Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Bryanw92
You need to re-read Atlas Shrugged. “Going Galt” means closing the doors on your business and walking away.

Perhaps YOU need to re-read it. "Going Galt" means to sabotage then walk away from your business. You instantly become a wanted man, so you'd better have a hidden "Gulch" to retreat to.

39 posted on 11/12/2012 8:07:32 AM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: fwdude

Not really. Galt sabotaged his engine and many of the key industrialists sabotaged their business (because as corporations, the business would go on without them), but most just disappeared without a trace leaving people wondering what happened to them. If they had all publicly destroyed their business, no one would have been wondering.


47 posted on 11/12/2012 8:27:47 AM PST by Bryanw92 (Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

To: fwdude
"Going Galt" means to sabotage then walk away from your business.

I need to rereread it, too, lol! I thought it meant to allow means of productivity to slowly circle the drain and go down without an attempt at saving it.

51 posted on 11/12/2012 8:47:28 AM PST by Silentgypsy (If you love your freedom, thank a vet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

To: fwdude
Perhaps YOU need to re-read it. "Going Galt" means to sabotage then walk away from your business...

Sorry - no it doesn't. While Francisco D. & Ellis Wyatt did willfully destroy their businesses, the rest either walked away - or in the case of John Galt - persuaded others to walk away.

In fact Midas M. did just the opposite of destroying his business; on the day he left, deposits were returned. The looters hoping to find some pickings instead found his books balanced to the penny. Nothing remained, but none of his depositors lost a thing.

Francisco's rationale for willfully destroying his business was that the nature of mining would have allowed slave labor to exploit his holdings for a century or more - even in his absence.

Ellis? He was just grumpy...

55 posted on 11/12/2012 9:11:12 AM PST by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson