Wendy's post Monday on "Going Galt" highlighted a distinction which I think has been overlooked in much of the criticism I've read. "Going Galt" is not the same thing as "Gulching."

Libertarians have often spoken wistfully of "Gulching," in the sense of a complete physical separation from contemporary society and its government. Whether done by creating a new, isolated community (à la Galt's Gulch), or on an individual level (the cabin in the woods), this has always been considered a Utopian idea which few would actually live to see. (I've met many who would move to Galt's Gulch if it was already a going concern, but few who would -- or could -- do the work of building it.)

But "going Galt" is something different. Going Galt does not involve a physical removal of oneself from society; instead, it refers to contributing to society -- and to government -- the very minimum of which one is capable. Those who have actually read Atlas Shrugged will recall that this was the original form of Galt's protest -- to remain in the city, but give up engineering for menial labor. Francisco D'Anconia "went Galt" by remaining in his position but becoming consciously unproductive (indeed, counterproductive). It was Midas Mulligan who decided, from necessity, to "Gulch."

"Going Galt" can be taken to different degrees. Though we may not see hordes of scientists and industrialists giving up their jobs to drive taxis [1], I expect we will see a lot of people voluntarily scaling back. Some will be the "working affluent" who elect not to enter the $250,000 tax bracket. Some will decide that they'd rather "buy their own time," and reduce their working hours rather than increase their income. Some will just quit pushing so hard for that next promotion or raise. Some will adopt the "DON Method" to reduce their tax burden. Some will begin lifestyles of "voluntary simplicity."

"Going Galt" is a matter of intention. Those who adopt voluntary simplicity, not as a protest against taxes or government, but instead as a way to reduce stress or help the environment, can't be said to be going Galt. But those who cut back as a protest against government, because they're tired of working hard to support others, or just because they're mad as hell and not going to take it anymore -- these people are going Galt, regardless of how far they carry it. (At the end of Atlas Shrugged, large numbers of ordinary people who had never met any of Rand's heroes began to "go Galt" by giving up, quitting, feigning incompetence, and even sabotage.)

We will never know the breadth, or the effect, of this movement -- if it can even be called a "movement." Yes, we can observe the statistics of how many people make less than $250,000 from year to year. But that won't tell us if your local doctor is feeling the pinch of the recession, or is frustrated and angry and not willing to work so hard as before. We can't tell how many jobs are lost due to employers "going Galt" [2] when so many are being lost for other reasons.

But if half the taxpayers in the country decide they're willing to take a 10% pay cut, that will cut income tax receipts as effectively as a 5% drop in GDP [3]. And governments at every level are already feeling that pinch, before any talk of "going Galt."

_____

[1] Voluntarily, that is. I recall the end of the SST program, which bumped many aerospace engineers into taxi-driving and similar jobs.

[2] We've witnessed a similar -- but involuntary -- effect locally, when the province decided to cap the amount of revenue (not income) a physician could earn. The cap was small enough that a solo practitioner might no longer afford to hire staff. I know of at least two doctors who closed their practices; though possibly for other reasons.

[3] Assuming for simplicity that total personal income is proportional to GDP, and neglecting the progressive nature of the income tax. The point remains the same, regardless of the precise numbers.