1a) Completely true, however I think mildly off point. The goal in pointing out that the tech that made the Gulch possible is sci-fi is to help point out the futility of actually trying to "go Galt"

1b) I'd never considered it before but I realized while thinking about your post that the gulchers are looters. Looters in the same way a squatter would be. The Gulch is located within the territory and protection of the United States. By staying hidden, avoiding government and avoiding taxes they are avoiding paying for that protection. Much like a looter would avoid paying rent by avoiding the landlord.

2a) Galt's character, you're right about it being alluded to, but it's alluded to a lot with good accuracy. True you don't hear much from him until later, but just like real people what they say is the least important part of their character. We learn about Galt via his actions and friends.

2b) "The way I see it, Galt's utopia was in the rising of a new nation - after the complete devastation caused by the looters"
- And that's different from many marxist/communists how? You're right it's not exactly what Marx himself described, but it is what many of his followers have attempted/thought in the real world.

2c) I was going to argue that it's an unrealistic fantasy, and it may be. But it also struck me that it's kinda what happened in the Soviet Union. When it collapsed those with money and influence bought everything at pennies on the dollar. Course you have to already be positioned, they wouldn't have been. It's an entirely different argument to decide if that's a good thing, what Galt envisioned, etc.

2d) More on point though it's that it's an unrealistic and unnecessarily hard plan. When totalitarian societies collapse they don't suddenly become good. They become more often then not more totalitarian, more violent, and more desperate. Secondly moving would have accomplished the same thing in a better way faster. It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for a group with those means to all move to the same State/Country and work to take it over. There they could not only continue their trade but they'd serve as a beacon for those of similar mind. This would speed the exodus of minds from the looter nations. This is far from extreme, it's the free state project, it's what drug cartels, oil companies and the us government has done.

3)"Galt vs Marx and reality vs fantasy" You're right and that's in part my point. First in the aspect that Galt is fantasy thus attempting to emulate this fantasy makes doing so also a fantasy, it isn't a workable plan. But also there's that Galt is an extension of Rand, in that way Galt can be used to contrast Rand and Marx.

4) Yes it's true that "not all remuneration comes with the magical dollar sign. The key to looking at the disappearing producers in the book is not to analyze merely what they gave up (in monetary terms), but whether they valued their personal integrity and principles even more." But what were those principals and what else did they give up. Ayn even goes into this, some are tortured by this decision. For example she shows that some care very deeply about their employees. In going on strike they are abandoning their employees, this would cause a great sorrow in many of these producers. They're taking on that guilt for what?

We're getting into the weeds a bit, my main thrust is to argue that Galt is a poor example for us in the real world to follow. Yet there's many who take that example and decide to check out. That this is a very bad thing and something I'd like to prevent.

" I don't think it's a good idea to stand and fight. I've seen too many pay a big price for that."
- For the most part I agree. What's done secretly and what's done publicly must for most of us be different. Though there are some who can take strong public positions that put them at risk. And we need to applaud that. #FreeTommy

For some thoughts on that there's a book I'm constantly recommending. The Secret Freedom Fighter by Jefferson Mack, here's a link to a pdf of it, though it can be bought on Amazon. https://freedom-school.com/books/secr...

"either way...it's going to get ugly"
- No doubt there. I see big ugliness on the horizon for 2020.

"reasonable self-interest"
- interesting, sounds at first elementary though. Is there an unreasonable self-interest position in opposition to it?

"I do like rational discussions that truly challenge my thinking"
- As do I, I'd hope and expect that to be a common trait among those that have read Rand. One doesn't read Atlas Shrugged on a whim, and one certainly doesn't finish and absorb it if they don't like a mental challenge.

I've heard of several groups trying to create enclaves of one sort or another. So far none have been options for me. But they do exist, and there's more being created all the time.

Interesting, Ayn was often called obtuse, it's just bluntness, A is A.

A few times, as well as her other works.

Flight was never considered impossible, we could see a bird and know it's possible.

Galt's tech, the static engine and shield over the gulch.

The laws of physics don't change easily or often and even then not much. They refine more then change. Galt's tech is essentially a perpetual motion machine and bending light with electricity. Neither even have a realistic theory.

So then what's the result of going on strike?

Exactly, and just like nobody is seriously trying to join star fleet nobody should be seriously going Galt.

1st, There's a big difference between technology that hasn't been developed yet and things that are impossible. A Star Trek transporter for example, nobody credible argues that it's possible. Galt's tech is no different, using static electricity, there's simply not enough of it. An invisibility shield, if that was even thought possible in the 50s we'd have it.

2nd, Yes convinced them, many rational intelligent people have been convinced something is good for them that actually isn't. Happens all the time to people at every level. And yes convinced, not pressured or forced, simply talked into it.

One could say there's even proof of this in the book. It has two elements to it. First that many even after being sold by Galt struggle with it. Second that almost nobody plans their exodus. If it's so great then they'd be at peace with it and could take a few months to convert their holdings to gold and take it with them.

An interesting reply, thank you for that.

"Yeah, well I assume that newbies are trolls. We've had a few come and go in a flash while whipping up the regulars."
- Perfectly reasonable, I fully admit that's in part what I'm doing. I started with a contrarian post to shit test the site. To tell me if this is a site full of rational people or agentic followers. I do as well believe what I say. It's clear to me that Ayn was 95% right in her assessments and works. It's also clear that she has had a net positive impact. But I think the concept of the strike has done harm to her cause and to those who take it on as their own.

"But, I am intrigued by your point here. I don't agree with it. But, if there's one thing I've learned about Atlas Shrugged, it's that almost nobody reads it the same way."
- Thank you for at least considering it. Also I can't say I've spoke to a large enough sample to judge that conclusion but it would appear to be true.

"Your point seems to hinge on altruism."
- Yes and no, I focus on altruism in making the point as it's Ayn's focus in the book. While I agree with her assessment of altruism it's not my main point or goal. My main goal which is of course completely selfish is one of tactics and strategy. I don't want people trying to follow John Galt's example by trying to go on strike. I think we are all much better off both individually and as a group fighting on our own grounds. That withdrawing only ensures defeat and misery both individually and as a nation. It's in my self interest,and I'd argue yours as well that people like you continue to fight.

"If you want to know who Galt is loyal to, it's himself."
- Of course, but is it solely to himself, are his beliefs his, are his actions completely selfish, are they completely rational. No I don't think so, there's an element of egotistical narcissism to him. The speech is a great example of this. Galt's speech served a purpose for Ayn, it was a great literary tool to sum it up. But what purpose did it serve for Galt? It goes against the secrecy of his strike and is full of self aggrandizing.
- There is a motive one could attribute to Galt that I don't recall Ayn ever addressing. Simply put he wanted a market for his motor that wouldn't steal it from him. That the only way he saw to do that was to eliminate those who had the desire and power to steal it from him. But is that a correct assessment, I'd argue no.

"In reading what you initially said it made me reflect. In my life: I sold my business last year, am streamlining my finances, am planning to get way under the radar (as much as a family man can in America these days) in the near future. May settle outside the country. I am going to withdraw. I'm not a tycoon by any means but I'm very capable and fairly accomplished. And, I'm looking forward to doing something like driving the short school bus (disabled kids)."
- That may be your best course of action and it's certainly not my place to tell you otherwise. I'd only point out two things. First that by withdrawing you help the looters win. They may not loot you, but they will find it easier to loot everyone else. Secondly is it really the best thing for your family. There's a lot of advantages to being well off in the United States, advantages that you'd be lessening. Maybe it's worth the trade, only you can judge, but take a full stock of what your giving up. Does it depress you to give up the fight, will your children have fewer resources going forward, will your children have less freedom going forward, etc.

"I think the prog left will win, that Trump is just a speed bump"
- FWIW I think the worm is turning so to speak on that one. Hard to put in context, harder to predict. I'd try if you wish me to expand on it though.

"In AS, I wasn't convinced that John Galt wanted the collapse. That question has been asked here before - did he try to hasten it? I don't think so. "
- Of course he did, all three of them worked actively to hasten it. Not only did both Galt and Francisco say it. But more importantly they all put a lot of efforts into hastening it.
- Galt said so in his speech in the very first paragraph "I am the man who has deprived you of victims and thus has destroyed your world". Secondly his recruiting actions were clearly designed to hasten the collapse by taking key people at key moments. There's a few instances where it likely would have been easier to recruit at a low point, but instead he waited until they were important enough, until their disappearance would have the greatest impact. Wyatt is the best example of this. If Galt had seen him when he was down, when he went to New York to berate Dagny he would have been easy pickings. But no, he waited until they had their moment of triumph. When the impact of him going on strike was greatest.
- For Francisco the proof is in the San Sebastián mines. Not only was the entire scheme designed to hasten the collapse but IIRC he said so when eventually explaining it to Dagny.
- For Ragnar the proof is in sinking every shipment of D'anconia copper destined for Reardon.

"Oh...and Marx? Marx wanted death. And, by accounts I've heard it sounds like he was a very dysfunctional weirdo in his personal life. Marx had zero appreciation for the sanctity of life, of self. I think I jumped when I read that comparison - haha!"
- An interesting thought, did Ayn believe in the sanctity of life, do I, is it correct. Is there sanctity in an irrational, immoral life, no I don't think so.

"Welcome to an interesting forum..."
- Thank you, I do agree so far that it is indeed interesting, not many places one can have this kind of discussion. Even fewer places where it doesn't devolve into logical fallacies, insults, etc.