Atlas Shrugged, Part 3, Chapters 1-3

¶ … Galt's Gulch and a strike of the mind is possible? Do we choose not to believe it or the philosophy because we might not be one of them or do we truly not believe in top down economics? In theory a strike of the mind such as the one perpetrated by John Galt and his colleagues at Galt's Gulch seems like a logical idea; smart people would just have to get together and agree not to use their brains to help the government or those people who were in an undeserved position of power.

All the members of the intelligentsia could be rounded up and unite in their refusal to participate in a corrupt status quo. They could disappear and build a utopian society based on individual responsibility. However, in the real world, such a disappearing act would be very difficult to carry out. Technology has advanced society to the point that even if someone wanted to disappear from the face of the earth, it would be relatively easy to track them down.

Galt's Gulch would not be allowed to subsist in a world like the one that we live in. Secondly, the people in Galt's Gulch feel self-righteous. They believe that they are doing the right thing by stepping away from society and waiting until complete social chaos before they emerge. These are men of principles, although their opinions may be deluded and their purpose not at all altruistic. They are willing to sacrifice large paychecks in order to do what they feel is socially and morally responsible.

There are not many people who would give up large sums of money, even if it meant that they were perpetrating crimes for either the government or the looters in charge or both. The next point is that people do not really believe in top-down economics. There is no guarantee that once someone has achieved financial success that they will feel any burden to spread that wealth and better the lives of their employees. 2.

Why would you agree or disagree with Ragnar's methods, with his concept of striking, and his theory behind their roots? The character of Ragnar in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is essentially a pirate. He and his cohorts travel the sea in search of bootie. Once they find something valuable the pirates take it. Some of the treasure they take for themselves and some they hand back to other strikers. The reason he acts the way he does, or so he says, is as a form of protest.

For him, the strike is about refusing to accept the governmental control over mind and potential for future success. Anything that removes some of the government control, as he does through his act of piracy, is therefore part of the strike. The governments and the looters have taken money from him and his colleagues at Galt's Gulch in order to fund their corrupt regimes. In his opinion, his actions are no more unlawful than the strikers' refusal to participate or to benefit the government.

Therefore he feels that he is only taking back what rightfully belongs to those who are receiving his ill-gotten gains. This is an understandable reason and the reader can side with him in this. However, it gets more complicated when you take into account who is being punished by his actions. Ragnar is not robbing government ships bringing oil or gold into the United States.

Rather he is pirating the ships which are going from the United States to the people of Europe who desperately need the materials inside the boats in order to survive. There are starving people and he is robbing them of the beneficence granted them by the United States of America. He is taking back what he feels is his, but he is harming others far more than he is the corrupt people who he claims to be targeting. This understanding makes his actions seem far less Robin Hood-like.

He himself states that he is not exactly such a figure because he robs from the poor to give to the rich. Gulch states that one of the principles of the strikers is that they ask no man to sacrifice for them and they do not sacrifice for anyone else. 3. Are there contradictions in the philosophy of life proposed by those in Galt's Gulch? How about their concepts behind their strike against the rest of the world? According to John Galt, within their society no man owes the others anything.

Objectivism declares that human beings are responsible for their own happiness and that the rights of the individual are all that matter. In all things, a man must think of himself and for himself first and others only in their relationship to himself and the pursuit of his own happiness. The other part of the objectivist thought states that productive achievements are the noblest actions that a person can pursue.

Within the society, the people of Galt's Gulch philosophize about how they pay each other rent for everything that is borrowed and that they are responsible for paying their rents to their landlords for when they stay at a home. This makes a person question about what might happen in the event that a person no longer had the means to pay the rent. For example, Gulch rents a car from another person within the community because he does not have one of his own.

But, what happens if he needed that car and did not have the means to rent it? Gulch falls in love with a woman and says that he would take her love despite the fact that it would harm someone whom he cares about.

The problem then is how can anyone truly love another or care for another? If the pursuit of individual happiness is all that is ever of concern, then it means that invariable someone else at some point will bear the brunt of another man's pursuance of happiness. In striking against the rest of the world, the men are intent to protect themselves and their interests. They avow that they are waiting until the corrupt world that they left has completely crumbled.

They will then rise from their self-imposed exile and take up control of the outside world. In removing themselves, they denied other men the ability to achieve their own happiness. In fact, they doomed all of mankind outside of the Gulch and take no responsibility for the repercussions of their actions to others. Without dependence or connection to other men, what is the point of human interaction? 4. Would the concept of mutual benefit with business dealings, without outside interference (government regulation, etc.) function in the real world? Why.