I have noted that most of the people under 35 seem to think that 'judging' is BAD per se. "What gives you a right to judge that person?" they ask. "Me." I reply, "I give me that right."

I tend to put my foot down on my prerogative to make a personal judgement on anyone or anything I choose - with or without empathy. (This aversion to judging may be a spinoff of the groupthink that is being trained.)

So, while I agree that Rands philosophy is incorrectly labeled as being without empathy (as is any rational thought process - look at Mr Spock), I think the real issue is the right to judge.

Jan

It didn't take more than a couple of sentences to find the first evidence that they hadn't even read the book at all: "our markets are not fair as Rand would suggest."

Rand never claimed the markets were fair and she cited exactly why they weren't: government interference and cronyism. And it isn't as if she is the only one. Many other economists have noted the very same.

The next line told me all I needed to know about the article's author: "And our world is not as straightforward as her philosophy assumes."

Have you ever noticed that when a liberal gets cornered about a specific, central policy failure resulting from their ideology, their response is always a deflection about how complicated, nuanced, or contextual the problem is? The underlying assertion is that there is always something particular about that instance that makes it a unique instance - something out of their control over which they should as a result not have to take responsibility for. And yet all this time all they keep doing is insisting they need MORE power: more things under their control they can later blame someone or something else for when they fail.

My statement to liberals: you show me you can take responsibility for the little things - good outcome OR bad. You're like a teenager who wants to drive but not pay for the car insurance or gas, and blames the other party when you run a red light and get in an accident. Part of growing up is taking responsibility for one's actions. You want me to treat you like an adult? Act like one.

The author of the article does not understand that before Ayn Rand was in the USA and before i think Lincoln was president our country was as she thought it should be. Things started changing after Lincoln and when she got here and studied the history of our country she saw the change that took place and wrote about what she was seeing and continued to write about the demise that was taking place. I do not see us ever going back to the way it was so I believe more strongly than ever of the demise.

There are some people who will come to a fuller knowledge if we do act as Gulch ambassadors. I sometimes do that, but it is as much for my own enjoyment as it is for their benefit. If I were to ever see the ambassadorial role as a burden, then I would cease doing it.

woodlema -

Thank you for the rant on property taxes. It is so difficult to get across to most people the fact that such taxes establish that, in effect, you are renting your property from the gov in perpetuity...! One of the balms available in the Gulch is to read stuff such as you just wrote over my morning coffee.

Jan

I think that there is a real answer to your question, jbrenner, and that answer is "allosaur". Allosaur did not even know about Ayn Rand until he saw one of the movies - and then he went hog-wild and is with us here in the Gulch, happily chomping on passing comments as if they were wayward hadrosaurs.

I think we do need to put a good face on Rand's philosophy, whenever we get a chance, but we can accept that the return may not be visible for us: Would we have even known about our happy allosaur if he had not also joined the Gulch?

Not replying to such articles is, I think, falling into the same trap that let us ignore socialists in education...because they were sequestered there and could not possibly do much harm...

Jan

Contemptible misrepresentation. How are corpor-
ations "benefiting"more from a workforce (mis)educated
by the government than they would be from work-
ers educated in privately-funded schools in a free-
enterprise system? And that about corporations
receiving big refunds? They wouldn't have got-
ten those refunds unless they had paid huge
taxes in the first place, would they? And as to
barriers to success, I don't think they would be
as huge or as rigid under a free, really free en-
terprise system as they are under the govern-
ment obstructions we have now.
As to paying voluntarily for the really proper
functions of government (which are mighty few)
that could be done in several ways; by contract
premiums at notarization (as Ayn Rand re-
marked in "Government Financing in a Free So-
ciety"; also by lotteries), and also, something
like the present sales tax, although voluntary;
simply tell the storeowner that if he doesn't
choose to pay it, the store's address will be put
into a computer, and if it is held up and he dials
911, he will be listed as having refused to co-
operate and he won't get the benefit of police
protection in that store; also, he won't get to
put the sticker in his window which states that
it is a store under police protections. Tradesmen
would mainly pay such a Law-Enforcement Fee
readily enough; especially as they wouldn't have
to put up with their money being poured down
such avenues as it is now.---But some people
don't care anything about justice or the truth.

Congratulations on making the move for your own freedom!

Hear hear, something I have resolved myself to. I spent a lot of time thinking about what would make me happy with what remained of my life. Part of that was leaving the US, part of that was restructuring our life so we had more time and money to pursue the things we thought we most important, rather than just paying taxes and mortgages and insurance bills.

Based on Ms. Wagner's original article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/madelynne-...) she must have had a significant change of mind in the intervening months or possible a slew of negative feed back from progressive readers. As CEO of Brightest Young Minds, I would have thought she would have more conviction of her ideals. Alas, we live in a time of minimal moral conviction and an inability for many people to stand firm for what they believe in.

I suggest Ms. Wagner re-read AS carefully and consider the fundamental truths that are clearly detailed in that document.

Government makes NOTHING fair or equitable and never has. Name one thing Government has made totally equitable...and provide proof.

I really wanted to address this one.
_______________________________
From the article:
Moreover, Rand also (naively) believed that, in a free society, taxation should be voluntary because the "proper services" of a government -- like the police, armed forces and courts of law -- are obviously needed and citizens should therefore be willing to pay for such services.
_______________________________

It is obvious to me that the author of this does not understand the position Ayn Rand took on the voluntary taxation to pay for government.


She wrote on this topic in the essay “Government Financing in a Free Society”, published in The Virtue of Selfishness:

Any program of voluntary government financing has to be regarded as a goal for a distant future.

What the advocates of a fully free society have to know, at present, is only the principle by which that goal can be achieved.

The principle of voluntary government financing rests on the following premises: that the government is not the owner of the citizens’ income and, therefore, cannot hold a blank check on that income—that the nature of the proper governmental services must be constitutionally defined and delimited, leaving the government no power to enlarge the scope of its services at its own arbitrary discretion. Consequently, the principle of voluntary government financing regards the government as the servant, not the ruler, of the citizens—as an agent who must be paid for his services, not as a benefactor whose services are gratuitous, who dispenses something for nothing. (Ayn Rand)


Also the form the tax takes is extremely critical.

For example an Ad Valorem tax is a complete violation of freedom and the principal of private property. A transfer tax on property, is very different even if the amount is identical and here is why.
Ad Valorem property tax is what you pay to the county on the appraised or estimated value of your property. This is in perpetuity and forever. In essence you are “renting” from the County government the property you pay for. Even when your mortgage is paid for, or you paid cash you are FORCED to continue to make these payments to the government.

A transfer tax ends after it is paid. If you wrap it into your mortgage like you would additional funds to build a garage, once that mortgage is paid you pay NOTHING ever again on the monies used to pay the transfer tax.
If I pay cash for my property, once that transfer tax is paid which funds the people and infrastructure to retain these records is paid, never again to I have to pay the government as long as I reside in my property. I can improve my property add buildings, and do not pay more for my success and labor as I expand my property. The government has NO claim on the property at all. That is a voluntary tax paid when I decide to purchase, not a forced tax in perpetuity.
In states where cars are property taxed the same is true. Go to the car dealer pay 40k for your car, and then do not pay the property tax and see who owns that car. They (Government), like your home will strip it away from by force and sell it to someone else. That is NOT freedom.

When Government provides a service and charges for it, this is voluntary. You do not want fire protection for you home, do not pay the fire department.

However in this areas you would find the free market resolve the problem and provide an industry to address such things. Oh Wait!!! Insurance!!!! Which is voluntary.

When I take out a mortgage the only reason insurance is required is to protect the Bank who has an interest in your property until that mortgage is paid off. Again voluntary. Do not want to pay insurance, then save money, pay cash, and take all the risk yourself.

Property taxes are forced on us to fund the education of other people’s kids. I do not have kids, yet I am forced to pay property taxes to fund things I never chose to have. No different than me buying a 100’ yacht and then expecting all my neighbors to pay for and maintain it.

When we are FREE and responsible for ourselves it is good for everyone rich and poor, especially when we have to pay for our own choices and decisions without forcing others to pay out of their heard earned product.

So these liberals and people who do NOT reason and think have no clue what freedom really is and what it really means. They have been so indoctrinated into a nanny state they are willing to give up all freedoms and become not only slaves to the state but also wards of the state forsaking any individualism they have left.

The Book 1984 is a good example of this. Disagree and you are sent to room 101.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3U83QLo...

Huffington Post is a piece of trash. Their articles are so ignorant I dont even read them at all. One could spend weeks refuting all the nonsense in this article, only to have them print up hundreds more just like it. On the one hand, we cant just let our country be ruined by letting this misinformation by so called intellectuals go unchallenged, but I have to tell you its tiring to see so much of it and spend time on challenging it. I would propose at this point, that it appears to be better to just let the collectivist process take its course QUICKLY, and we spend our time on figuring out how to rebuild it properly. In the meantime, hide out in plain sight as in ALONGSIDE NIGHT novel.

or that business and productive people always make it unfair for those less or non-productive

yes, her goal is to grab young libertarians' attention and then tear down. I expect we will see many more Rand critiques of hers. She uses Rand's name to propel herself while at the same time refuses to look in depth at the philosophy. reminds me of someone....

Dagny Taggart explained that to Cheryl--before Cheryl then jumped into the East River.

She sounds like Gene Lawson, right after John Galt finishes his three-hour speech.

I'm saying she points out true facts about life not being fair, implying gov't could make it fair.

There is no discernable point I can take from your comment. Instead of re-stating Ms. Wager, consider stating what YOU think. Ms. Wager speaks in what I like to call NGO speak. Most college grads that are working for NGOs have mastered this new language. It's english on its head. .

This same person wrote a mostly-positive article about AS one month earlier, "Ayn Rand Haters Will Hate": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/madelynne-...

This article reminds me of the argument, "if we don't have drug prohibition, some people would have substance abuse issues." (as if substance abuse were solved under their program!)

As Ms. Wager says, sometimes managers work out sweetheart deals with their boards. Some people find a way to pay negative taxes.In life's lottery some parents help their kids with time and money, and others are abusive. Some people develop health problems and others stay healthy despite bad habits. I agree with her, but she says that as if gov't has the solution to make those problems go away and make life fair.

I disagree with her saying Objectivism supports "judging others' situations without empathy". It's saying (based on my limited reading) forced empathy is a horrible thing that destroys the human soul.

I think that's the point. However, sometimes you just want to bounce ideas off Midas, Francisco, Hank, and Dagny

The right ideas are timeless, but unfortunately we are not.

If the group of those in the Gulch were small enough, I would certainly host such a welcoming party when new members joined the group. In that way, I would have no problem being a Gulch ambassador.

Atlantis, I appreciate your and others work on this. I am more focused on ensuring that the right ideas are around when the collapse happens.