“Going Galt” Not “Gulching” Share This:



by Wendy McElroy



A friend once claimed that he was searching for “the Promised Gulch." He referred, of course, to the state-free Galt's Gulch depicted in Atlas Shrugged to which the producers of society withdraw to form their own community and to remove their support from the parasites. Galt's Gulch is the most anarchistic aspect of Atlas Shrugged; for all practical purposes, it is an anarchist society -- a "society by contract." I wriggle my toes in anti-government delight when I read the Galt's Gulch sections.



Withdrawing from society to form an isolated community is sometimes called “Going Galt” but this label is misleading. I prefer to call such a withdrawal “Gulching.” Libertarians and utopians commonly speak of Gulching in wistful tones. By this they mean physically separating from the dominant society and government control. Sometimes the vision involves creating a new and isolated community. Sometimes it is a more individual vision such as moving to a cabin in the woods.



Going Galt is an altogether different process, which does not involve physically separating yourself from society.

Remember, the original shape of John Galt's protest in Atlas Shrugged is to remain in society but to do so as a manual laborer rather than contributing his genius as an engineer. Francisco D'Anconia also stays within society in the guise of a wastrel womanizer who lets his family industries crumble to unproductive dust. Only Ragnar Danneskjold lives on the margin of the parasite society, which he raids as a pirate; perhaps tellingly, Danneskjold is also a peripheral character compared to Galt and D'Anconia. It is Midas Mulligan who begins the Gulching. Mulligan converts all his wealth into gold and retires to Galt's Gulch, which he owns, because he wants "never again to look in the face of a looter."



“Going Galt” refers to the process by which an individual removes support from the political system as an act of disgust, protest or self-respect. Usually, the withdrawal involves a financial disconnect but it also can involve the decision to withdraw one's talent and skill. For example, an industrialist may decide not to run a factory, a doctor might cease to practice medicine. The decision could be prompted by myriad factors: disgust with paperwork, an agonizing lawsuit... An increasingly common motive: people prefer not to earn money that is snatched away by taxes and "redistributed" to those who produce nothing. The situation is akin to a farmer plowing under a field rather than sell at a price that is tantamount to theft.



“Going Galt” does not refer to forming a new society. For many if not most people, the withdrawal is partial and a matter of commonsense as much as political protest. The economic and social equation has changed. When a government penalizes your productivity to the point of seizure through taxes, paperwork, possible lawsuits etc., then ceasing to produce is a way to remove yourself as a target and alleviate stress. Suddenly, spending time with your children or hobbies becomes far more attractive.



In 2009, Lisa Schiffren had a great description of the type of person who is likely to “Go Galt.” She wrote it in reaction to new President Obama arbitrarily defining any who earned above $250,000 as being rich. Schiffren wrote,



“The doctors, lawyers, engineers, executives, serious small-business owners, top salespeople, and other professionals and entrepreneurs who make this country run work considerably harder than pretty much anyone else (including most of the chattering class, and all politicians). They are not robber barons, or trust-fund babies, or plutocrats, or even celebrities. They are mostly the meritocrats who worked hard in high school and got into the better colleges and grad schools, where they studied while others partied. They pushed through grueling hours and unpleasant “up or out” policies in their twenties and thirties at top law firms, banks, hospitals, and businesses to earn salaries in the solid six figures (or low seven) today — in their peak earning years. Their work ethic is prodigious, and...in their spare time they sit on the boards of most of the complex charities and arts institutions that provide aid and pay for culture in America. No group of people contribute more to their community. And now the president...is penalizing their success and giving them very clear incentives to ratchet back on productivity.”



Her words apply equally to Obama's current cries to “soak the rich!” Politicians seem to believe that the rich will stand still for the hosing rather than walk away.



I suspect that most productive people will keep working even if they are penalized for their productivity. For one thing, it is in their nature to produce and be responsible for themselves. But I expect that a substantial number will decide to scale down their productivity or to divert part of it into activities for which they are not penalized. Why earn over $250,000 (or whatever figure) if it means bringing into your family less money or as much money as you could earn for working 25% fewer hours? At some point – and it is fast arriving if it is not already here – it makes economic sense for productive people to “buy their own time” by creating fewer goods, services and wealth. They will reduce their hours rather than increase their productivity.



"Going Galt" is a destination at which people arrive from different directions and intentions. My intention is as a political protest and in a desire for personal freedom. I am tired through to the marrow of my bones of supporting the thieves and hypocritical looters who call themselves “public servants.” I am far from alone in this utter visceral disgust. Remember again, at the end of Atlas Shrugged, a slew of ordinary people who have no political ideology "Go Galt" by refusing to contribute their energy to a parasite society or even by sabotage.



I am not sure how prevalent “Going Galt” is; certainly bureaucrats will never keep statistics on the phenomenon. Besides which, by its nature, the process cannot be measured. We can measure a decline in wealth, the absence of productivity but we cannot determine the 'why' of it all. There are too many possible explanations.



Nevertheless, the phrase “Going Galt” reveals a common emotional response to the utter pillaging of society by government and state capitalists who masquerade as business people. A resentment bordering on rage is building over the irresponsibility and corruption of giving out bottomless sacks of money that is stolen from hardworking, honest people who play and work by the rules. There will never be enough money or corruption to satisfy the thieves. It is the honest people who must say ENOUGH! Back to category overview Back to news overview Newer News



Remember, the original shape of John Galt's protest in Atlas Shrugged is to remain in society but to do so as a manual laborer rather than contributing his genius as an engineer. Francisco D'Anconia also stays within society in the guise of a wastrel womanizer who lets his family industries crumble to unproductive dust. Only Ragnar Danneskjold lives on the margin of the parasite society, which he raids as a pirate; perhaps tellingly, Danneskjold is also a peripheral character compared to Galt and D'Anconia. It is Midas Mulligan who begins the Gulching. Mulligan converts all his wealth into gold and retires to Galt's Gulch, which he owns, because he wants "never again to look in the face of a looter."“Going Galt” refers to the process by which an individual removes support from the political system as an act of disgust, protest or self-respect. Usually, the withdrawal involves a financial disconnect but it also can involve the decision to withdraw one's talent and skill. For example, an industrialist may decide not to run a factory, a doctor might cease to practice medicine. The decision could be prompted by myriad factors: disgust with paperwork, an agonizing lawsuit... An increasingly common motive: people prefer not to earn money that is snatched away by taxes and "redistributed" to those who produce nothing. The situation is akin to a farmer plowing under a field rather than sell at a price that is tantamount to theft.“Going Galt” does not refer to forming a new society. For many if not most people, the withdrawal is partial and a matter of commonsense as much as political protest. The economic and social equation has changed. When a government penalizes your productivity to the point of seizure through taxes, paperwork, possible lawsuits etc., then ceasing to produce is a way to remove yourself as a target and alleviate stress. Suddenly, spending time with your children or hobbies becomes far more attractive.In 2009, Lisa Schiffren had a great description of the type of person who is likely to “Go Galt.” She wrote it in reaction to new President Obama arbitrarily defining any who earned above $250,000 as being rich. Schiffren wrote,“The doctors, lawyers, engineers, executives, serious small-business owners, top salespeople, and other professionals and entrepreneurs who make this country run work considerably harder than pretty much anyone else (including most of the chattering class, and all politicians). They are not robber barons, or trust-fund babies, or plutocrats, or even celebrities. They are mostly the meritocrats who worked hard in high school and got into the better colleges and grad schools, where they studied while others partied. They pushed through grueling hours and unpleasant “up or out” policies in their twenties and thirties at top law firms, banks, hospitals, and businesses to earn salaries in the solid six figures (or low seven) today — in their peak earning years. Their work ethic is prodigious, and...in their spare time they sit on the boards of most of the complex charities and arts institutions that provide aid and pay for culture in America. No group of people contribute more to their community. And now the president...is penalizing their success and giving them very clear incentives to ratchet back on productivity.” http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/178105/who-are-working-affluent/lisa-schiffren Her words apply equally to Obama's current cries to “soak the rich!” Politicians seem to believe that the rich will stand still for the hosing rather than walk away.I suspect that most productive people will keep working even if they are penalized for their productivity. For one thing, it is in their nature to produce and be responsible for themselves. But I expect that a substantial number will decide to scale down their productivity or to divert part of it into activities for which they are not penalized. Why earn over $250,000 (or whatever figure) if it means bringing into your family less money or as much money as you could earn for working 25% fewer hours? At some point – and it is fast arriving if it is not already here – it makes economic sense for productive people to “buy their own time” by creating fewer goods, services and wealth. They will reduce their hours rather than increase their productivity."Going Galt" is a destination at which people arrive from different directions and intentions. My intention is as a political protest and in a desire for personal freedom. I am tired through to the marrow of my bones of supporting the thieves and hypocritical looters who call themselves “public servants.” I am far from alone in this utter visceral disgust. Remember again, at the end of Atlas Shrugged, a slew of ordinary people who have no political ideology "Go Galt" by refusing to contribute their energy to a parasite society or even by sabotage.I am not sure how prevalent “Going Galt” is; certainly bureaucrats will never keep statistics on the phenomenon. Besides which, by its nature, the process cannot be measured. We can measure a decline in wealth, the absence of productivity but we cannot determine the 'why' of it all. There are too many possible explanations.Nevertheless, the phrase “Going Galt” reveals a common emotional response to the utter pillaging of society by government and state capitalists who masquerade as business people. A resentment bordering on rage is building over the irresponsibility and corruption of giving out bottomless sacks of money that is stolen from hardworking, honest people who play and work by the rules. There will never be enough money or corruption to satisfy the thieves. It is the honest people who must say ENOUGH! Printer Friendly Wendy McElroy - Saturday 09 June 2012 - 14:47:56 - Permalink “Going Galt” Not “Gulching”by Wendy McElroyA friend once claimed that he was searching for “the Promised Gulch." He referred, of course, to the state-free Galt's Gulch depicted in Atlas Shrugged to which the producers of society withdraw to form their own community and to remove their support from the parasites. Galt's Gulch is the most anarchistic aspect of Atlas Shrugged; for all practical purposes, it is an anarchist society -- a "society by contract." I wriggle my toes in anti-government delight when I read the Galt's Gulch sections.Withdrawing from society to form an isolated community is sometimes called “Going Galt” but this label is misleading. I prefer to call such a withdrawal “Gulching.” Libertarians and utopians commonly speak of Gulching in wistful tones. By this they mean physically separating from the dominant society and government control. Sometimes the vision involves creating a new and isolated community. Sometimes it is a more individual vision such as moving to a cabin in the woods.Going Galt is an altogether different process, which does not involve physically separating yourself from society.