Galt's Gulch

[AConcernedCitizen]

In the book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, our Objectivist heroes escape the corruption and incompetence of a global welfare-state that is falling into disarray by secluding themselves in a hidden valley. Though referred to by many as 'Galt's Gulch,' the land does not belong to John Galt, but rather to Midas Mulligan.

This puts Mulligan in a position to have significant leverage over everyone in the valley who does not want to be cast into the literal apocalyptic dystopia outside.

Suppose that Mulligan decides to raise the cost of rent for everyone the next time their contracts are up for renewal. Suppose further that Mulligan decides to use the money he gains from the rent to build his own healthcare clinics, his own schools, his own farms, his own infrastructure, etc. And then he makes it all "freely available" to everyone in the valley (which of course they are still ultimately paying for through their rent).

Does Mulligan have the right to make those decisions regarding his own land and his own money?

Would you consider such a society to be a welfare-state?

Would you consider Galt's Gulch to be controlled by the far-left, the far-right or somewhere in-between at that point?

 

[dorsai]

In the book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, our Objectivist heroes escape the corruption and incompetence of a global welfare-state that is falling into disarray by secluding themselves in a hidden valley. Though referred to by many as 'Galt's Gulch,' the land does not belong to John Galt, but rather to Midas Mulligan.

This puts Mulligan in a position to have significant leverage over everyone in the valley who does not want to be cast into the literal apocalyptic dystopia outside.

Suppose that Mulligan decides to raise the cost of rent for everyone the next time their contracts are up for renewal. Suppose further that Mulligan decides to use the money he gains from the rent to build his own healthcare clinics, his own schools, his own farms, his own infrastructure, etc. And then he makes it all "freely available" to everyone in the valley (which of course they are still ultimately paying for through their rent).

Does Mulligan have the right to make those decisions regarding his own land and his own money?

Would you consider such a society to be a welfare-state?

Would you consider Galt's Gulch to be controlled by the far-left, the far-right or somewhere in-between at that point?

I don't believe that - in the first generation of residents at least - that would have ever come to pass. This would actually violate one of the rules of Galt's Gulch in that no man will receive anything for which their is no remuneration. No one ever received or gave anything for free. That was one of the primary reasons people joined the strike. If that were to have changed, the vast majority if not all of the residents would have left. John Galt actually made it a point to explain that to Dagny - no one in the valley got anything without compensating and no ever gave anything against their free will and not without remuneration.

He had all rights in the world to do that. But I can't think of any of the characters striking against people asking them to provide their labor for the use of another without compensation would stay in a place like that.

Kind of like leaving California for cause (politics, economy, etc.), moving to Texas, then voting in all the same things that made you move.

What would be more likely is that just like today, the further in time future generations get from the founding, they may become less faithful to founding principles without work and vigilance.

I would not call it far right or far left but it would not be (strictly) Libertarian. That's my take at any rate...

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

I don't believe that - in the first generation of residents at least - that would have ever come to pass. This would actually violate one of the rules of Galt's Gulch in that no man will receive anything for which their is no remuneration. No one ever received or gave anything for free. That was one of the primary reasons people joined the strike. If that were to have changed, the vast majority if not all of the residents would have left. John Galt actually made it a point to explain that to Dagny - no one in the valley got anything without compensating and no ever gave anything against their free will and not without remuneration.

He had all rights in the world to do that. But I can't think of any of the characters striking against people asking them to provide their labor for the use of another without compensation would stay in a place like that.

Kind of like leaving California for cause (politics, economy, etc.), moving to Texas, then voting in all the same things that made you move.

What would be more likely is that just like today, the further in time future generations get from the founding, they may become less faithful to founding principles without work and vigilance.

I would not call it far right or far left but it would not be (strictly) Libertarian. That's my take at any rate...

Well, obviously it wouldn't be in keeping with Mulligan's character to do so, but he was in a position to be able to. The question is whether it would be theft for him to do so. As I understand it, your take is that it would not be theft.

If Mulligan were the sort of character to play the game a few more moves ahead, he wouldn't need to violate the Oath of the Strike at all to institute those kinds of policies. You think the reason Google gives you "free" email, and doesn't make you pay to use their search engine is because they are altruistic communists giving generously out of some 'selfless' egoism? They are making money off of their "free" products to be sure.

Similarly, Midas will have to deal with a social safety net or lack thereof at some point or another. Midas personally benefits from the growth and success of Galt's Gulch, as it increases his property value, and allows him to charge more rent. If anyone isn't able to afford vaccines, they put the rest of the population at risk. It is in Midas' own interest for the people of Galt's Gultch to be healthy. If the long term gains of an educated populace outweigh the operating costs, providing education is a good deal for Midas. If handing out panem et circenses is more cost-effective than employing a large security force to quell the inevitable uprisings that occur when enough folks are starving, then it is in Midas' best interest to do so. He doesn't need to justify his programs with any pretenses of 'living for the sake of another man.'


My follow up question is this; who owns the United States? Don't the shareholders of the United States have a right to decide the terms for living and doing business in the United States in the same way that Midas Mulligan has the right to set the terms for living and doing business in Galt's Gulch?

 

[dorsai]

Sorry...really long winded but but this was kind of an interesting thought experiment.

You are right. I wouldn't consider it theft if it is not taxation. However, unlike a state government, Midas doesn't have the right to compel people to provide either goods or services (taxes). He is free to pay for it all himself, but he would not be able to compel a doctor to provide care without compensation anymore than he could compel a farmer to provide crops or a CPA to provide accounting services. Midas would have to function more as a owner of a shopping mall and if the stores don't like his terms, he is left with an empty mall that took considerable resources. His gamble - his loss. But, if the citizens like the service he provides it becomes his risk and his gain.

John Galt didn't even own a car and would be well within his rights to refuse to pay for a road he didn't use. He could look at the increase in rent and decide if what he gets for that higher rent is still worth the price and make his own decision. Based on his earlier negotiation, if he gets nothing more but pays more, he may no longer consider it a bargain and leave. You cannot remove the risk from this and Midas cannot force others to assume risk. On the flipside, he is not obligated to share his gains.

Midas would be better to build a road and charge people to use it. If they don't want to pay, they don't use it. Just like any other business proposition. Midas can run his "business" anyway he likes but the point to stress is that if any single person doesn't agree, they are not compelled to do business with him. One of the reasons Rand called taxation theft is it compelled people to "produce" (pay taxes) even if they were not compensated (no services).

You are incorrect in saying Midas had the right to determine how people lived or did business. He had absolutely no right to do that. The principle we have strayed from in the United States is "your rights end where mine begin". Midas had no right to compel anyone to provide anything or do anything. No one could compel him to provide anything or do anything. All residents had the opportunity to evaluate the "deal" for themselves and determine if it was in their best interests. If not, he would be out of luck. That was the purpose and driver of the "the strike".

It may sound harsh but people would only be starving if they could not exchange something of value to exchange for food. That was the point of the book -- produces vs non-producers. You must survive on the fruit of your own labor. All of the characters in the book lived within their means or grew their means beyond what they needed to live. They all had "fruit" to sustain them when they were not producing. Basically -- retirement. I have lived within my means for my working life so that when I am no longer producing, I still have the "fruit" to sustain me. If I have enough fruit left at the end of my life, my heirs can continue to eat. In Galt's Gulch, if I have no fruit, I need to be able to produce. You are free to provide charity but you cannot compel your neighbor to do so.

In the Gulch, each person had the right to choose how they lived or did business for themselves. In the United States, it is a central government that decides -- whether or not I agree -- many aspects of my life and business. We are compelled to pay for things or services we may not use or want, we are prevented from doing business in various ways or various people/groups, and even behavior that affects no one else is restricted,

I cannot stress more...your rights end where mine begin. We can't get in the way (infringe) but we should not be compelled to provide anything to anyone. I have the right to pursue happiness for example but have no right to compel you to make me happy. That is the same for all rights. I have a right to a firearm but have no right to compel you to furnish it for me.

One of the biggest problems in the United States today is that we have taken a stance that it is just to violate one person's rights so that another's person's rights are executed.

 

[Mithrae]

Don't the shareholders of the United States have a right to decide the terms for living and doing business in the United States in the same way that Midas Mulligan has the right to set the terms for living and doing business in Galt's Gulch?

It has to be said that imposing controversial or unwanted terms of use for a resource in circumstances of unilateral (or unanimous shared) control is quite different from doing so in cases where the folk with a controlling interest aren't reaching agreement. When is it acceptable for the majority to impose their terms on the dissenting minority? Everyone holds positions which require that to be the case (including libertarians and anarchists), but not everyone has given much thought to when and why that should be. I think there's two fairly viable approaches to answering that question: From the social contract viewpoint I would argue that if we tacitly agree to civil society to improve our circumstances above the 'state of nature,' civil society must never reduce our wellbeing below that threshold. And perhaps a little more arbitrarily (though rhetorically more powerful) angle there's the idea of negative or natural rights, that whereas some benefits or rights can be positively acquired through society, some 'rights' such as life and liberty can never be given; they are essentially with us from birth, or arguably in a hypothetical 'state of nature,' and can only ever be limited. Obviously the US Declaration of Independence claims that "all men" are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Some of the most prominent political divides in the USA seem to hinge around how these fundamental rights are handled: Conservatives seem to more commonly support death penalties, police use of fatal force, and incarceration/deprivation of liberty as a primary means to promote societal function, while liberals often deny the 'right to life' of embryos which already obviously lack any liberty or concept of happiness (instead stressing the mothers' unequivocal right to liberty) and reject or seek to restrain the liberty of companies or individuals which directly, indirectly or predictably infringe on the life or wellbeing of other people.

Moving closer to what I think your topic is aiming for, one of the biggest differences (if not the major difference) between reasonable liberals and reasonable libertarians is the treatment of property 'rights.' The English philosopher John Locke had proposed that among the fundamental natural rights were "life, liberty, and property"; but in their Declaration of Independence almost a century later, the American founding fathers apparently didn't quite agree. There may be a happy medium between the two by distinguishing between immediate, basic personal possessions, and the broader and often highly abstract notions of property which right-wing libertarians sometimes seem to emphasize even above life and liberty. One of the best explanations for the distinction that I've read was written by Benjamin Franklin:

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-41-02-0231​

​

The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable, the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see in some Resolutions of Town-Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take as they call it, the People’s Money out of their Pockets tho’ only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money justly due from the People is their Creditors’ Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell’d to pay by some Law. All Property indeed, except the Savage’s temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents & all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity & the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man for the Conservation of the Individual & the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who by their Laws have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire & live among Savages.— He can have no right to the Benefits of Society who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.​

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

In the book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, our Objectivist heroes escape the corruption and incompetence of a global welfare-state that is falling into disarray by secluding themselves in a hidden valley. Though referred to by many as 'Galt's Gulch,' the land does not belong to John Galt, but rather to Midas Mulligan.

This puts Mulligan in a position to have significant leverage over everyone in the valley who does not want to be cast into the literal apocalyptic dystopia outside.

Suppose that Mulligan decides to raise the cost of rent for everyone the next time their contracts are up for renewal. Suppose further that Mulligan decides to use the money he gains from the rent to build his own healthcare clinics, his own schools, his own farms, his own infrastructure, etc. And then he makes it all "freely available" to everyone in the valley (which of course they are still ultimately paying for through their rent).

Does Mulligan have the right to make those decisions regarding his own land and his own money?

Would you consider such a society to be a welfare-state?

Would you consider Galt's Gulch to be controlled by the far-left, the far-right or somewhere in-between at that point?

 

[dorsai]

AConcernedCitizen, I'm curious... What prompted this? Did you read the book recently or come across the story in some other way? Mind if I ask your age? Full disclosure...read it about 12 years ago. I'm now 53.

 

[Mithrae]

I cannot stress more...your rights end where mine begin. We can't get in the way (infringe) but we should not be compelled to provide anything to anyone. I have the right to pursue happiness for example but have no right to compel you to make me happy. That is the same for all rights. I have a right to a firearm but have no right to compel you to furnish it for me.

One of the biggest problems in the United States today is that we have taken a stance that it is just to violate one person's rights so that another's person's rights are executed.

Posting buddy! We both replied in the same minute. I probably should have mentioned this in my earlier post (though I was hard up against the character limit as it was), but another thing we should bear in mind is the fact that private property by definition is a restriction on other folks' liberty. Don't touch this, don't go there and so on. Claiming to 'own' some tract of land and telling people they cannot walk or sleep or farm there is a rather simple and unequivocal illustration of that fact (land ownership has historically and down to the present been one of the greatest sources of both injustice and inequality, as I gather many libertarians recognize). In theory we agree to those restrictions of our liberty much like we do for road rules or gun registra other stuff, in the interests of a common good, because acquiring and retaining our property incentivizes development and productivity; if every man and his dog were free to use and abuse the cabin that Bob is trying to build, he's probably going to end up not bothering at all and civilization would never develop

But perhaps we should always bear in mind that if and when socially-derived property rights permit excessive, unnecessary and largely unearned accumulation of land, resources, wealth and power, that comes at a cost to the far more fundamental and important natural rights of other folks' freedom to access those things.

 

[bongsaway]

In the book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, our Objectivist heroes escape the corruption and incompetence of a global welfare-state that is falling into disarray by secluding themselves in a hidden valley. Though referred to by many as 'Galt's Gulch,' the land does not belong to John Galt, but rather to Midas Mulligan.

This puts Mulligan in a position to have significant leverage over everyone in the valley who does not want to be cast into the literal apocalyptic dystopia outside.

Suppose that Mulligan decides to raise the cost of rent for everyone the next time their contracts are up for renewal. Suppose further that Mulligan decides to use the money he gains from the rent to build his own healthcare clinics, his own schools, his own farms, his own infrastructure, etc. And then he makes it all "freely available" to everyone in the valley (which of course they are still ultimately paying for through their rent).

Does Mulligan have the right to make those decisions regarding his own land and his own money?

Would you consider such a society to be a welfare-state?

Would you consider Galt's Gulch to be controlled by the far-left, the far-right or somewhere in-between at that point?

I haven't read the book so, in order of your questions, yes he has the right.
If the residents are paying for all that infrastructure included within their rent, no.
I would consider the gulch well managed.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Sorry...really long winded but but this was kind of an interesting thought experiment.

That wasn't long-winded. Chapter 7 was long-winded. -"This is John Galt Speaking. The rest of this inordinately long chapter will be a rehash of concepts that have already been beaten to death throughout the book. Also, it will do nothing to further the plot." I would have skipped ahead if my ego allowed me not to read a book in its entirety.

Your post, on the other hand, was well thought out and succinct, yet still rich in content. It is a refreshing change of pace.

You are right. I wouldn't consider it theft if it is not taxation. However, unlike a state government, Midas doesn't have the right to compel people to provide either goods or services (taxes).

He 'compels' people in the same sense that any Government does. If they think the protection and infrastructure, and standard of living they can afford in Galt's Gulch is worth the cost, they will stay. Otherwise, they can leave. If people don't think the taxes are worth what they are getting in terms of military protection, infrastructure and programs, they can expatriate.

He is free to pay for it all himself, but he would not be able to compel a doctor to provide care without compensation anymore than he could compel a farmer to provide crops or a CPA to provide accounting services. Midas would have to function more as a owner of a shopping mall and if the stores don't like his terms, he is left with an empty mall that took considerable resources. His gamble - his loss. But, if the citizens like the service he provides it becomes his risk and his gain.

I agree entirely. It is in Midas' best interest to seek the balance of low rent and services provided that yields the best returns according to his own priorities. Malls are a great example. Malls typically provide heating. A short sighted-objectivist might say that the mall would be better off lowering the cost of rent and letting each individual store be responsible for their own heat instead. Or that each individual store should be responsible for their own security instead of providing mall security.

This philosophical stance doesn't work out in practice because of economies of scale. Providing one heating system for the entire mall is just more cost-effective. Providing mall security instead of requiring each store to hire their own security guards is just more cost-effective.

John Galt didn't even own a car and would be well within his rights to refuse to pay for a road he didn't use. He could look at the increase in rent and decide if what he gets for that higher rent is still worth the price and make his own decision. Based on his earlier negotiation, if he gets nothing more but pays more, he may no longer consider it a bargain and leave. You cannot remove the risk from this and Midas cannot force others to assume risk. On the flipside, he is not obligated to share his gains.

Exactly. If John Galt no longer thinks the Gulch is worth the cost of rent, he can expatriate from the Gulch.

Midas would be better to build a road and charge people to use it. If they don't want to pay, they don't use it. Just like any other business proposition.

That is like saying that Google would be better off charging people to use their search engine. If people don't want to pay, they don't use it.

I think if Google tried it, instead of making a fortune, it would just be the end of the Google search engine.

You are incorrect in saying Midas had the right to determine how people lived or did business. He had absolutely no right to do that.

I didn't say he had the right to determine how people lived or did business. What I said was that he had the right to "set the terms" just as anyone can when making a contract. If people didn't like the rent hikes, they could expatriate from the Gulch.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

AConcernedCitizen, I'm curious... What prompted this? Did you read the book recently or come across the story in some other way? Mind if I ask your age? Full disclosure...read it about 12 years ago. I'm now 53.

I originally read it in a bygone millennia, and re-read it a few years ago right after reading Das Kapital. This thread was inspired by this thread relating to Capitalism, Communism and the Welfare-States found in Nordic countries.

I was originally going to bring this up to illustrate some kind of point, but then I realized that most folks on the thread wouldn't have the necessary context, so I created a new thread targeted toward an audience more familiar with the book.

 

[dorsai]

Expatriate is exactly what I believe would happen. I think those changes would be seen as a harbinger of sorts. And I probably would find some agreement with bongsaway as well. We probably shouldn’t get into the history of property rights or even the need for a military. I am not naïve enough to not recognize some hypocrisy of my own when it comes to some services. I quibble about which services but recognize anything on a national scale relying on taxation means someone is paying for something they don’t want even if it is not me.

For me, in the current United States, even though I can wax poetically or rant all night about what I enjoy or don’t enjoy, I still believe there is more value for me personally here in the United States. Despite the freedoms we may not have, on balance I still believe it is in my best interest to be here. On a micro scale, I have agreed to the terms.

...kind of nice to have a conversation that doesn’t end in insults. I completely agree with you on the assessment of that last chapter! It was actually kind of an interesting story on its own prior to that. Pirates, secret societies, and even some sci-fi free energy device... That last chapter was kind of a tough row to hoe.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

It has to be said that imposing controversial or unwanted terms of use for a resource in circumstances of unilateral (or unanimous shared) control is quite different from doing so in cases where the folk with a controlling interest aren't reaching agreement. When is it acceptable for the majority to impose their terms on the dissenting minority?

In this context, it is acceptable to impose terms on the dissenting minority according to the terms of the contract. One homeowner's association might be able to install a new pool with a 51-49 vote, while another might have a charter that requires a 2/3rd majority for large purchase decisions.

One of the best explanations for the distinction that I've read was written by Benjamin Franklin:

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-41-02-0231

The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable, the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see in some Resolutions of Town-Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take as they call it, the People’s Money out of their Pockets tho’ only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money justly due from the People is their Creditors’ Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell’d to pay by some Law. All Property indeed, except the Savage’s temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents & all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity & the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man for the Conservation of the Individual & the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who by their Laws have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire & live among Savages.— He can have no right to the Benefits of Society who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

That's a great find! I hadn't seen Franklin's letter to Robert Morris before. Stuff like this is the reason I log on.

"They seem to mistake the Point. Money justly due from the People is their Creditors’ Money, and no longer the Money of the People"

That is pretty much the point that I was making.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Expatriate is exactly what I believe would happen. I think those changes would be seen as a harbinger of sorts. And I probably would find some agreement with bongsaway as well. We probably shouldn’t get into the history of property rights or even the need for a military. I am not naïve enough to not recognize some hypocrisy of my own when it comes to some services. I quibble about which services but recognize anything on a national scale relying on taxation means someone is paying for something they don’t want even if it is not me.

For me, in the current United States, even though I can wax poetically or rant all night about what I enjoy or don’t enjoy, I still believe there is more value for me personally here in the United States. Despite the freedoms we may not have, on balance I still believe it is in my best interest to be here. On a micro scale, I have agreed to the terms.

One of the things Ayn Rand said that always stuck with me is this:

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."

Atlas Shrugged was published when the Nordic countries were first beginning their Welfare-State experiments. Over 60 years later now, the results are in, and it turns out that the countries who adopted robust social safety net programs enjoy standards of living that have consistently outpaced those here in the US. The hypothesis that countries adopting such policies would collapse like the Twentieth Century Motor Company has been disproven by the empirical evidence. That suggests to me that it is time to check our premises.

...kind of nice to have a conversation that doesn’t end in insults.

I agree. I've even seen Presidential debates that weren't as civil as this one.