When I make a kill, I don't share until I eat my fill. And that's when I freakin' decide to walk away.

NickSousa, why do you want to force others to do what you think is good? I will not force anybody to do or think whatever, but I won't accept others to impose on me what to do or think against my freedom..

To realize your ideal, you need to force many people on many things that they wouldn't do freely.

Please, state clearly your position (or side). Do you support the initiation of violence to get what you want? This IS the real question.

Sure the ideals of unity and cooperation are so lovely. But in reality, humans have no innate goodness or evil, nor a sense of unity or sense of dignity for others. It all depends on what they are taught. An external standard that people internalize and live up to.

However, no matter the standard, Jealousy will be there. It is human nature to compare oneself to others and find that we are inferior in some way. Jealousy is what leads to competing to have more toys than the other.

Maturity comes when one realizes that externals are not the self and we stop judging ourselves by externals.

Only emotional maturity leads to unity.

Typical leftist mind-set....totally discounts human nature and historical truths for some pie-in-the-sky utopia that CANNOT happen. Instead what happens is FORCE and POVERTY. Socialism/Marxism/Communism is a recipe for MURDER & GENOCIDE...it will ever be so...

NO system will EVER be perfect. No system will ever be the complete answer for every individual. However, INDIVIDUAL liberty is the only way we can raise ourselves and others up. Once we achieve our INDIVIDUAL goals, we are then able to help others. There is no other way this will happen. Grow up and get some insight into what is POSSIBLE not some fantasy all wrapped up in good INTENTIONS that only creates the ILLUSION of "good for all" for the person who is spouting these ideals.

This writer has a lot in common with Barbra Streisand. Both open their mouths to speak nonsense when they would be better served to keep quiet. They are children in adult bodies who think by giving sound to their thoughts makes their thoughts valid. I would suggest the writer reread what happened at the Starnes factory. It apparently escaped them the first time!

One can not advance society at the cost of one's self. One can only help advance society by getting in a position of strength to do so. Entrepreneurs do this by finding market niches and providing goods and services people want/need. They in turn employ people and drive the economy. But they don't do so at the cost of their own businesses: it doesn't help either them, their employees, or their customers if they go out of business.

And you make the fallacious assumption that leading the horse to water makes him drink! This has been shown to be false throughout all of history. The nations that are strong are the ones who visualize their goals and through hard work make them happen. Wealth does not come by sloth or by handouts.

As for being the "right thing to do", I will just ask the simple question: what gives you or anyone else the moral authority to determine what someone else should do?

You have addressed only one point in my comment and of course it was the touchy feel-y one. If you receive value for contributing to socity, whatever that means, feel free. Money is only play money when it 's not backed by a gold standard. Otherwise toys can be assets and money can be wealth creation. When someone buys a yacht with legitimate assets, they most certainly are contributing to society by ensuring those employed in the yacht industry are receiving value for their value. Any productive individual is contributing to their society. Please address my economic points. If we can 't start with some agreed upon facts the disscussion is pointless. Btw, why are you at this site? Did you see the movies? It 's one thing to disagree with AR and Objectivism in part, but if you don 't support free markets you won 't enjoy yourself on this site for long.

“What you write is a recipe for failure. If everyone is to work for the collective instead of for themselves, why do we have money at all? Why not make everything free to everyone? How productive would society be if everything was free? The answer to these questions should give you reason to change your thoughts. It really is that simple.”
Gandhi told us to “be the change we want to see in the world”. You have just described exactly what you would do if there were no possessions – you state that you would not be productive if everything in society is free. I suggest addressing this flaw within your own mindset.

If everything in society is free, I would continue to work and ensure that our society keeps progressing higher and higher. No one needs to force me to work or hold my hand, because I am an adult and I realize that my contribution to society is inherently valuable, and that I am providing a needed service. Ask yourself why you would not be productive if everything is free.

Why do you need to be treated like a child who will only play nice in order to receive their weekly allowance from their parents?

“You make absurd presumptions that "taking care of and shown respect " works.”
You may be right that the ideas I am sharing don’t currently work, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t the highest ideal for humanity. Many people lack unity and are not self-motivated, because they are children. Look at some of the posters within this very thread, who state that they would sit around and do nothing if no one forced them to work and help society. This type of mindset is prevalent, because humanity is still in its infancy.

I am an adult, and anything I contribute to society is done freely – not because I need play money, and not because I want to buy toys. I will continue to contribute to society because it is the right thing to do. If there were no possessions, I would still value my contribution to society equally – I don’t need play money as some sort of infantile reminder that I am a part of something which needs my help.

If play money and toys are what motivated me, then I am stating to the world that I don’t really care about other people within my community, and I am only interested in “what I get” out of the arrangement. How humiliating.

What you write is a recipe for failure. If everyone is to work for the collective instead of for themselves, why do we have money at all? Why not make everything free to everyone? How productive would society be if everything was free? The answer to these questions should give you reason to change your thoughts. It really is that simple.

You make absurd presumptions that "taking care of and shown respect " works. The US model of free market enterprise was so successful it not only became the first country in the history of the world to escape the malthusian trap, it skyrocketed from fledgling nation to the most powerful in the world in under one hundred fifty years. China has successfully turned the tide from millions in utter poverty to developing a strong and thriving middle class in just tbirty years by adopting economically free principles. Africa's poverty, as an example, has some of the world 's worst policies as far as economic freedom goes, accepts trillions in aid over the years -we are the largest contributor btw, and still languishs in poverty and on the edge of starvation. This of course is due to corrupt governments and poor enforcement of property rights, not due to a lack of sharing. If more individuals focused on their own production snd accomplishing instead of wringing their hands over the state of the world and our government would reduce regulation and laws impairing your economic freedoms, you would see huge advancements in wealth creation that benefitted not only the individual but the middle class and the poor as well. What you are seeing currently in the US has been a hard drive to socialism that gained steam after WWII and cronyism, which is not free market. The increasing gap between the poor and the small number of wealthy is a result of failed socialist policies that you seem to support, not the result of an Objectivist 's economic policies.

**There is nothing wrong with enjoying life, but take a look at how far people have taken the idea of "acquiring things for themselves". How much more imbalanced could our society get and still function? 80% of the world is in poverty, tens of millions of people die from malnutrition each year alone, the richest 7 people in the world have more play money than multiple countries put together, etc.**
I don't claim to have a solution to poverty. You're impying that people going out and helping people in fair trades causes poverty. I reject that.

**I am saying that people's inherent need to compete against others and collect toys is based on their divisive thought, rooted in feelings of worthlessness. If you knew for a fact just how magnificent you are, do you think that you would feel the need to show off for others or buy overpriced toys to flaunt to other children?**
I'm not arguing for people to compete and buy overpriced toys. I'm arguing for letting people alone to do whatever weird things they want to do in life, buy toys, enter polyamorous relationships, make a billion dollars by finding an easier way to treat diabetes, live a modest life and use their time to spend with family, play video games, trip on acid, whatever they want.

**Unfortunately most human beings on this planet are children with a narrow minded view of the world, so there is quite a bit of conflict as a result.**
I wonder if this is really true. All forms of violence are decreasing in the world. The arc of history bends toward justice.

**Think for a moment what most people would do if there were no laws, and they were given complete and unrestricted control over the entire world's resources. They would never be punished for hoarding 100% of all resources produced on the planet - at what point would people finally "let up" and start sharing with others?**

There's a difference between resources and things produced by those resources. Resources aren't worth much. All the value is in people putting them together in clever ways that serve others' needs. Individual resources are finite. If I own a unit of gold or oil, no one else can have it. The real value comes when someone burns the oil or uses the gold for bond wire or PCB finish, drives webservers that hold Facebook, and Facebook hires engineers to write algorithms that help my wife's legal practice find people who need her services. We take that money and buy some equipment so I can help someone get wireless modules working. The fuel burnt is finite, but all the value produced down the line from it is infinite. Investors who realized the value of Facebook (not me, I thought it sounded dumb at first) weren't hording their wealth investing in a startup. They turned their wealth into an amazing platform for people to build more wealth. Now billions of people have access to things previously only for the kings and the ultra-rich. Now we produce more food per unit area and at a higher quality than ever before. Over a billion of us eat like kings did prior to the industrial revolution.

**What about you? At what point would "enough be enough", and you would feel the need to start sharing? Remember, no one would force you to play nice, and you would never be punished.**

I don't think there's ever enough. I want humankind to conquer aging and disease. I want us to build interfaces to the brain that can give us instant access to knowledge, other people's experiences, and occasional non-addictive artificial feelings of well-being. I want humans to expand to outer space and have quality of food and bathroom facilities that make ours look like a root cellar and an outhouse. I want to get it by hoards of people all playing nice and fair and working hard to serve people in fair trades.

"The Gulcher comment you quote above is not saying we need to go to war with others to acquire accolades, toys, etc. It's saying we have to go to war with the idea that it's good to acquire things for others but bad to acquire things for ourselves. It's great to go and do something for others, and equally great to go do something for yourself. If you do something good for others out of a sense that your suffering for others is inherently good, it's throwing away your life and not really benefiting the people you're trying to help."
The foundation of your argument is still based in division, not unity. There is nothing wrong with enjoying life, but take a look at how far people have taken the idea of "acquiring things for themselves". How much more imbalanced could our society get and still function? 80% of the world is in poverty, tens of millions of people die from malnutrition each year alone, the richest 7 people in the world have more play money than multiple countries put together, etc. I think we have conclusively seen the results of capitalism and competition, and it's ugly.

"You later say that people striving to be better don't realize their own inner beauty."
That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that people's inherent need to compete against others and collect toys is based on their divisive thought, rooted in feelings of worthlessness. If you knew for a fact just how magnificent you are, do you think that you would feel the need to show off for others or buy overpriced toys to flaunt to other children? I don't feel that need whatsoever, because I know how valuable I am regardless of how much play money I have in the bank.

"Let's work hard and enjoy our toys. Isn't that what advancing society is about-- giving people the things they want, serving one another in fair trades, not by force or guilt?"
Advancing society takes many forms, which includes fostering an environment that allows people to be satisfied and happy. Unfortunately most human beings on this planet are children with a narrow minded view of the world, so there is quite a bit of conflict as a result. It has gotten so bad that the government is stepping in to force children to give up some of their play money so that people don't end up rioting because they are barely scraping by. How much worse does it have to get before people are satisfied that they are worthwhile?

Think for a moment what most people would do if there were no laws, and they were given complete and unrestricted control over the entire world's resources. They would never be punished for hoarding 100% of all resources produced on the planet - at what point would people finally "let up" and start sharing with others? This thought experiment can be used to gauge your own feelings of worthlessness. If you feel the need to hoard $1 billion, for example, that speaks to your own character. For me, I could be given unrestricted access to all of the world's resources and I would still live relatively poor until I knew that every man, woman and child on the planet is taken care of and shown respect.

What about you? At what point would "enough be enough", and you would feel the need to start sharing? Remember, no one would force you to play nice, and you would never be punished.

"these are all products of people’s isolated consciousness, where they view other people as a commodity or something to go to war against."
The Gulcher comment you quote above is not saying we need to go to war with others to acquire accolades, toys, etc. It's saying we have to go to war with the idea that it's good to acquire things for others but bad to acquire things for ourselves. It's great to go and do something for others, and equally great to go do something for yourself. If you do something good for others out of a sense that your suffering for others is inherently good, it's throwing away your life and not really benefiting the people you're trying to help.

You later say that people striving to be better don't realize their own inner beauty. Doesn't it seem the opposite? If someone has some thing they love. like being the best juggler, making a computer chip that goes in millions of phones, or whatever it is, if they work hard at it and achieve it, that is realizing their own inner beauty. It doesn't take away from others' inner beauty. There's unlimited beauty to go around. One person makes an algorithm that makes a phone more efficient and someone else gives the phone a sexy look-and-feel. Someone else is thinking up some kind of phone or device that's completely new. They're all realizing their inner strengths and beauty, realizing a level of production of things people want that would blow the minds of people even 100 years ago.

Let's work hard and enjoy our toys. Isn't that what advancing society is about-- giving people the things they want, serving one another in fair trades, not by force or guilt?