Who Is John Galt?

Post Reply New Topic

I read something in the last few years that sounded far too conspiratorial to me so I took it with a grain of salt, but whatever it was posited some idea that in the event of a global meltdown and all out class warfare that elites could move to Australia, fortify it massively and either rule from there or let the rest of the world rot.

John Galt is not a hero.

Perhaps not to a Collectivist; but to people who believe that their intellectual property is theirs to patent and/or copyright, he is certainly an example.

Galt is acknowledged to be a philosopher and inventor; he believes in the power and glory of the human mind, and the rights of individuals to use their minds solely for themselves. He serves as a highly individualistic counterpoint to the collectivist social and economic structure depicted in the novel, in which society is based on oppressive bureaucratic functionaries and a culture that embraces mediocrity in the name of egalitarianism, which the novel posits is the end result of collectivist philosophy.

Contrast "John Galt" to President Obama's "you didn't earn it yourself" speech ...

If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own".
If you've been successful, someone else made that happen.
If you've got a business, you didn't build that.

Therefore, it's time to pay up, mooch!

Which is why I don't vote for Socialists.

But it is true that “you didn’t get there on your own.” Objectivists believe in rational self-interest. You have no obligation to others. But it serves your own best interest to invest in others.

Collectivism turns this idea on its head, saying that the individual is duty bound to “pay up,” to share with others what he earned.

Objectivism doesn’t leave the disabled out in the cold, either. It depends on the value human beings place on each other. Your husband suddenly becomes disabled and can not earn money? Ok, do you love him? Are you willing to work to take care of him? The objectivist wouldn’t have a problem with that.

The collectivist sees a homeless person on the street and sees another mouth he’s obligated to feed. The objectivist sees the same guy and sees potential. Both will give, but the collectivist gives out of obligation and guilt.

The same two see a homeless, drunk, addicted, diseased person on the street. The collectivist will give out of the same sense of obligation, resenting that this guy squanders money while he has to work hard for his own. The objectivist sees a waste of money and won’t bother. In this scenario, there is no desire to change on the part of the man on the street, only someone who wants to keep drinking and using. So the objectivist won’t see the potential. Or rather, he WILL see the potential that giving money just keeps the guy stuck in his condition. The objectivist would rather buy him some food, get him medicine, treat his addiction, and see if he could get some gainful employment and begin to contribute to society. To the collectivist, there is no hope, but only duty.

The real problem with collectivism is its tendency to enslave the population. In THEORY it sounds grand. In actual practice, it falls prey to human nature. People who crave power and wealth for themselves use the system for personal gain and become rich off the backs of the workers. The maintain their hold on power by creating a permanent underclass, selling “hope” and “change” without showing any real or lasting results. Don’t worry about work. You keep voting for us and we’ll take from the rich and give it to you. Things are getting a little better everyday, but we have a long way to go.

Objectivists don’t believe in keeping the individual on the plantation but rather encourage individuals to assert the power they already have.

Intellectual property is a road towards stagnation and mediocrity.

My intellectual property is mine to exploit and profit from.

Deal with it.

We've already done that.

If your intellectual property is of any worth the Chinese will steal it and you won't be able to stop them.

The common wisdom in mid-scale entrepreneurship is "Rake in the profits until someone makes a knock-off, and then dump the whole thing before you get sued for their shoddy goods".

I'm not getting "crazy rich", but I am padding my retirement accounts.