You Go John Galt, I’ll Go Robespierre

The conservatives are making threats these days, telling us they will “go John Galt,” referencing the Ayn Rand creation who leads rich people (who call themselves producers rather than leeches). They are saying that any attempt to create a reasonable distribution of wealth in this country will lead the wealthy individuals allegedly vital to our survival to stop saving us. Just as Enron saved us or the banking industry saved us.

Aside from the fact that I think John Galt would be shocked when he arrives in his clique of producers and finds out they can’t get anything done without hundreds of low-wage grunts. The idea that the rich are some special, valuable commodity is a bit faulty. There are plenty who can replace them.

Given the fact that we don’t need them, perhaps we should make a counter-threat to go Robespierre on them. Robespierre was the leader of the Jacobins, the heart of the French Revolution that took off the heads of the rich and powerful of the country. Very little wealth actually exists in the person. There is human capital, a given person’s set of educational and other skills that produce value when combined with other forms of capital. This would be lost. But the various resources they command would still be available to the rest of us.

This discussion is all figurative. The rich conservatives aren’t really going to give up (they’d be worse off and we wouldn’t be much worse off so it is an empty threat). And of course, no one is going to bring the guillotine back, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t cut away some of those resources to help support the country as a whole. This, unlike the John Galt threat, is viable.

In general, I am no fan in soaking the rich simply to do it. But the degree to which only the top few percent have been the sole beneficiaries of the economy the past ten years means it is their turn to give back, whether they like it or not. Only if we put ourselves back on level ground can we pursue a more measured tax system.