Atlas Shrugged Comes To Life: Modern Day 'John Galt Line' Touches Down in SC in Defiance of Union Thuggery!

Photo by Brad Nettles /postandcourier.com

Did Dagny Taggart just emerge?

The first Boeing Dreamliner 787 to land in South Carolina, successfully completed its voyage amidst union pressures, threats, protests, and lawsuits against the company. The plane touched down in North Charleston, South Carolina (the location of Boeing's newest assembly plant), Monday morning around 11am. It was welcomed by cheers from spectators and a traditional water salute (I could almost hear the Atlas Shrugged soundtrack in the background).

But what is most interesting are the parallels between the story of the Dreamliner and the John Galt Line in Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged.” It too was met by, along with harsh government rules, union thuggery that threatened the project all together. 

For those who are not familiar with Boeing’s troubles, unions have been protesting, threatening, and even going so far as to file lawsuits against the company, all because the business decided to build an additional assembly plant in South Carolina. It just so happens that SC is a “Right to Work State,” meaning that unionism is not forced upon the employee. This is exactly what the legal action is all about even though the unions are trying (and failing) to make a case that Boeing’s decision to move the plant is somehow a violation of workers’ rights and labor laws.  

The "John Galt Line" from Atlas was met with similar backlash from union bosses. They threatened boycotts and even said that running the train was a “violation of [the workers’] human rights.” Their threats failed to stop the creation and successful opening and test run of the "John Galt Line." However (SPOILER ALERT!), as the story unfolds, the line eventually suffers a horrible fate and is torn apart and dismantled.  

Will the Boeing Dreamliner suffer the same fate...? Oh hell, who is John Galt?

America: Land of Coercion, Permitting "Degrees" of Freedom

Welcome to America, the land of coercion. It doesn't take much brainpower to understand that this is not a free country, not by any stretch of the imagination. Over the course of our history, we have further descended into a nation of coercion and force, where we are permitted degrees of freedom by our rulers. In the United States, we have a right to pursue our own happiness, a right to own property, and we have a right to our own life and liberty, all to a certain degree, of course. These rights and freedoms are not absolute today as they were intended by our founders ("...unalienable Rights [to] Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." -Declaration of Independence, 1776). 


The one major way that our government violates our rights is through the seizing of our wealth in the form of income taxes. This system of coercive taxation has enslaved us all, robbing us of and violating those unalienable rights (rights incapable of being sold or transferred, regardless of the consent of the owner, either tacit or explicit). This immoral act of our government deciding how much of the wealth we have earned we can keep and how much must be turned over to the government steals from us not only our property but also that part of our lives we spent making that money. This undermines our freedom. Either we are free, or we are not. Freedom is an absolute and freedom is what we do not have.

So, how do we arrive at absolute freedom? Well, it certainly is not anarchy, as many perceive. Living under a system (or lack thereof) of anarchy and lawlessness, individuals would be under constant threat of others, of the ones who are physically stronger than them, of the ones who wield the largest and/or more powerful weapons. In the chaos of anarchy, people deal with one another through force.  Under this lawlessness, there is no protection of individual rights. This is not freedom.

In order for man to be free absolutely, he must be free from force. The only way this is possible is if the government is constitutionally limited to it's only morally justifiable role: protecting the individual rights of its citizens. This entails that the government be limited to three functions: providing a court system, a police force, and a military. 

• The role of the courts would be to arbitrate between individuals in the event of a civil dispute and/or if a crime has been committed. 

• The role of the police would be to protect us from the initiation of force from other individuals.

• The role of the military would be to protect us from the initiation of force from foreign countries and enemies. 

Everything and anything else, from education to healthcare to scientific research, must be left to the private sector. The three functions would be funded not by means of force but by means of voluntary taxation, as it is in each individuals self-interest to have their own rights protected. Will there be freeloaders? Perhaps, but it would not dissuade those who do fund it. To explain, I'll use a realistic analogy. I have witnessed, on several occasions, people reading newspapers on the subway. Almost every time, there is someone sitting next to the owner of the newspaper, glancing at the pages. Both people in this situation are gaining benefit from the paper, however, only one paid for it. Does this dissuade the owner of the paper, or others from purchasing newspapers? No. Why? Because the people who bought the paper have the assurance that they will get the benefit that they wanted or needed at that time, in this case, information. The only way to get that assurance, is by paying for it yourself. It is assurance that motivates and allows voluntary taxation to work. Seeing as one's rights are more important than a newspaper, there should be no doubt that people will voluntarily pay to have their rights protected.

Only when we restore our republic by limiting our government to its proper role, can we then truly declare, with pride, that this is America, the land of the free.