For the time being, you can still close a business. Opening and running one, however, requires having the government as a controlling partner, who controls your operations in every respect, from the choice of customers to the choice of employees. As a controlling partner, the government plays a major part in deciding the "fairness" of every aspect of your business.

Even the Christian religions struggle with the concept of 'original sin'. The Catholics had to invent Limbo to give somewhere painless for blameless but unbaptized babies to go.

Original sin was a great invention; clever way of requiring obedience to clergy...

I agree with what you say. You have more self control than I do - I just ramble on and on and on.

Jan

You must be kidding! Otherwise, selective reading will make it appear that you are.

Yes and no. The Government set the min. wage. When I as an employer start a business, I accept and that I must pay a minimum amount. I am always free to NOT enter into a business where I have to pay a salary but could use 1099 contractors where the min wage does not apply. Having said that assume I open a McD's, I accept and voluntarily agree when I start that business to comply with all local, state and federal laws which includes a min. wage. The employee also knows what that min. wage is and should I offer to pay more than min. wage or exactly min. wage. the employee has the right to refuse to work for said wage, and move on. Therefore while the Government does indeed set that min. wage that the employer in some cases is "stuck" with, you do not have to start that kind of business, or continue that business. You are free to sell it or just close the doors and fire everyone.

I am NOT using Objectivism to interpret the Bible, or the Bible to interpret Objectivism at all.

I am and have drawn many parallels between them showing they are not at odds with each other as some would propose.

I made this mistake in my earlier days of researching objectivism. If you are using objectivism to "correctly" interpret the bible then what do you need the bible for?

rtsmith:
I would think so.
I'm curious to know if it has been challenged?

Hello K,

I think that you might, after being offended, concede more importance and value to this book.

Based on the reading only of the "auto-review" and not the book itself (I don't think it will ever deserve such a part of my lifetime), my impression is that he aims at the audience of already convinced anti-Objectivists, mostly for the purpose of serving the author's own financial self-interest. It seems to provide HIS synopsis of the message Rand sent with Atlas Shrugged, naturally, appropriately "abbreviated" and biased.

Notice the explicit invitation to self-sacrifice. Of course, I assume, for the "public good", "social justice" and "happiness for all", by submitting to the do-gooder-in-chief, the Big Government. He probably never mentions or addresses the question of what happens when all the confiscating does not supply enough goods for the do-gooders.

Let's just ignore him and compare three years from now the sales of his book with those of Atlas Shrugged.

Stay well. Fondly,
Maritimus

What is the best way to "serve" one's fellow man? I would say that it is to produce value to the best of one's ability. Bringing value to the lives of your fellow man is the goal of both Christianity and Objectivism.

In interpreting the Golden Rule, I have to ask myself, would I want someone to enable me in being non-productive and dependent? Of course not! If I'm temporarily down on my luck through no fault of my own, sure, lend me a hand. But I don't think the "altruism" that keeps someone down and relying on a handout would be approved under either philosophy, if they are appropriately applied.

Ranter, I totally agree with you. What I see is that people with the Religion of "Anti-Religion" or "Anti-God," i.e. Atheism, try to use their atheism as a hammer to beat others with rather than realize many Christians who firmly believe in God do not do so with "blind faith" but rather with reason and forethought.

Just like I cannot PROVE God exists since I cannot have him just walk up and tap them on the shoulder, likewise they cannot prove he does not exist. Scientists cannot prove Gravity either and there is always much debate on Gravity. You cannot see it or touch it, but if you jump off a 10 story building you certainly feel and see the effect of this invisible force.

Part of your equation is incorrect - the minimum wages negate the "voluntary" part. Not only the at McD's, but also minimum union wages or those dictated upon contractors that with federal contracts. They affect not only the minimum wage, but also provide a ceiling wage. We don't have forced labor [yet], but renumeration options are very limited by the government.

To me is probably one of the EASIEST ever to attempt an answer to.

What is a FAIR wage?
Whatever is agreed to by the two parties involved. "period"

Since there is NO forced labor in the united states a "fair" wage is whatever you agree voluntarily to work for. You don't want to work for min. wage at McDonalds, then develop some skills, but if you work for McDonalds it is because YOU applied, interviewed, KNOW what the wage is and accept the offer. All voluntary.

Jan, I agree with you. In keeping my comment short, I could not possibly cover all avenues of reason. My concentration was on pointing out that the Objectivist philosophy leads to positive actions for for all around because one is primarily motivated by self interest. Ayn Rand repeatedly stressed that "reason" must include long term goals. This is in oposition to the religious view where one's actions are tied to guilt and sin, which are so imbedded that even when one has done nothing wrong, he still carries "the original sin" with him.

jbrenner:
Beautifully stated.

Woodlema:
I understand your point.
Galt, upon returning to New York, did so to attempt to be there to save Dagny when she would come to grips with a decision and "join" the Gulch. Galt knew his life was at risk for this action. Galt states to Dagny when they are caught by the enemy in his apartment- to never ever let on that she "knows" him because, and I paraphrase here, "...if they ever guess that you know me and they torture you, and they will, to get me to cooperate, I would kill myself...".

What one chooses to love, what means more than one's own life, is a choice. That choice is not a sacrifice. It is an absolute.

Thanks, Jan.

Interesting insight, jbrenner.

I have read that one of the pieces of evidence for Jesus' actual existence is considered to be that Christian philosophy was so extremely dissonant with respect to its time and culture: The argument is that there must have been a successful, charismatic, single point origin for this movement.

The same, of course, can be said of John Galt.

Jan

Strugatsky -

I would add that you do not only want to retain a valuable employee in a competitive market, you will look ahead and support - for example - a trade school for welders in your area so that you will (in the future) have a pool of well-trained future employees among which to choose. Part of the problem with both the observation and the truth of capitalism is that folks are measured by 'next quarters earnings'.

The capitalists who genuinely look ahead can be mistaken for altruists. While I am not personally religious, I do think that one of the things that believers bring to the discussion tends to be a longer viewpoint (albeit not a supernatural one, from my perspective). If someone who has Randist values (plus religion) proclaims themselves an Objectivist then I, who am no purist, will not dispute their personal choice and label; I find their viewpoints useful. Perhaps this is just using religious people as a 'tool'. Oh well.

Jan

Murphy is God. Murphy hates us all equally. He was looking particularly in your direction this morning, Dino.

Jan

I am also a misfit non-atheist here; yet, I really like everything else that Rand advanced.

My take on it is that while Jesus' life was the absolute height of the definition of agape love. It is a level of selflessness unattainable by man and honestly not a desirable goal. Yes, we should try to help out our fellow man though never to the serious detriment of ourselves. Mostly the byproducts of our self serving choices are what is so helpful to those around us.

Atlas Shrugged is trademarked, is it not? This book's title would seem to be a case of copywrite infringement.

I get the feeling this "author" has only read the Cliff Notes version of Atlas Shrugged. If he had actually read Galt's speech, which he suggests he didn't and neither should anyone else bother, he would have found a very clear cut explaination of why Reason and Faith are mutually exclusive.

Some do see the Gulch as a permanent retreat. While Galt never intended the Gulch for things to remain that way, the reason those Gulchers who view the Gulch as a permanent retreat is because, as Robbie correctly said in different words several months ago, a certain percentage of looters and people who think they can rule other people by force will exist in an open society.

Jesus did, however, mean for his retreat to be permanent.

vime, Christianity is in contradiction to the objectivist axiom of man holding reason as his highest moral imperative. However, if you check under the philosophy category or do a search in the search function for the christianegoist and check the gulch store under books for "The Soul of Atlas" you will find compelling arguments which support your view.

interesting. I think some see the Gulch as a permanent retreat. Of course, Galt never intended for things to remain that way