won't have to put up with the horrors during the decay. I say: good for them!

You're right.
http://teapartyeconomist.com/2014/09/06/...

We did not have to learn German but soon the libtard thought police will make sure we all speak and think PC.

The government was smelling them before they ever went on sale. Look for the thread about the fake cell phone towers, they "mysteriously" seem to be popping up all over now.No communications is safe from "our" government.

Civilization is where civilized people live. I don't consider people who live to suck the essence of my life civilized. I don't see people who say that I must produce so that they can prosper as civilized.

If you say that I must be bound that they and you may live, I reject your position. I don't OWE anything to any man I have not willing bound myself to. And those people who have ensconced themselves in positions of power in order to enslave us will never "own" my life.

But where are the heroic Allies -- Eric Cantor types? The IRS officials are not panicking in the face of defeat, they are manipulating the system and so far getting away with it.

"Going Galt" is not going to fix anything in society. As Ayn Rand argued, the cause of the decline is philosophical -- Very few understand the philosophical cause and the proper alternative illustrated in Atlas Shrugged, and a relative handful of people dropping out will make no difference to the course of civilization. At most it might save a few from government abuse, at the expense of giving up the benefits of living and working in an advanced economy. "Going Galt", i.e., dropping out, is not "wonderful" and the notion that it should be "required" is morally obscene. The fact that cutting back to avoid being fleeced with ruinous taxation and social controls is bad enough.

Having to abandon civilization to avoid servitude is not "wonderful".

Congratulations, @richkinley, both on walking out of Federal employment and on finding a better job.

As for eliminating the IRS, the Fair Tax (http:www.FairTax.org) is the best alternative I've seen as it returns the U.S. tax structure much more closely to what the Constitution originally specified (and more specifically, AWAY from what the Constitution particularly prohibited) and is much more in keeping with Randian economics. The first result of adoption of the Fair Tax is to repeal the 16th Amendment, which is the legal basis of the IRS.

Shucking the bonds of slavery to an oppressive regime IS wonderful. I believe Jefferson summed all I could say in the declaration of independence. A day of freedom is better than a lifetime of servitude to a "ruler".

LOL!!!

If we stopped using their money (FRN's), how would they (IRS) gain jurisdiction into our finances?

Our current federal government is as transparent as Nazis burning paperwork before the Allies overrun their positions.

The "decades" extends to over a century with the onset of the progressive statists.

There is a long history of defense related agencies abusing security classifications to hide what they are doing from other agencies, elected representatives and the public. Agencies are notorious for 're-writing' FOIA for their own purposes and otherwise hiding and denying legally requested information.

In Maine a few years ago, the state tax commissioner deflected inquiries from a state senator, arising from constituent complaints of abusive targeting, by hiding behind the "privacy act" to protect his agency; the commissioner wouldn't even answer questions about agency policy, but privately spread malicious gossip about his targets to undermine their credibility.

Under Clinton and Obama officials in EPA and elsewhere have routinely hidden and destroyed their emails revealing political activism in their official work. This included a top Clinton official who had been ordered by a court to turn them over. The strategy has also included using private email accounts and pseudonyms.

This mentality goes on and on. It's a cancer spreading through a progressively politicized and non-objective government.

I disagree, and I think is *is* a wonderful thing. It signifies one person's realization that things are badly broken, potentially beyond repair. Once one recognizes that, 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, and that we ultimately squandered.

No, it's not a "wonderful thing". It may be necessitated for some because the civilized world is in such a bad state of decline into statism, but that doesn't make anything about this mess "wonderful". Ayn Rand wanted to Atlas Shrugged to prevent this from happening. Her moral ideals are for all of civilization, not a mentality of "dropping out".