Talk:Going Galt

Trekkies, of course, could go galt by asking to be paid in Quatloos. Totnesmartin 06:37, 8 March 2009 (EDT)


 * Objectivity is rational. If someone is looking for the definition of "going galt", this page comes up as the number 1 slot of google's results. The first paragraph, rather than do its job and actually describe what "going galt" is (it has nothing to do with "right wing bloggers" or Obama's tax policy), spews a bunch of partisan garbage. I realize that most people describing themselves as rationalists are on the "left", but to let's face facts...politics is NOT a realm where people use a lot of rationality. The term "going galt" is a reference to Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged in which people drop out of society because of too much beaurocracy. THAT should be the first line in the article, not a mini diatribe against people you disagree with. I lost a lot of respect for RationalWiki when I saw this article. 13 February 2017 (nearly 8 years after all the other comments in this section)


 * Was it Galt's Gulch? I thought they called it Eldorado... but it's been a long time since I paid my (ugh) dues by reading that dreck.  ħ uman  16:48, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Officially, it was "Mulligan's Valley," after the banker who owned it, and that was what Galt called it; all its other residents called it Galt's Gulch. 16:54, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

They also called it Atlantis though Eldorado would have worked.--Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Editorial comment
Personally, I don't care if they Go Galt, Go West, Go Commando, or Go Crazy(er), as long as they go away. How are we supposed to miss these greedhead dingbats if they're still here?

It's also rather amusing that after all this time, even the Normals are realizing the inherent truth of J. R. "Bob" Dobbs's teachings: "Repent!  Quit Your Job!  Slack Off!!" --Gulik 19:27, 7 March 2009 (EST)


 * I think my comment was funnier in the article, but I guess it isn't very "encyclopedic". --Gulik 20:35, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Yeah, but this isn't a 'cyclopedia. PS, I like it when I hear it on RW before the Colbert Report (3/11/09 edition covered topic).  ħ uman  02:08, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Galt's Gulch a collective?
Let's not equivocate here; "collective" has more than one definition. Galt's Gulch would be a collective in the sense that it's a cooperative enterprise (like any society), but not in the sense that it's an enterprise that belongs to all the members of a group as common, shared, joint, communal, pooled, etc. property. (The word "cooperative" too has more than one definition. There can be cooperative activity in a capitalist society; the difference is that each participant chooses whether or not to devote his resources to particular activities, rather than being compelled to obey any central planner, whether a dictator or elected official.)

I'm not sure whether it would be correct to call Ayn Rand's organization a collective. If so, then every educational organization people donate resources to is a collective, but it's unusual to call them such. Normally being a member of a "collective" is used to mean that you belong to a commune or something similar that consumes most of the members' resources. Glideslope (talk) 10:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Percentages
What percent of Galties earn more than £25 000? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Rational?
Isn't this supposed to be Rational Wiki? This article reads as if it was authored by a hateful, unhinged commie.
 * Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow! It's almost as if an ideology that pushes anti-social ideas is incompatible with human society... I wonder why that could be... 20:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: The article isn't hateful, you just have ridiculously thin skin when it comes to opposing viewpoints. 20:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's pretty irrational. In one section it says that if anyone's Gone Galt it's had no measurable effect, but a few paragraphs down it says that the results of US corporations and megarich Going Galt can be seen in the US economy today. That's an obvious proof by contradiction that the page is irrational. The dismissive tone is also silly, since "Going Galt" is just a synonym for spiteful capital flight, which absolutely is a thing (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_flight). 49.3.249.203 (talk) 10:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * “you just have a ridiculously thin skin when it comes to opposing viewpoints.” <—Hello Pot. Meet Kettle.
 * Eh, this article is "dated" in a way. The phrase "going Galt" really was just a rather minor thing floating around as political jaw-jaw among the usual reactionary "conservative" right-wingers during the Tea Party phase of the GOP. (Some articles trace the popularization back to this blog entry by Michelle Malkin at the The Unz Review, for instance).
 * As a concept, this certainly still exists in the Rand style (see libertarian paradise), but things have changed. Firstly, I think a lot of the energy that got sucked into the cult of Ayn Rand in the days of old is now getting scammed by the cult of cryptocurrency. The other thing that happened, of course, is that much of the Tea Party crowd morphed into the cult of the Angry Baby. Malkin is far better known these days for her bigoted and openly hateful stances then anything economic. (Seriously. She's deep in Nick Fuentes rage land, even though she should know better. It's tough to find economic content in her babble.)
 * And the phrase "going Galt" did so likewise, as it's become an occasional phrase (but not a terribly popular one) for the general concept of quitting or withdrawal. In the 2010s and onward, some chatter referring to moans not related to taxes at all, but to men's rights activist topics specifically in the Men Going Their Own Way style (example headline from Daily Caller, so no direct link: "Going Galt: Why men are boycotting marriage, fatherhood and the American Dream"). Recently, the phrase "going Galt" also has occasionally been applied to workers quitting their jobs (eg the so-called "" style topics).
 * So while capital flight is a thing and some idiots are still searching for (and failing to find) libertarian paradise, "going Galt" ended up being little more than a toothless political jaw-jaw label. Got to fill the op-eds with something. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The rational 'going Galt'
Involves toys. Anna Livia (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've seen worse curation of toys recommended based on psychotic political ideologies. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The 'to' is to be deduced.
 * At least the Galters on the page will keep 'persons dealing with reorganisations of where money is held' in gainful employment - and may end up spending more, in the short or long term, than if they had just accepted the situation/commissioned experts' reports to prove that a different rate of taxation would produce better yields. Anna Livia (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Raising taxes
There's a lot of debate and research in the issue of whether raising taxes will increase revenue or all the rich will run away or evade tax. Often in the context of "if you vote for a left-wing party, the rich will leave and stop paying taxes". Maybe not quite the same as Going Galt, but still a right-wing myth capable of analysis or debunking. --Annanoon (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)