Replies

Thanks for the ping. As others have already pointed out, it isn't any one class that is joining the refusniks, it's that portion of all classes that is productive. Galt himself was not a capitalist, he was a junior engineer and inventor.

It has to be remembered that Atlas Shrugged was a work of fiction containing a very skeletal and simplistic economic model that held a number of compromises with the real world in order to move the narrative along. One could not possibly compress the events in the book into the time slot necessary for them to come about as described. Two major premises were that the economic surplus built up as a result of economic activity would (1) run out very quickly, and (2) as a result of the opting-out of a very small number of people. Neither of these appears to be the case in the real world, nor should one expect it.

1. The economic surplus built up over decades of successful capitalism is unimaginably enormous, so much so that socialist economic plans may subsist for a great deal of time looting it. All redistributive economies depend on this. One does eventually run out of other people's money but it takes a very long time, as the still-running automobiles of Detroit's great years attest in Cuba. And poor people who can no longer steal from the rich still can steal from one another. But eventually the noose tightens, and it tightens hard.

2. Supermen are few and far between and the productive class consists in the huge majority of us lesser beings who contribute a little and end up (often through no fault of our own but by law) looting a little as well. That's a much more difficult model to break; far more people will need to opt out, hence the level of oppression necessary must be proportionately greater. A government can certainly do it, though, as the history of the Cold War has shown us. Slaves can keep the economic engine running for a time, but they can't grow it and they can't rebuild it once broken.

But I don't believe it will take such a systemic strike in the United States. Where Rand was right, however, is that change must be systemic; that is, a change in the Presidency will not suffice even if the choice is other than Tweedledum and Tweedledee. A change in Congress is a little closer but still entirely insufficient. What is necessary is a change in government such that the centralization of control no longer offers a means for a small ruling class to enrich itself, for those who direct no longer to be able to be separate from those who produce - that is the foundation of Rand's utopia. No one has ever quite managed it, but the Founders came as close as anyone ever has. A desire to return to their principles is not merely a flight of nostalgia beloved of conservatives, but a recognition that it was a far more effective model for releasing human creativity and productivity than the stifling regulatory state that gradually displaced it. That is, after all, what "Liberty" really means.