The very minimal research I conducted prior to launch of this site made me aware me of some of the vitriol directed at others who have bandied about the notion of “going ‘John Galt’”. A representative comment:
You know, the best part about the wingers “going John Galt” and withdrawing from the world to “punish” us is that (a) no-one will notice and (b) if anyone DOES somehow notice, they still won’t miss them.
I considered this for awhile, reflecting upon how it made me feel. I put those thoughts aside for a little bit to work on the previous post, when a realization dawned on me: the people who believe such things are not going to be dissuaded by a response of righteous indignation. Instead, they should be ignored.
The producers of this world have more or less let their enemies have their way, and the producers’ few allies have spent way too much time conceding high ground to their enemies by engaging in shouting matches. Some of those fights have served the useful function of honing intellectual arguments, but they are not winning converts.
Naturally, the GoingJohnGalt.org “job action” project itself is intended to model a more active response to our adversaries, by attempting to effectively align producers so that the continuing erosion of their liberties is halted and reversed. But ignoring our enemies is an important passive response component that should be employed as well.
There is nothing to be gained by engaging an opponent of liberty in a debate, tit-for-tat, or all-out flame war on this site. This is not an academic forum where good faith need be extended to all comers. It is a worksite for an organizational task. Trolls should be ignored. They are not part of the project. (I shouldn’t need to get into a big discussion of the hazards involved in responding to trolls, as these have been well documented since the usenet days.)
However, ignoring our enemies is more than just another tactical approach to a generic problem. In this case, it’s an embodiment of the proper attitude with which to approach this particular problem. The future is in the producers’ hands. It always has been, no matter to what extend they’ve defaulted on that responsibility, and it always will be. Those who would expropriate from them have forfeited the right to petition for forgiveness or offer justifications after the fact. Do not grant them the status of moral equals by engaging with them. Not here. Not on what I have built to be our turf. Again, there are other places for that sort of free-for-all, and they have their purpose, a very important purpose in fact. But this website has already chosen sides.
I believe this could be a 21st Century equivalent of non-violent resistance. Passive protest forces the aggressors to confront their own shame and re-examine their commitment to their position. In a similar vein, systematically ignoring our adversaries would drive home that we consider them to be inconsequential. As adversaries, they do not figure into our plans, as they control no important value we seek to gain. (As a purely secondary issue, our adversaries have significance as voters. Winning over the electorate is the least painful way of effecting the changes we seek, but I view that mission of persuasion as a separate project, albeit one that can be assisted by a well-thought-out job action.) Let the unanswered echoing of their shouts impel them to consider why they have fallen upon deaf ears.
Theories on the importance of liberty have meant nothing to liberty’s enemies, and it’s no surprise, as productive men and women have sheltered them from the consequences of their opposition at tremendous cost to themselves and the world. The proper response will be to let liberty’s enemies see what a world without liberty eventually becomes, so that those who still wish to live can correct their error.
I will codify these rambling thoughts into a site policy. But it boils down to this: Discussion of the details of this project, its tactics, its future forms, etc., is permitted, but I will not tolerate any engaging with trolls. Those who do engage with them will have their comments deleted and, after fair warning, be banned from the site.
We are here to focus on the future, not the past. Let the future we build be the most effective answer to freedom’s enemies.
3 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
John,
I believe the point of Going Galt should be that we don’t care if they notice or miss us. It’s not about them, it’s about us. If they choose to whine and cry and demand to be spoon fed by the government it simply does not concern us. We remove our resources from them and let them sort it out if they can. I think the real question to “How to Go Galt” is how do we do it with some degree of moderation. Do we quit our jobs to withdraw our valuable services and tax dollars from this socialist system? Do we keep our jobs and limit our spending to only required items? Do we withdraw from the stock market and other forms of investment and put our weath in real goods instead? I doubt many will truely Go Galt becuase we believe that this is a termporary problem. I believe that in 4-8 years our government will reverse this nonsense. Reaganomics will come back and we will flourish. So, we need to focus on limiting our participation and support of this redistribution on wealth while positioning ourselves for a comeback when conditions are favorable.
While I’m with you somewhat in spirit, I haven’t your confidence in producers’ ability or desire to withhold their resources. Withholding produced resources above a small threshold is a criminal act (tax evasion), and withholding resources by choosing to not produce them in the first place isn’t effective if done alone.
.
The reason producers don’t attempt to starve Leviathan on their own is not because they think he’s going to be sated anytime soon, but because they think the attempt would be very costly to themselves while their neighbors continued to keep the beast well-fed. The best they are hoping for is to have a nice ride before Leviathan overruns them.
I’m tired of seeing productive people reduced to hoping that the rest of the world will permit them to flourish, to feeling that their only choices are to be part of the problem or to become an ascetic. So while I technically agree with you that “we need to focus on limiting our participation…while positioning for a comeback when conditions are favorable”, I’m angling for a very noticeable and defined withdrawal so that the conditions for a comeback are very favorable. Lots of work to do though
Thanks for being my first commenter, by the way!
John,
Once again your thoughts are one step ahead of mine. Recent ponderings led me to wonder what course of action would be effective given that we already know many producers “work less, adopt tax shelters, barter instead of sell, turn to an underground economy” as Anne Coulter wrote in her column today. My plan was to go as underground as possible before I found this site. I look forward to your future plans with curiosity and hope I may be able to contribute.
I say “curiosity” only because the natural tendency of people is a withdrawl from the economy. It seems quite noticeable already, yet undefined. Although Reagan did some great things, one would think favorable conditions for a comeback must far exceed slim freedom gains in the 1980s. My curiosity stems from awaiting your definition of “noticeable and defined withdrawal” and “favorable conditions”.
A precisely defined vision is necessary for any major accomplishment. This is why I believe in the success of this project. Keep up the good work John!