"While technically correct, those residents who did not have high quantifiable production did have to be invited."
Didn't everyone need to be invited?

This makes me want to read it again because I don't remember if it ever said the basis on which they invited people. I assumed it was demonstrated willingness to follow the Oath. I assumed the main characters were leaders of industry just as on Star Trek most stories focus on the senior staff.

then it is not altruism, is it?

Of course.

there is no need for a god, ranter

plenty. what about property rights? do you support a patent system for example?

I am, I was raised Presbyterian. Our culture is part of what defines us. You don't slough off your cultureunless it's useless. Rand was clear that there are many religious traditions which you can certainly appreciate as benevolent. After all, she toyed with adding a priest to AS. I had a great church family growing up. a great experience. It is partly why I hang out on this site and not some other O sites. Christians get property rights. give me a christian any day over a libertarian. now watch zen ding me lol

let's start at the beginning. A is A

The job of the employer is not to get the highest skillset for the lowest pay. Anyone can do that. The job of the employer is follow RATIONAL self-interest and get the highest skillset the position can afford for a level of pay that will enable the employee to stay in the position and be productive of profits for the employer. I agree that, objectively speaking, the employee and employer have equal bargaining power, but few employees perceive that. When it comes to ability to bargain effectively, that perception is significant.

God demands of us only that we exercise rational self-interest. He actually places NO DEMANDS on us. He gives us the commandments, which we are free to obey or not. God imposes no punishments on us. You say I do not understand thousands of years of teachings. I have done in-depth study of such, with three years postgraduate theology school in preparation for the priesthood, which I declined because I was not called to celibacy. I really do understand, in depth, Christian teaching. I admit my understanding of Objectivism is not as good as my understanding of Christianity. I have not read Rand in-depth, but I think I understand Objectivism better than you do.

Your understanding of christianity is incredibly thin. You ignore the metaphysics and epistemology of christianity, you ignore thousands of years of teachings by christian scholars, and substitute an argument which is illogical. God cannot demand that you hold him above all others and allow for rational-self interest. Oh and your understand of Rand appears to be even thinner.

lais·sez-faire, the basis of true individualism and capitalism.

I see nothing wrong with that. The employee always has the invidisual freedomt to hit the library (usually 100% free) and build some new skills where he/she can demand a higher salary.

The employee is every bit in an "equal" bargaining position with what the "market" provides. If he/she is a slave to their fear that is not the fault of the employer.

Your "unequal" word is no differetn than using the "Fair Share" argument when liberals demand the rich pay a higher percentage of their income than anyone else.

The job of the employer when hiring is simple. Get the highest skillset for the lowest pay. The SOLE purpose of the employee is to command the highest salary he/she can for the skills and value they can provide to an employer. When they both agree each persons circumstanses are irrelevant. You agree to ot not to do something based on the value you perceive at the time. DOn't like working for min. wage, or if it is not enough get a second job, and work harder. Stop watching "The Real Houswives of...." and do some self study and DEVELOP YOUR SKILLS.

I could write a 1,000 page dissertation on why some people whine about low salaries and other people in the SAME job role excel and either start with more or command more over time.

In my opinion, you will receive results in direct proportion to the effort you put into something.

If you pick any two systems of thought, you will find overlap. If you choose the points carefully, you will seem to make those two systems of thought agree, even if they actually disagree violently with each other. Such is the case with a comparison of Christianity and Communism; they actually disagree violently. Such is not the case with a comparison of Christianity and Objectivism, because they speak of different things, and are actually in fundamental agreement about personal ethics.

Point made, Manitimus. I was not intending to distort; nor was I assuming that you were supporting the comparison of Communist and Christian teaching. I was simply arguing against the similarity some perceive (in particular the Catholic "Revolution Theologians").

@Ranter,

Did you not notice my qualifier "If you select skillfully..."? My point in that conversation was to counter somebody else claiming closeness between Christianity and Objectivism.

Isn't it obvious that when you pick and choose you can make things look quite different than when objectively comparing them in their wholes? Since I thank that it is obvious, I conclude that you are having an ulterior motive when distorting in that manner. Thus, we talk passed each other, which, to me, is a waste of time and lacks proper integrity.

Goodbye!

Woodlema, the problem is that in many situations the employee will agree to less than he should because he is in what the law calls an "unequal" bargaining position. He needs the job, but the employer has many to choose from; hence the employee agrees to a lower wage than he should be able to get because he fears asking for more will result in his not getting the job. I would agree that absent this sort of intimidating circumstance, what is fair is that to which both freely agree.

Interesting about a "generous" wage - it could only be generous for a limited time, usually leading to an eventual disappointment, crash and a loss for both sides. "Generous" means more than something is worth, a condition that cannot last forever, while at the same time raising expectations even higher.

Christians have done all sorts of evil things. Christianity, however and Christians, are not identical. Even the Crusades were never seen as a war over religion, but a war over control of land. The Muslims took away land that had been part of the Christian empire, and persecuted Christians trying to visit the sacred sites in that land; so Christians went to war to take back the land. It was about land, not really about religion.

That doesn't make any sense to me, Owlsrayne. Gnosticism was a "mystery" religion in which its practitioners were steeped in mystical spiritual knowledge. It had nothing to do with the exercise of reason. Christianity condemned Gnosticism precisely because of its lack of the use of reason.

Generally, Zenphamy, one doesn't stir pot -- one smokes it. :-)

Overman, Jesus did not teach his followers to throw themselves under the bus. He warned them that because they would be standing up to the "pit of vipers" of the temple and of the Roman Empire, many of them would suffer martyrdom, but he did not at any time say that such self-sacrifice was a duty of anyone.

under the rubric of altruism, Christians do. Christians have never endorsed wars over religion? hmmm

As to whether the Bible is or is not 100% true: To decide that, one must distinguish between truth and fact. Truth is drawn by an interpretation of facts. Thus, I would say that the Bible is definitely not 100% factual. It is far from that. Much of the Bible is made up of stories told to make a point. However, I do believe that it is 100% true, in the sense that it presents the truth of God.

A fair wage has to be seen as fair by the employee or he won't remain your employee for long. Therefore, it is in your self-interest to pay a wage the employee will see as fair. Fair is not necessarily generous, although it can be.

Because God is not part of the universe, science can have nothing to say at all about God. Religion, being concerned with the spiritual rather than the physical, can have nothing at all to say about science. Religion and science are two mutually exclusive categories.

But Christ taught us to "take no thought for the morrow."