Information icon.svg Results are posted for the RationalWiki 2020 Moderator Election.
Thanks to all who participated in the vote, and congratulations to the new moderators!

Talk:Going Galt

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 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. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 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[edit]

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). ħumanUser talk:Human 02:08, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Galt's Gulch a collective?[edit]

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)


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


Isn't this supposed to be Rational Wiki? This article reads as if it was authored by a hateful, unhinged commie. — Unsigned, by: / talk

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! 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... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
PS: The article isn't hateful, you just have ridiculously thin skin when it comes to opposing viewpoints. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The rational 'going Galt'[edit]

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)