Limits to growth
This article by economist Robert Gordon is an expansion of a premise that I have posited for a long time. The triggers for spurts of productivity and economic growth are not necessarily repeatable. My corollary is that, neither are these triggers predictable.
Though certainly individuals with inventiveness and creativity may still be productive and prosper, as they do now, what about the economy as a whole? Has it entered a productivity "Ice Age"?
The meaning of your comment and the allusion to murder eludes me.
Ice Age -- yes, a Frozen Country (this use of frozen exists in the book "Atlas Shrugged") .
The economy will continue to suffer the consequences of out of control regulatory agencies who have no regard for the simple maxims of business. The bureaucrat has no concept of minimizing cost because they maximize their income by the point of a gun. They have no concept of supply and demand and live in a fantasy world where any demand can be met by pointing their guns at someone else. The bureaucrat has no concept of cost controls but believe they can dictate price controls. Price controls are not cost controls.
When I say that government is a large part of the problem I should clarify that all people get the government they deserve and regardless of what sort of government is in place that government exists because the people allow it too, and so ultimately it is we the people who are the complete problem, largely because we have the government we deserve and less so because too many of us have grown comfortable with ignorance and apathy.
Of course, these arguments are made to address your "economy as a whole" question which presumably posits that there can only be one economy and all actions are either a cause or effect of that economy.
The notion of Galt's Gulch, however, posits otherwise. The community of Galt's Gulch gave up on worrying about "the economy as a whole" and only worried about their economy and as such became cause over the "economy as a whole" and in doing so "stopped the motor of the world".
The "economy as a whole" that I am assuming you speak of has become a global monstrosity that is too easy to topple. While a Gulch economy can opt to contract with others from other nations, a Gulch economy has no concern for the global economy, or a national economy, or state economy and only worries about the local economy and the even exchange between the members of this locality.
You speak to the Law of Diminishing Returns but I would point to the Second Law of Thermodynamics and while that law is in regards to chemical reactions of heat systems, its principle is more universal and all closed systems demonstrably tend towards entropy. Open systems fare better.
The concept of government's role in a society is a more complicated. A fictional Galt's Gulch aside, the founders understood why government is necessary: "...to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...".
A government, like any organism, will try to grow and increase its influence. Only the diligence of its citizenry can stop that from happening. I agree with you that government has become a problem. We have allowed the government to meddle, in the name of the common good, into far too many areas and stifle productivity. This is something we need to strive to reverse.
Another word for entropy is chaos and our current economic state seems to be rapidly headed towards this chaos.
In terms of government, I am not clear why we would have to set Galt's Gulch aside. That community formed a more perfect union, established justice, ensured domestic tranquility, and provided for the common defense, promoting the general welfare of that community and securing the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.
If we are to be diligent in restraining the natural tendency of government to aggregate power, I would suggest that we be clear on the words we chose. Legally speaking a "citizen" is a recognized subject of a state, commonwealth whether they are native or naturalized. Having a government does not require being subject to that government and at this point I should probably point out that you left out the beginning and the end of the Preamble for the Constitution for the United States of America. That Preamble begins "We the People" and it ends "do ordain and establish this Constitution..." This is very important context. We the People are not subject to that federal government, that federal government is subject to We the People.
Prior to the most unfortunate 14th Amendment, there was no such thing as a national citizen and even with the 14th Amendment, no person is obligated to take up that invitation to be a citizen.
People do not need a government to obey laws. People need government to find remedy in the event of a disparagement or denial of a right, and to a lesser degree to provide arbitration to settle the petty differences of individuals.
The citizen, more times than not, seeks "civil rights" (legal rights) but the sovereign individual need not seek any right as they understand they have them always and the worst that can happen to them is that those rights will be trampled upon and/or denied. The worst that can happen to the "citizen" is that their rights will be taken away and since they are, after all, granted legal rights, they can be legally taken away.
We the People must do our due diligence in restraining the ugly beast of out of control government and can not reasonably rely on citizens to join us.
If history teaches us anything, we see that in the real world there are nation states, standing armies and conflicting interests. Galt's Gulch may care nothing about the world, but if you have no army and a hostile neighbor does, you may end up like Holland during WW II. The armies required for common defense typically need to be funded by greater resources than any individual can muster. Ergo some form of government and taxation is necessary, but I agree that this is a slippery slope. While disillusioned by our present government, I still have faith in the ballot over the bullet and I do rely on responsible citizenry joining us to eventually change our course.
With regards to the 14th Amendment, there was both national and state citizenship before that Amendment. The 14th Amendment was a "Reconstruction Amendment" resulting from the Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case in 1856. Congress sought not to grant, but to clearly define who is entitled to citizenship to clarify the status of Blacks and Indians as covered in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, so that the Supreme Court could not declare the act unconstitutional.
I do not think that Galt's Gulch cared nothing about the world, they simply cared nothing about economies outside of their own. Having faith in the ballot over the bullet paves the way for the need for a bullet. Voting is not what makes humanity free. It is the unalienable rights of humanity that make them free and no government gave humanity these rights. Responsible citizenry would be those who acquiesce to the government they are subject to. Responsible individuals understand that it is government that is subject to them.
You are mistaken regarding national citizenship prior to the 14th Amendment. The very first sentence of that Amendment reads:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
If you were correct that sentence would not be necessary in the 14th Amendment. There are many erroneous assumptions made about the 14th Amendment and the most egregious is the notion that the 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott ruling. However a careful reading of the Dred Scott ruling reveals that the 14th Amendment is appallingly harmonious with the Dred Scott ruling, and did not in anyway "overturn" that ruling. This erroneous assumption as led to yet another erroneous assumption that Supreme Court Rulings can be overturned by Amendment. But since that Court has the power of judicial review they can strike down any such Amendment.
The serious problem with the 14th Amendment lies in its harmony with Dred Scott which held that SCOTUS had no jurisdiction to hear Scott's case. This disingenuousness by that Court has now encouraged people to believe that the Bill of Rights only apply to citizens of the United States.
All of this is a problem with individuals more than government. Any individual that understands the mistakes of fact and misinterpretation of law stand a far better chance of protecting their own rights than the ignorant do.
Congress wrote the 14th Amendment to be harmonious with Dred Scott so it evaded the risk of being overturned. If an act of legislation is unconstitutional there are no magic tricks Congress can employ to prevent the SCOTUS from striking it down as unconstitutional.
"Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members."
~Racism; Virtue of Selfishness~