In Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, a great novel that all Americans should read, the best producers and minds in the story go on strike. After being forced to work and think for others against their own will, the producers completely withdraw their services. They live in a secluded area known as Galt’s Gulch where they sustain themselves. The society, without them – without the top producers and innovators, which they treated so poorly – turns to chaos, and quickly collapses.

Unfortunately, there is no Galt’s Gulch in our society. When our country collapses, you will not likely be able to live in a Colorado mountain with other rational people. However, there is something similar that can be done, not just by the top producers but by every man who creates wealth. They can keep wealth within their family or home.

It’s quite simple: be as self-sufficient as possible if not completely. The idea is this: if you can fix your own leaky faucet, heal your child’s cuts and bruises, paint your own house, perhaps even grow your own food and make your own clothes, how can they loot that? If wealth isn’t in liquid form, they can’t take it. Not yet anyway.

The purpose of this would not be for a long-term solution – not one that would have saving society in mind anyway. The purpose of this would be for your own sanity and happiness. Clearly, if people kept wealth entirely within their family, refusing to support any kind of business, we would revert backwards towards primitivism. It would cause for a reversal of the Industrial Revolution – instead of people moving from farms to cities, we would go from cities to farms. The purpose is completely personal and selfish – knowing that every penny’s worth of wealth you create goes to yourself. It means: the pride and earned reward that you should get for working and producing on your own remains intact.

This is particularly pertinent when it comes to mothers. Think of the senselessness of it for a mother to be out working. Assuming both parents work, just for her to work, she is going to have to pay for a car, the gas that goes with it, daycare, etc., all expenses just for her being at work. On top of that, the time she is at work could have been time used to keep wealth inside the family. She could have been studying nursing or home repair or cooking or of course, updating and learning new ways to effectively parent her children, thus allowing the family to not have to consume these services from another person.

Under normal circumstances, I would clearly have no problem with people trading their services – for the woman, even a mother, to develop a trade of her own then trading with another person – the painter, mechanic, whatever – thus creating specialized, better wealth. However, in an increasingly looter world, this trade opens one up for exploitation. While the mother is off at work, she is allowing up to 40% of her wealth to be taken by the government. As she buys services from other people, it is taxed. As she buys their services, she is also encouraging them to stay in business, and that business along with the workers are taxed. Keep it within the family. Then they can’t take it.

It would be very hard for them to loot this wealth. While talking about this to a friend of mine, he suggested they would force families who could paint their houses and cook their own meals to work for other people at gunpoint. If that were the case, it would be grounds for all out civil war. It would also force them to be a little more honest in what they are doing.

I am by no means opposed to money. Money was the greatest invention ever. But even money’s value is constantly being eroded, by government-induced inflation. Money, trade, an intricate, productive economy, etc. are not values attainable in a looter world.

Also, within the family, there are other non-moneyed values that no government anywhere can loot. The love and warmth that should come with a family (which are values that must be actively worked at) cannot be looted. These are other values you can keep, and no one can take. Some may say they will start to loot this wealth too – love, sex, and intimacy for everyone! Nah, I don’t think they will loot this wealth. Looters are at the level of animals: they only want to get their base needs satisfied so they can live, albeit in a vegetative state. Romantic love and other non-moneyed values are foreign to them. They only know how to destroy it, not loot it – as if they were a thug who just destroyed convenient stores instead of taking the cash.

Keeping wealth within the family can be done on any scale – from being completely self-sufficient to simply choosing to administer your own nursing to yourself. It’s something to think about.

It is of course is not at the level of Galt’s gulch; it is a smaller version of Galt’s gulch. The main problem in what I said is that we would revert backwards – when men cannot trade, this is primitivism. If you can find someplace where you can gather with other highly rational and innovative people to trade, completely separate and hidden from the rest of society – by all means! From where I stand though, I see no such place - although, some people tell me such things are in the process of being setup.

The moral implications and goal of keeping wealth within the family and Galt's gulch are the same: withdrawing your services as to keep your own value and sanity in your life – to be able to live a life the way it’s meant to be: for yourself.