If it's visible, then it's not Galt's Gulch. And I suspect a visible Gulch would be at continual defensive war.

Setting up any kind of geographically and politically distinct area as a Galt’s Gulch has so many hurdles and impracticalities in today’s world that devoting time and energy to the notion is an enormous waste. As noted elsewhere, Rand set it up as a literary device to illustrate how an ideal society might look. The only reason I can see to continue imagining such a place is to explore various ideas and policies that might be applicable in such a society.

For now and the foreseeable future, Objectivists’ energies could be put to much more productive use exploring how local Objectivist networks can be started, nurtured and grown into viable and vibrant societies within the existing fabric of political boundaries. The practicality is there. As noted by term2, doing some of the things religions do offer a blueprint for one way to promote activities and interactions that Objectivists within a reasonable distance would value. I shouldn’t have to mention it, but, of course, I’m not suggesting religion as a philosophical model, but as an organizational model. Perhaps social organizations like the Elks Club, VFW, etc. are a better organizational model.

Such a network would be visible – as visible as any church, business, or social organization. Any fears of the IRS or marauding Baptists coming to shut you down are just as fanciful as waiting for the real Galt’s Gulch to appear. If Mosques aren’t being shut down, neither will your local Objectivist meeting hall.

Having such a local organization, of course, does not allow one to escape existing taxes, unreasonable laws and ordinances and other oppressions and annoyances of municipal, county, state and federal entities. You might say, “well, then what is the point of doing so?” If we, as participants in local Objectivist networks, put as much time and effort into nurturing our own society-within-a-society (including overturning or doing end runs around oppressive laws) as we do in dreaming about the fantasy of a geographically distinct gulch (presumably set up by someone else?) we would be making concrete progress toward the kind of society we would like eventually to actually live in.

Objectivists have to make a choice: continue fantasying about a gulch or actually devising plans to find ways that promote interactions of all kinds with nearby Objectivists. The possibilities are limitless. Is anybody doing it?

This came up in my facebook feed. Not Objectivists but interesting timing.

http://pledge.freestateproject.org/fs...

Sure it could exist. Gulchers could peacefully take over a town, elect its own leaders, provide its own private law enforcement, and perhaps setup its own private currency. Even so, state taxes would have to be paid and, I'm sure, some type of use fee and taxes for electricity and water. All that need be done is find a town someplace where a factory closed and most people left, buy the existing homes and buy-out any stragglers.

It wouldn't be a State and State laws would be in effect but day-to-day would be controlled by the people of the community and the local authorities.

Its possible.

Galt's Gulch can't exist in plain sight in the US. There would be some false flag event blamed on Objectivists, and the Gulch would be attacked by the feds.

States are starting to fight the federal government but their voices are... inconsistent at best. More like incoherent and, more often than not, anti liberty. But the right state, loaded with Objectivists, could make a helluva stand. Gonna need a lot more Objectivists.

I don't think any State in the US has the slightest chance of seceding from the Union (as long as it exists).

Unless you have a really significant amount of money to buy that island and have more money to put into the infrastructure and more money still for defense (to deter who might want to take it back after you develop it), it just isn't feasible. Countries outside the US that would sell their land to a large group of foreigners for development are most likely to not be dependable (politically) or secure (economically). And that is really way too big of a risk where everyone could lose everything. I have thought about this for some time and I have had to always come back to the US as offering the best deal where you would, first of all, have rights as citizens under the law. If America goes down so does the protection of its citizens wherever they may be in the world. Ultimately, the best bang for your buck, with specific rights and a strong military already in place is here in the US. And you can recede into the background rather easily if you do the few cardinal requirements, i.e, taxes. But you would have to pay taxes in any country.

Also, if you move out of the US, I believe you would be hard pressed to get more than a handful of Gulchers to make that move. It may not be storybook perfection, remaining in the US, but it does most likely offer the best deal. You could live, create and operate as Objectivists in relative obscurity. So, unless you plan to run drugs, produce moonshine and engage in illegal gambling you would have nothing of interest to anyone. If it is an end of society scenario (Walking Dead) then repercussions would be felt eventually around the world.

Rich, "hiding in plane sight" is exactly what it states. If you develop land and build housing and infrastructure- there is nothing unusual about this. New technology in solar energy, battery powered and stored energy (Tesla) and wind systems along with water recycling systems are becoming more dependable and affordable. You would have grid services but you would plan for a fully independent system, off the grid, without advertising it- call it a "green energy-saving backup system" that nobody outside really needs to know about. Your land development comes with a contained perimeter -a wall with top of the line security systems.

Since it is inconsequential, you do not state your philosophy or your reasons. You have your investors- nothing unusual. You decide how you will sell property rights in your development and to whom. Now, here is where you would need to carefully plan your internal strategy. For example, there are specific laws for different types of housing. For example, a 55+ condominium in a community has certain legal privileges. You could make part or all of your housing development a "Co-op" which legally owns title to the property and the structures where home owners are actually stockholders and are issued stock certificates. And the Association is the legal entity. This gives everyone voting rights in all decisions. Your development should consider having various combinations, e.g., single family homes, town houses, condominiums and rental apartments (for visiting family members and Gulchers who cannot stay full time or want to rent instead of own). You could also develop a commercial annex next door or down the road. Where businesses, and services would be located. There are many reasons as to why you would want the commercial-business complex to be separate from the residential.

Hello richrobinson,
The more I read of other peoples' thoughts, the more I think the statists would do whatever it takes to kill off the idea. I am thinking that if it were visible it would have to be run like an underground or black market economy. A facade of phony storefronts and the like would have to be maintained as well as two sets of books. Everyone's Gulch business would have to be run out of the back room like a speakeasy, with a storefront only for show and outsiders. Out in the open would mean that a certain amount of compliance and interaction with the general public and its officials would have to be maintained in order to avoid scrutiny. Trading among Gulchers would require secrecy, special codes and currency. The problem is that too often "Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead." - Benjamin Franklin. The Gangsters managed during prohibition to some degree because of fear of death/retribution. Non- initiation of force kind of puts a monkey wrench in the scenario. Ultimately the Feds even got Capone, though they had to nail him on tax evasion. The same could easily be envisioned for defiant Gulch members.

If there was a massive movement of citizens willing to defy the government, I suppose they could use Cloward and Piven strategies to overwhelm the government system and initiate a collapse. They can't arrest and incarcerate too many of us, unless those detainment centers we keep hearing about are designed for such an insurrection. However, there are now so many citizens on the dole and willing to be dominated as long as the handouts keep coming that this scenario seems unlikely. There no longer seems to be enough citizens with the philosophy of independence to be swayed by truths like those set out in Paine's Common Sense. Propaganda perfected, is now the preeminent tool of the statists and the individualist is at a disadvantage. Envy, egalitarianism, altruism and statism is winning. Hence our present state of affairs.

If the Gulch could exist in the open, it would have to come about by legitimate means, like overwhelming a sovereign nation with enough new inhabitants to vote in their preferred governance. Many believe this is the endgame of open borders. Of course, in our case the political system the migrants bring is not considered superior and yet the affects are already being felt.

Of course we could all read AJAshinoff's book (Shadows Live Under Seashells) and consider life on Mars... I doubt such a settlement is within reach during my lifetime, but that is a scenario where it could be carried out in plain sight. Perhaps the Moon... It is a dream. :)

Respectfully,
O.A.

Interesting idea. If inside the USA, it would be subject to the federal laws, many of which are socialistic and totally opposite what Objectivists would want. Then there would be the state laws and county regulations. You couldnt build the house you wanted unless "approved". You would be subject to resstrictions on cars and off road vehicles. I am not sure that the end of the day there would be much "gulching" left to enjoy. There would be federal taxes, state taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc. just like now. Not to mention employee hiring and discrimmination laws to contend with.

Religious groups have tried it, and when they get to a certain size, they are attacked by the feds for some "infraction" and shut down.

Probably the biggest of the private societies would be the mormons in salt lake city. Its a booming area up there due to the work and financial and family ethic of the mormons, but its done quietly and under the cover of "religion"- which helps them avoid federal involvement because of the "religious freedom" part of the constitution. Maybe a new religion should be started which happens to adopt Objectivist principles, and go that way.

A gulch would have to be distributed into relatively small "cells" to minimize detection

The War Between the States gives us the best historical model for what would happen if you tried to set up Galt's State instead of Galt's Gulch. Ragnar Danneskjöld would have to be more than buccaneer or privateer. He would have to command an army, a navy, and an air force. As it was, his activities placed the Gulch at risk anyway.

Isolation is, after all; what many are doing nowadays anyways. Eventually, everyone is drawn into the circus. To be stealth is, of course; a way to go without notice and all this means. Both encouragement and envy, support and hate. Today, privacy is practically unattainable really. It has become a luxury we pay for.

Should there exist a haven well, the minute it goes public is the moment of it´s own demise. Somethings are better left unsaid.

I would expect that various government agencies, beginning with IRS, would trump up charges to justify seizing the strikers' homes and other assets, culminating in another Waco siege.

Thus any open "Gulch" would need to be on non-US territory. And preferably sovereign (which likely means either taking over some small poor country or arranging a lease similar to Hong Kong's former arrangement).

Lincoln determined that the "Union" can be held together against the will of the States or even the people. If a Galt's Gulch was created, as soon a it was profitable, looters would sweep in and kill the goose . . ....
Years ago I heard of a plan for libertarians to move to one state (I think Vermont was targeted) and elect themselves to offices of control and implement libertarian ideas. Don't know the status of the plan.

Point of interest, The Libertarian Party selected New Hampshire, several years ago and are trying to lure libertarians there much in a Galt's Gulch type community, ultimately changing the entire government to Libertarians. A lot of factors make it reasonable. No Sales Taxes, No State Income Taxes, no Federal aid to Education accepted, and many more factors, plus it is a very pretty place to live, I did before moving to Florida.

Feds would smash it. They'd cook up some story to build public support for the use of force.

I have been seriously looking at acquiring some acreage near here and building a commune of home-schoolers on it. I'd literally have these families I know design/build their own homes. I can engineer the water and sewer, design PV with storage, work out the power/phone connects. I'd design a build a small, state-of-the-art school house. But, in the back of my mind is this issue of government wanting to crack into it. We'd be doing nothing wrong: raising chickens, going to our jobs in the city, educating our kids. But...that could be a problem in today's environment, especially in a blue state. I do have interest from several other families. The interest is entirely in raising our kids to be smart and strong. It's getting so hard to do that in our society now.

I'd name it "Atlantis", or "Mulligan's Hill...."

I mean don't we all wish it was, but the feds would never allow it to exist, I mean like where would we put up our homes, how would we pay for the land and lastly wouldn't this cause anarchy overall, because of the way that people would want to take what we have.

Now we're talking about secession; I'm hoping that I could have a part in making it happen. If enough states vote for it and have the National Guard along with local militias could sustain the borders of their respective states then a visible Gulch is possible. A Gulch could be set up in each seceeded state. They will able to drive the economy in those states. Then powerful passive devises would be invented and used to protect the New Confederat States of America.

I've had an interest in the State of Jefferson movement. I occasionally do business in that region and I love it up there. It really is one of the most beautiful places on earth. The people are laid-back. Lots of natural resources. It's a nice place. People still have "Welcome to the State of Jefferson" painted on their barns.

The hardest part of that scenario is how to check out the applicants for residency. Worse yet, how to refuse them. If it is part of the USA you're screwed. Declaring independence will be a gun in your ear. The idea of creating a shining example of what freedom can do can only be done somewhere where the land is completely owned by the new state and is truly sovereign. The idea of visibility is good, but in this world, in its current state, it is also a low hanging fruit ripe for plucking. So, one must add to that a reason that would keep the Huns from the gates. An unstoppable weapon, or territory so difficult it's too costly to raid, or whatever other deterrent you can imagine. It may be a very long road before humanity is mature enough to become rational.

you talk about being attacked -- better have a very good
defense system! . eeeeevvvvvvverrrryyyone wants something
for nothing, and we'd have something they'd want!!!

in my humble, the only hope is the secession of a
huge group of States who would -- in effect -- hold
the rest for ransom with their goods and services withdrawn,
just like Rand envisioned, except geographical. . you might
want to consider my most recent edit:::

http://www.amazon.com/Unsustainable-T...

the "flyover" States secede from the union and get changes to
their successor U.S.A. constitution accepted by the rest
of the States. . far-fetched? . you decide, OK? -- j
.

A visible Galt's Gulch would be like Bambi in the classic film, Bambi Meets Godzilla. https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p...

jbrenner among others has postulated a potential location for a Gulch, but so far it's like trying to locate the fabled Atlantis.

The thing is, the United States itself used to be that very panacea. It had the correct underpinnings focused on freedom and liberty. It's just that over time, prosperity actually devalued the sacrifices of the Founding Fathers. It took the War of 1812 and then the Civil War to remind people of those values. Since then, however, America has only fought foreign wars. These insulate the general population from any true fight for freedom, enabling collectivist and populist cultures to creep in and establish a welfare state.

There could be no such GG.
Find an island unowned by any government....