Shrugging...

[piz 0]

There have been many times in my life when I've faced a situation in which there was no value for me to remain, from little things like ceasing to participate when continuing a disagreement would be futile, to refusing to support (or in many cases even acknowledge) people and organizations opposed to my values, all the way to ending lifelong relationships because of grossly unjust treatment.

It's only in the last few years, however, that I've come to think of some of these as a form of "going on strike," in the manner of Galt & Co. in Atlas Shrugged. While I haven't reached the point of actually vanishing entirely from the world, each of these instances in its own way bears sometimes (pardon the pun) striking similarities to outright "shrugging."

At times I seem to be in the role of John Galt the railroad laborer, reining in my abilities so as not to support my destroyers. Other times it's like facing Mr. Thompson in the hotel suite, reflecting and deflecting what amount to threats against me in a way completely unexpected by and incomprehensible to my "opponent." Still other times it's as though I've actually gone to the valley, such that, in relation to the particular situation, I might as well no longer exist.

Has anyone experienced anything similar?

[alann 0]

[snip]

At times I seem to be in the role of John Galt the railroad laborer, reining in my abilities so as not to support my destroyers. Other times it's like facing Mr. Thompson in the hotel suite, reflecting and deflecting what amount to threats against me in a way completely unexpected by and incomprehensible to my "opponent." Still other times it's as though I've actually gone to the valley, such that, in relation to the particular situation, I might as well no longer exist.

Has anyone experienced anything similar?

This election.

[piz 0]

This election.

How so?

[jasonlockwood 0]

How so?

For me, it's the whole "race to the bottom" nature of all the candidates, but in particular Clinton and Obama. What I find so disgusting is how SMALL these people are, and yet some people manage to be "inspired" by it. I decided months ago that I was "shrugging" this election, at least in the area of the Presidential selection. I am still undecided whether I will vote at all this year.

[ewv 0]

Still other times it's as though I've actually gone to the valley, such that, in relation to the particular situation, I might as well no longer exist.

What do you mean by this part?

[RickWilmes 0]

Has anyone experienced anything similar?

On a daily basis, I experience what you have described. One of the questions I regularly ask myself is "How many individuals are explicitly shrugging in some aspect of their lives? I also try to identify individuals that are implicitly shrugging? I know of several individuals at my place of employment that are doing just that, implicitly shrugging?

[piz 0]

Still other times it's as though I've actually gone to the valley, such that, in relation to the particular situation, I might as well no longer exist.

What do you mean by this part?

Here's an example: Almost 15 years ago the man who had been my best friend since age 6 screwed me over in business. The last day I left the office after that happened was the last time we ever saw each other. Ever since, he has been trying to convince me that it was only a misunderstanding, that what he did was for the best, etc., while never offering to set it right. Every so often he tries to contact me to renew our friendship. In all this time, I have yet to acknowledge even receiving his communication. As far as he can tell, I no longer exist.

Compare that to the industrialists who abandoned their businesses to go to the valley. Despite repeated pleas for them to come back, as far as the outside world could tell, they no longer existed.

[R.M.Alger 0]

Has anyone experienced anything similar?

On a daily basis, I experience what you have described. One of the questions I regularly ask myself is "How many individuals are explicitly shrugging in some aspect of their lives? I also try to identify individuals that are implicitly shrugging? I know of several individuals at my place of employment that are doing just that, implicitly shrugging?

In Atlas Shrugged, many of the ‘shruggers’ where not in Galt’s Gulch, they didn’t even know about him; they where just people who left their jobs and lives because they no longer thought it was worth it. They didn’t do it as a deliberate strike from the looters –as Galt was – but that’s the effect it has.

I think, to some extent, this can be seen today.

The medical doctor who retires early because the government bureaucracy has made his job unrewarding. The programmer who quits because new laws make his job pointlessly harder. The guy who doesn’t open a restaurant because of various county laws. Plus all the younger people who never try to do something (I have heard fewer and fewer people are going into the medical profession, for instance.) All these people are unknowingly shrugging; at least, that’s the effect it has.

In economic terms, something or someone has stolen the value they can achieve from a particular endeavor (and that value is not necessarily money.)

- Ryan

[RickWilmes 0]

The guy who doesn’t open a restaurant because of various county laws.

Or state laws. For example, the Oregon Liquor Control Commission.

Housing forecloser rates are at an all time high. How many of those foreclosures are based on people just walking away?

How many individuals with military experience are not joining the reserve or returning to active duty?

[ewv 0]

In Atlas Shrugged, many of the ‘shruggers’ where not in Galt’s Gulch, they didn’t even know about him; they where just people who left their jobs and lives because they no longer thought it was worth it. They didn’t do it as a deliberate strike from the looters –as Galt was – but that’s the effect it has.

I think, to some extent, this can be seen today.

The medical doctor who retires early because the government bureaucracy has made his job unrewarding. The programmer who quits because new laws make his job pointlessly harder. The guy who doesn’t open a restaurant because of various county laws. Plus all the younger people who never try to do something (I have heard fewer and fewer people are going into the medical profession, for instance.) All these people are unknowingly shrugging; at least, that’s the effect it has.

In economic terms, something or someone has stolen the value they can achieve from a particular endeavor (and that value is not necessarily money.)

This is all true.

In her article "Is Atlas Shrugging?" in The Objectivist Newsletter, August 1964, Ayn Rand wrote:

Let me remind you, parenthetically, that in Atlas Shrugged, John Galt states, referring to the strike: "l have done by plan and intention what had been done throughout history by silent default." And he lists the various ways in which exceptional men had perished, in which intelligence had gone on strike against tyranny psychologically, deserting any mystic-altruist-collectivist society. You may also remember Dagny's description of Galt before she meets him, which he later repeats to her: "The man who's draining the brains of the world."

[~Sophia~ 0]

Plus all the younger people who never try to do something (I have heard fewer and fewer people are going into the medical profession, for instance.) All these people are unknowingly shrugging; at least, that’s the effect it has.

It is very difficult for me to identify with this attitude of shrugging. I think it is allowing psychologically too much significance to external factors (people, past and current events). It is allowing the circumstances to affect your will to act and there must be a will in order to find a way. I think the opposite is the key - to grant such things as little psychological significance as possible.

I have only one life of limited span to live and it has to be now in this circumstances. Given that context, it would have taken truly terrible, terrible conditions in every part of this planet, for me to shrug and thus necessarily let go of some of my values. It may mean for me to change what I do, or how I do it, or where I live. If one path becomes absolute I will find another. My self evaluation, or identity is not tied to any particular productive activity and I think there are many choices which could bring me satisfaction and many places which I could call home (if the need arises).

I think that probably almost every moment in human history had it's challenges. Today is no different.

[piz 0]

It is very difficult for me to identify with this attitude of shrugging. I think it is allowing psychologically too much significance to external factors (people, past and current events). It is allowing the circumstances to affect your will to act and there must be a will in order to find a way. I think the opposite is the key - to grant such things as little psychological significance as possible.

I have only one life of limited span to live and it has to be now in this circumstances. Given that context, it would have taken truly terrible, terrible conditions in every part of this planet, for me to shrug and thus necessarily let go of some of my values. It may mean for me to change what I do, or how I do it, or where I live. If one path becomes absolute I will find another. My self evaluation, or identity is not tied to any particular productive activity and I think there are many choices which could bring me satisfaction and many places which I could call home (if the need arises).

I think that probably almost every moment in human history had it's challenges. Today is no different.

There appear to be two different ideas at work here. The one I raised is the conscious decision to remove oneself from a situation where to continue would be effectively to sanction one's enemies (e.g. the example I gave about my former friend), while the other is a side-effect of barriers placed in peoples' way (primarily by government) such that they look at the potential for gaining value by taking different paths and choose not to take the ones with the most barriers (e.g. choosing professions that have not become oppressively regulated).

The first is to exit an existing situation because it has become so bad you no can no longer gain value by remaining. The second is not to enter a situation in the first place because there is so little prospect of gaining value from it. I agree with you, Sophia, if you are referring to the second, or to bad situations that have not become entirely valueless and may even have the potential to be corrected. However, that's not what I'm attempting to address in this thread. I want to discuss whether or not walking away from the first kind of situation bears any resemblance on a small scale to going on strike à la Atlas Shrugged.

[Carlos 0]

I guess I have experienced something similar to this:

About 8 months ago I stopped attending the Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu academy here in Lubbock on a matter of principle. The instructor that runs the academy had slowly over the course of several years sacrificed the integrity of the program in attempts to further increase enrollment and get more money. Because I was one of the better students I felt that my presence there gave value to the academy, because people were bettered by sparring with me, and I often gave advice and taught new techniques to the beginner students I sparred with. I could not tolerate the thought of what I viewed to be a corrupt establishment gaining value from my mind, so I quit going. It has been a very frustrating transition, as training has been a large part of my life for the last five years.

[~Sophia~ 0]

The first is to exit an existing situation because it has become so bad you no can no longer gain value by remaining.

I want to discuss whether or not walking away from the first kind of situation bears any resemblance on a small scale to going on strike à la Atlas Shrugged.

I think that the defining element in AS was the withdrawal of the sanction of the victim. So the question to check for resemblance would be: Would you be victimized by remaining in this situation?

[ewv 0]

The first is to exit an existing situation because it has become so bad you no can no longer gain value by remaining.

I want to discuss whether or not walking away from the first kind of situation bears any resemblance on a small scale to going on strike à la Atlas Shrugged.

I think that the defining element in AS was the withdrawal of the sanction of the victim. So the question to check for resemblance would be: Would you be victimized by remaining in this situation?

How do you determine when you think you are being victimized? We are all being victimized all the time.

[~Sophia~ 0]

The first is to exit an existing situation because it has become so bad you no can no longer gain value by remaining.

I want to discuss whether or not walking away from the first kind of situation bears any resemblance on a small scale to going on strike à la Atlas Shrugged.

I think that the defining element in AS was the withdrawal of the sanction of the victim. So the question to check for resemblance would be: Would you be victimized by remaining in this situation?

How do you determine when you think you are being victimized? We are all being victimized all the time.

In what context? Do you mean in terms of being a part of a taxation system?

I thought the context of the question was any situation. For example, I may allow a family member a very limited access to my life despite drastic value differences as long as the relationship is not parasitic (as long as my family is not harmed by it).

[ewv 0]

The first is to exit an existing situation because it has become so bad you no can no longer gain value by remaining.

I want to discuss whether or not walking away from the first kind of situation bears any resemblance on a small scale to going on strike à la Atlas Shrugged.

I think that the defining element in AS was the withdrawal of the sanction of the victim. So the question to check for resemblance would be: Would you be victimized by remaining in this situation?

How do you determine when you think you are being victimized? We are all being victimized all the time.

In what context? Do you mean in terms of being a part of a taxation system?

If your criterion is being victimized doesn't that counts as an example?

I thought the context of the question was any situation. For example, I may allow a family member a very limited access to my life despite drastic value differences as long as the relationship is not parasitic (as long as my family is not harmed by it).

Piz was referring to all kinds of situations and that would be an example, too.

[ewv 0]

It's only in the last few years, however, that I've come to think of some of these as a form of "going on strike," in the manner of Galt & Co. in Atlas Shrugged. While I haven't reached the point of actually vanishing entirely from the world, each of these instances in its own way bears sometimes (pardon the pun) striking similarities to outright "shrugging."

You refer to this happening in isolated cases of many different kinds, yet there seems to be an overall significance to it, suggesting a sense of dropping out in general to some degree. Is that what you mean?

At times I seem to be in the role of John Galt the railroad laborer, reining in my abilities so as not to support my destroyers. Other times it's like facing Mr. Thompson in the hotel suite, reflecting and deflecting what amount to threats against me in a way completely unexpected by and incomprehensible to my "opponent." Still other times it's as though I've actually gone to the valley, such that, in relation to the particular situation, I might as well no longer exist.

Do you mean the example of John Galt the railroad laborer to literally include your job or career, or is that only an analogy?

[~Sophia~ 0]

If your criterion is being victimized doesn't that counts as an example?

Yes it does.

[ewv 0]

If your criterion is being victimized doesn't that counts as an example?

Yes it does.

Since being a victim of taxation is pervasive how do you implement "withdrawal of the sanction of the victim" as "not remaining in the situation"? Being caught in Canada you must experience several such important examples you can't escape from -- like government control of medical care -- which are even worse than here.

[piz 0]

You refer to this happening in isolated cases of many different kinds, yet there seems to be an overall significance to it, suggesting a sense of dropping out in general to some degree. Is that what you mean?

Well, my situation is complicated by other factors that may make it appear as if I'm dropping out in general, but that's really more of a difficulty "going in" or getting started, rather than dropping out. So, no, I don't mean a more general "going on strike" against life or the world, just individual cases.

Do you mean the example of John Galt the railroad laborer to literally include your job or career, or is that only an analogy?

It applies to my current job, but I'm actively seeking a new job in my primary field again, so that will change. Other than that one instance I mean it as an analogy.

[~Sophia~ 0]

Since being a victim of taxation is pervasive how do you implement "withdrawal of the sanction of the victim" as "not remaining in the situation"? Being caught in Canada you must experience several such important examples you can't escape from -- like government control of medical care -- which are even worse than here.

Piz asked for classification so I gave him my answer but I was not promoting withdrawal. In fact, in that context, I spoke against it. I am for focusing on the things which are possible to achieve while granting little psychological significance to the things which are not ideal.

The borders are open; I am not caught without a possibility of escape. Despite the things which you mentioned it is still worth for me to live here. Canada is still fairly free and rich country, much more socially liberal (religion has very little political/social influence) with a strong economy and little crime. I prefer living here than in Europe.

[ewv 0]

Since being a victim of taxation is pervasive how do you implement "withdrawal of the sanction of the victim" as "not remaining in the situation"? Being caught in Canada you must experience several such important examples you can't escape from -- like government control of medical care -- which are even worse than here.

Piz asked for classification so I gave him my answer but I was not promoting withdrawal. In fact, in that context, I spoke against it. I am for focusing on the things which are possible to achieve while granting little psychological significance to the things which are not ideal.

Withdrawal of the sanction of the victim is not the same thing as withdrawing from the situation. Piz was referring to instances in which he actively withdraws, "ceasing to participate", etc., not degrees of psychological importance:

There have been many times in my life when I've faced a situation in which there was no value for me to remain, from little things like ceasing to participate when continuing a disagreement would be futile, to refusing to support (or in many cases even acknowledge) people and organizations opposed to my values, all the way to ending lifelong relationships because of grossly unjust treatment.

It's only in the last few years, however, that I've come to think of some of these as a form of "going on strike," in the manner of Galt & Co. in Atlas Shrugged. While I haven't reached the point of actually vanishing entirely from the world, each of these instances in its own way bears sometimes (pardon the pun) striking similarities to outright "shrugging."

At times I seem to be in the role of John Galt the railroad laborer, reining in my abilities so as not to support my destroyers. Other times it's like facing Mr. Thompson in the hotel suite, reflecting and deflecting what amount to threats against me in a way completely unexpected by and incomprehensible to my "opponent." Still other times it's as though I've actually gone to the valley, such that, in relation to the particular situation, I might as well no longer exist.

Has anyone experienced anything similar?

He refers to

to exit[ing] an existing situation because it has become so bad you no can no longer gain value by remaining... I want to discuss whether or not walking away from the first kind of situation bears any resemblance on a small scale to going on strike à la Atlas Shrugged.

The borders are open; I am not caught without a possibility of escape. Despite the things which you mentioned it is still worth for me to live here. Canada is still fairly free and rich country, much more socially liberal (religion has very little political/social influence) with a strong economy and little crime. I prefer living here than in Europe.

I had thought you had wanted to come to the US and would have thought that Canadian socialism is something you would prefer to escape from, even though Europe may be worse.

[ewv 0]

It's only in the last few years, however, that I've come to think of some of these as a form of "going on strike," in the manner of Galt & Co. in Atlas Shrugged. While I haven't reached the point of actually vanishing entirely from the world, each of these instances in its own way bears sometimes (pardon the pun) striking similarities to outright "shrugging."

At times I seem to be in the role of John Galt the railroad laborer, reining in my abilities so as not to support my destroyers. Other times it's like facing Mr. Thompson in the hotel suite, reflecting and deflecting what amount to threats against me in a way completely unexpected by and incomprehensible to my "opponent." Still other times it's as though I've actually gone to the valley, such that, in relation to the particular situation, I might as well no longer exist.

Has anyone experienced anything similar?

I think that there is a difference between a proper human reaction of withdrawing from something (when you can) versus "going to the valley" or "going on strike" as in Atlas. The strike in the novel had a different purpose. The theme was to demonstrate the role of the mind in human existence and what happens when it is withdrawn, and in the plot the strikers were deliberately trying to bring down the looters' system so they could return to something better. Time spent in the valley was a reprieve, but was not intended as a way of escaping the reality of battling the injustices of the looters.

In contrast, when you withdraw from a situation, do you think of it as proving or demonstrating something or hope those perpetrating the injustice will collapse without you, or are you simply avoiding something you can't or rationally don't want to tolerate any longer? When I give up on something I don't think of it as "going on strike" to change something or of "going to the valley", but as avoiding more trouble that isn't worth it anymore. I think we have all experienced the kinds of situations you describe, but I have my own personal reasons for what I want to do and don't intend it to be regarded as a "strike" in regard to others. And I don't regard it as a philosophical statement, but rather with disappointment and resigned discouragement because nothing more is possible in the previous course of action. Of course a philosophical assessment and not "granting the sanction of the victim" are implicit in that, and I may wistfully long for a place to go like the valley even while realizing it isn't possible, but those aren't the purpose of my actions in such situations. I think that Ayn Rand recognized that distinction, too, when Galt stated in the passage quoted above:

"l have done by plan and intention what had been done throughout history by silent default." [emphasis added]

An example is when a few years ago we stopped renting our property in Maine after the state imposed registration requirements and the hotel lodging tax on individuals who make their own cottage available to the public for vacations. We stopped because it wasn't worth it any more; I never thought of it as a "strike" or as a means to change the state's actions or to demonstrate that punitive state action harms the economy.

[PhilO 0]

Time spent in the valley was a reprieve, but was not intended as a way of escaping the reality of battling the injustices of the looters.

I can't agree with this characterization of the valley. The primary battle being fought by the strikers was to inform the best men to strike and that there was someplace where they could *live* for once. This example always stuck with me in that regard:

Ellis Wyatt was looking at the place around them with a kind of youthful pride eager for acknowledgment: it was the pride of a host at a formal reception in a drawing room, and the eagerness of an artist at the opening of his show in a gallery. She smiled and asked, pointing at the machinery, "Shale oil?"

"Uh-huh."

"That's the process which you were working to develop while you were on earth?" She said it involuntarily and she gasped a little at her own words.

He laughed. "While I was in hell—yes. I'm on earth now."

"How much do you produce?"

"Two hundred barrels a day."

A note of sadness came back into her voice: "It's the process by which you once intended to fill five tank-trains a day."

"Dagny," he said earnestly, pointing at his tank, "one gallon of it is worth more than a trainful back there in hell—because this is mine, all of it, every single drop of it, to be spent on nothing but myself." He raised his smudged hand, displaying the greasy stains as a treasure, and a black drop on the tip of his finger flashed like a gem in the sun. "Mine," he said. "Have you let them beat you into forgetting what that word means, what it feels like? You should give yourself a chance to relearn it."

"You're hidden in a hole in the wilderness," she said bleakly, "and you're producing two hundred barrels of oil, when you could have flooded the world with it."

"What for? To feed the looters?"

"No! To earn the fortune you deserve."

"But I'm richer now than I was in the world. What's wealth but the means of expanding one's life? There's two ways one can do it: either by producing more or by producing it faster. And that's what I'm doing: I'm manufacturing time."

"What do you mean?"

"I'm producing everything I need, I'm working to improve my methods, and every hour I save is an hour added to my life. It used to take me five hours to fill that tank. It now takes three. The two I saved are mine—as pricelessly mine as if I moved my grave two further hours away from every five I've got. It's two hours released from one task, to be invested in another—two more hours in which to work, to grow, to move forward. That's the savings account I'm hoarding. Is there any sort of safety vault that could protect this account in the outside world?"

"But what space do you have for moving forward? Where's your market?"

He chuckled. "Market? I now work for use, not for profit—my use, not the looters' profit. Only those who add to my life, not those who devour it, are my market. Only those who produce, not those who consume, can ever be anybody's market. I deal with the life-givers, not with the cannibals. [...]"

That the scale of what the strikers could achieve in the valley was smaller is not the issue. They did not continue to go back into hell in order to altruistically help, of course, but primarily to find and save the best men, and were prepared to live - happily - in the valley indefinitely once the outside world became impossible to survive any longer.