Surplus wealth is a sacred trust which its possessor is bound to administer in his lifetime for the good of the community. – Andrew Carnegie
Ah, to be a rich man. You’d think it would be a never-ending party, lighting cigars with $100 bills. But apparently, it’s far harder to be a rich person in the United States than ever before, and it’s not just because of “these harsh economic times.”
No, the latest in the seemingly never-ending outrages caused by our new president is the proposed inverse of the Bush tax cuts: lowering taxes on those who make less than $250,000, while hiking taxes on those who make more. Facing a president who’s not a bosom buddy with the rich elite for the first time in close to a decade, the opulent 5 percent of the United States was a bit taken aback by this sudden reversal of their tax-cut cushion. The GOP, which has always operated under the concept of free-market and business first programs, was likewise ruffled when this program was proposed, and it became more and more likely it would actually be implemented in the 2009-10 budget.
In light of this, there has been a small but growing movement among those who sympathize with the beset multi-billionaires in our country, a movement called “Going Galt.”
The movement’s name is a reference to the character John Galt from Objectivism-founder Ayn Rand’s seminal novel, “Atlas Shrugged.” The book’s title refers to the greek titan Atlas who, in punishment for allying with the other titans in ancient Greece in the war with the Olympian gods, is charged with holding up the heavens. This theme of “the world on one’s shoulders” is the central premise to Rand’s book. In it, the rich business folk of the United States, fed up with taxes being used to feed the “Moochers” and “Parasites” of the country, all go on “strike” and leave for a refuge community founded by Galt as an escape for the victimized wealthy. Hence, the beleaguered rich, playing the role of Atlas, “shrug” the burden of giving their money to the less-fortunate (sorry, the “Parasites”) and leave the “Moochers” to carry it themselves.
This idea has apparently struck a cord with our real-world CEOs and conservatives – sales of “Atlas Shrugged” are through the roof and conservative pundits are expounding on the glories of Ayn Rand’s work with increasing frequency.
I had always been wary of Objectivism as a philosophy because, as inept as operating under blind faith is, a belief system that is essentially the polar opposite is, in my opinion, just as harmful. Reason can be used to justify unconscionable acts just as easily as faith, such as when hardliner bioethicists have advocated the murder of people suffering from Down’s syndrome or other debilitating diseases because they are a burden on society and the resources spent caring for them could be better utilized for a “whole” individual.
This put-upon behavior the upper echelon has so readily adopted is absurd. If this is the kind of thing Objectivism advocates, it’s not just a misguided philosophy, it’s an idiotic one. If those who favor “Going Galt” are to be believed, it is far more fair and, in fact, smart, to expect those of lesser income to shoulder higher taxes, while 10 percent of this nation (which holds two-thirds of the entire national wealth) expects a tax break. In response to the proposed tax initiative, the Galts propose a “calculated work slowdown” to protest the unjust plundering of their coffers, because if there’s anything this country needs, its a slowdown in production as well as consumption. It’s the economic equivalent of a bodybuilder refusing to help three scrawny guys carry a couch up some stairs because they’d be mooching off all the muscle he’d worked so hard to build.
In the interest of fairness, obviously not everyone in the business world believes as the Galt people do. But the fact that this idea is even given credence is disgusting. It is the very epitome of selfishness, and despite Rand’s urging to the contrary, selfishness is not a trait that should be encouraged. This again, is the kind of “look out for number one” thinking that does not belong in a 21st-century world, because as interconnected as our world has become, our self-interest also lies in the people we are surrounded by everyday.
I’ve got another treatise to read: It’s called “The Gospel Of Wealth,” and it’s about a man named Andrew Carnegie who, rather than hoarding all his money to himself, gives much of it away in an effort to repay the debt he believed he owed to the country that had given him so much. In fact, the primary stipend of this donation was the creation of libraries, so others could better themselves and perhaps eventually reach the same level of success he enjoyed. Sure, he wasn’t perfect, but at least he used his wealth for the betterment of his fellow man, willingly even, rather than grudgingly. That is the kind of man those with wealth should emulate, not some fictional self-absorbed pig masquerading as a human.
[email protected]