Say this to the socialists:
I completely support you redistributing wealth in any way you feel right. As for creating the wealth to redistribute, I'm curious to know - how do you plan to go about that? Will you be creating that wealth? Your friends maybe? Let me know how you get on with that.

Good. Thank you.

Jan

That was excellent. By pointing to the commonalities in human beings, Milton Friedman took the wind out of many of the sails of the socialists. Nice work.

Jan

The statement that monopolies are not evil is irrelevant. My point is that they impede innovation and market competition. I don't make emotional judgments, but I do weigh the utility of the effects on advancement of product and service technology.

The patent system is one of the most corrupt practices in existence, with cronyism between the patent lawyers and the patent examiners. There's a revolving door in that system that would be considered a scandal, if the media ever goes back to real investigative reporting.

Microsoft is a deteriorating monolith, and Apple has won the market. Google is the prime example of crony capitalism, corrupt to its core and tied so tightly to a government that violates nearly every element of the Bill of Rights that it will eventually be carved to pieces, just like the old AT&T phone system.

Uh. I hate to ask this of you...but I live about 50 miles west of the San Andreas fault...can you extend your 'saving' for...say...60 miles more? Pretty please?

Jan

Hello Herb7734,
Good quote. Excellent find or memory. :)
Respectfully,
O.A.

A good start to a description of capitalism would be the following A.R. quote: "Laissez-Faire capitalism is the only social system based on the recognition of individual rights and, therefore, the only system that bans force from social relationships. By the nature of its basic principles and interests, it is the only system fundamentally opposed to war." That starts off putting capitalism on the correct side of things and leads into all its other virtues.

In "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal" Ayn Rand
dealt with the attempt to justify capitalism on the
grounds of "the common good". She denounced
this approach. Although it does (when allowed to
operate) achieve "the common good", that was
NOT her justification of it. She said it was justi-
fied on the ground of individual rights. In "The
Virtue of Selfishness", (and elsewhere) she
held that living for oneself did not preclude help-
ing other people, if one could afford it (not
damage oneself or one's values doing it), and
if there was some value in the person helped;
but that it should not be one's primary goal.

There is however one major problem with Patent Protection; that being that it extends the MONOPOLY to block independent inventors of the same technology who might have heavily invested time and energy in solving the same problem with no awareness of the Patent's current or pending existence. And under our recently adopted First To File regime, the MONOPOLY goes to the first to pay filing fees regardless of whether someone else can prove prior invention, this creates an environment that favors big companies with lots of lawyers who can flood the system with applications and dissincentivizes small firms from innovation in areas of active filing activity by big firms and encourages the proliferation of low quality patents.

Great question, Grendol, and you're getting quite a collection of essays here.

OK, here goes mine:

Do they understand the concept of the work ethic? The fable of the ant and the grasshopper? Have they ever heard the simple rule, "You don't work, you don't eat"? Have they heard of the quaint commandment, "Thou shalt not steal"?

Put the shoe on the other foot. Socialists want, by force, to take from some to give to others, preferably to themselves. To justify their rapacious philosophy, they create a myth about the productive members of society becoming rich through some kind of exploitation of the poor, throwing around the spurious term "social justice".

Here's the thing. All living things need to eat or they don't stay alive very long. Each individual being has to expend effort to obtain nourishment to put in their own stomach. But, as Ayn Rand put it, there is no such thing as a collective stomach. And back in prehistory, food was all around and critters just took what they could find or hunt down or take from another. Ever see chickens in the barnyard tugging on the same worm? There was not yet the notion of private property, though you'd better not mess with a lion's kill. What the lion gets belongs to his or her pride. Extended further, in times of scarcity even animals had territorial claims and would chase away intruders.

Speaking of lions, hear the one about democracy being two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner?

Once humans learned to produce food instead of just collect it--agriculture, domestication of animals, food storage, shelter construction--the concept of property rights emerged. That which someone "produces" belongs to that individual, though he may choose to share it with family, kin and tribe. Collaborative hunting provided for sharing the bounty with the group. But be assured that every critter has a notion of "it's mine, don't touch."

And every critter has a hardwired sense of how much effort to put out for expected results. The lioness stops running when she can tell the gazelle is too fast. Expending more energy than the return gained would soon leave the animal starved to death. Without ROI, or profit, life doesn't work.

The premise is that what you put time and energy into obtaining and producing belongs to you. This is the concept of the earned vs. the unearned. As someone earlier remarked, when you have invested a piece of your life into producing a value, it is yours. In more advanced societies you can rent or sell your time, and the money you are paid is a portable, exchangeable piece of your life. Anyone who seeks to TAKE what is yours is in effect stealing a piece of your life, or making you a slave for that length of your time. You, on the other hand, get to decide how to dispose of what is yours, through trade, the only truly socially just formula, and only capitalism provides it.

To understand capitalism in its simplest essence, ask your arguers if they like the idea of Kickstarter or "crowdsourcing". It's a growing trend, and surprise: that's capitalism, investing savings towards making something with the expectation of future profit. If they persist in ascribing greed to others, have them search their own motives. Envy is the root of all evil.

Unfortunately since we do not have a truly capitalist economy, how and with whom the wealth is concentrated does truly reflect Capitalism or Rand's tenets.

I truly do not follow your statements. Which specific items do you not agree with? Why?

I'm months away from finishing a business degree, majoring in entrepreneurship and enterprise development. From the start and right through, they teach you to forget about making money unless you're actually helping people, contributing goods and services of actual value that solve or lessen people's problems.

Every field of endeavour has its exploiters, its cheats, its looters. Marriages have numerous partners who cheat. Charities have numerous staff who embezzle critically-needed funds. But does this discredit marriage, or charity?

Wow! An apt description of going through deprograming and brainwashing into your beliefs. Be careful when you think you know all the answers.
For example, now that our system has allowed 1% of society controls 99% of the wealth (it is really true), one must ask Ayn Rand's view of "value for value". If one works hard, that person should receive, not according to the owner's need, but according to that value produced. Value for value. As an atheist and individualist since 12, I never asked for anything I didn't earn. Reading Atlas Shrugged at 16, I became a fan.
But I disagree with a number of its tenets. That's my choice.

I really like this argument from Milton Friedman:

https://youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A

First, you need to ask them questions which will indicate they are greedy too (e.g. Do you buy lottery tickets? Do you want a pay raise?). Everyone is. That is the driver for Capitalism. Only when these inherent traits are leveraged to produce overall value can an economy succeed.
Then discuss the individuals who are in charge in socialism. Who are these people. Let the person identify them. Are these people greedy? Of course. This is the inevitable road to totalitarianism.
Then discuss efficiency. Can you demonstrate a government program that is more cost effective than an equivalent private one?

So greed is inherent. In capitalism it is leveraged to drive overall wealth. In socialism it is either attempted to be controlled (voluntary/philanthropy) or ignored (involuntary = forced becomes totalitarianism). One thing that gets socialists thinking is to point out they seek to take things from others at gunpoint, which is essentially what giving power to the government is. They never think about it that way on their own.
The next logic is showing which companies are more successful, those that treat their employees well, or those that abuse them. Companies that abuse employees are invariable on their death throws. This is Ayn's Objectivist version of "philanthropy". Treat people well to achieve more. Such a simple concept, and why people behave in society (misbehave = ostracized = less food. Behave = cooperation = more food)

The thing these liberals fail to consider is that they are being greedy and venal through the collective. They seem to think that it is somehow noble to wish to take from peter to benefit Paul, without stopping to think that they are in fact stealing from peter just the same. It kills me when I hear about someone being murdered and the perp is "discovered " to be not in full possession of his faculties for some reason. [IE crazy or mentally insufficient"] Somehow this means that the victim is somehow less dead. I am sure that this makes the victim feel much better. The same is true in the case of liberals robbing Peter to give to Paul. Peter doesn’t give a rats behind that the thief not stealing the goods for himself......Peter is still out the goods.

If we think about what wealth really is this line of argument is even closer in parallel to the murder example because wealth and money is really a physical manifestation of a part of your life. If you give up 8 hours of you life at a job, your employer will pay you a certain sum of money, you have then sold part of your life. If someone then steals that money, they have just stolen that part of your life. You might say that.."it is only 8 hours, not the whole life"……. to that I would respond that if you murder a 90 year old man, it is still punishable the same amount as if you had killed a 20 year old man.
One final thing....all these generous liberals who talk about re-distributing wealth to the less fortunate. I have always noticed that they always seem to fall in to one of 2 categories. 1. They are in a relatively low tax bracket and are likely to receive some of the wealth transfer. Or 2. They are very well off and either "Have theirs" or have an accountant and a tax strategy that keeps them from paying what the rest of us do!

Try this:

Statists, of whatever stripe, cannot serve the public good. No one can do any good to anyone by means of human sacrifice. When you violate the rights of oe, you violate the rights of all--and a polity of rightless creatures will destroy itself.

Hammer at this point: statism never accomplishes its stated goal. All the things they say capitalism does, statism does. Psychologists call this "projection" -- literally, throwing off your own sins at the other person.

Your statement denies the inventor of patent protection, which gives him a MONOPOLY for a specified period of time. It also denies the astute businessman of his reward by outperforming his competitors (think Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc., the so-called Robber Barons. You can also look at what's happening to Microsoft, Google and others today)). A monopoly, on its face is not evil. Cronyism is evil. Keep those two distinct.

How can you not be snarky when the first things out of their mouths are lies?!? Just refer them to "The Wisdom of Andrew Carnegie," by Napoleon Hill. It might also be a good idea to have them study a bit of American history, especially from the 1830s through WWI; that was the time when America was transformed from an agrarian to an industrial society. The socialist talking points are always about "fairness" and "equality," never achievement, pluck and innovation. Capitalism is a system designed for the independent, innovative, self driven entrepreneur ("the business of America is business"); everyone else is along for the ride, getting benefits that they'd never even thought of. If that wasn't the case, everyone would be producing, and there would be no problem of "inequality." The fact is, most people aren't ambitious or talented enough to make a dent in the universe. Yet they want the rewards of those who are. That's the long and the short of it. If there was no money, only "attaboys," the knuckleheads would want to deny the producers of that. They don't want to recognize the producers in matter or in spirit. The only response they deserve is, "if you think you're man enough, come and attempt to get it."

Branden’s “How to communicate political ideas” (an audio lecture) would be a good place to start. Once armed with that, or if in only very short discussion, I use Shermer’s question when he is faced with ideas that are wrong but in which the other person holds a strong belief. He says, “That is interesting. Upon what facts to do you base this?” I add: “I would like to follow up on what you say.”

My experience is this converts a confrontation into a discussion IF the person is not simply posturing in some sort of moral righteousness (unfortunately something for which we Objectivists are well known). If the latter, let him have his stage for a few seconds and excuse yourself from the preaching. You will never change such a person.

Capitalism is the only practical system that actually has worked - ever. Socialism is touted as the ideal system, but it FAILS every time its tried and people just ignore the failures. Look at Venezuela- socialism is a dismal failure overall. It doesnt even help the poor as its "supposed to". People have to just see the everyday practical results of socialism. Capitalism doesnt guarantee everyone will be equal in terms anything but individual rights, but it does allow anyone who wants to improve the chance to improve unfettered by cronyism in government, and outright threats by others. Socialism is replete with threats from every mob that gets government control and it actually gets in the way of people improving their lot in life. We have to attack socialism at the level people actually live. Not with some sort of lofty Objectivist talk. We have never really had capitalism- mostly cronyism since our country started. The Constitution was a good start, but it was violated in so many ways right from the beginning- slavery, wars against indians, mexican territories, and non-christian believers. So people dont know what real capitalism would be like.

Like most good things, capitalism can be hijacked by the power-hungry, who want to control. The objective should be to practice real free market principles, rewarding the productive and providing the goods and services that the consumer desires.

Monopolies and "crony capitalism" impede the benefits of a free market, and should be blocked whenever possible. A real free market thrives on competition, with competitors striving to offer an ever-evolving product or service at a competitive price.

Whenever government presumes to deliver the product or service desired, a market-destroying monopoly is created. When a government seeks to control a market, it diminishes the dynamic force of the consumer that's the driver of that market, by impeding the ability of the providers to respond.

Challenge the liberals to read Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations." Without understanding that, one shouldn't claim to understand capitalism, anymore than someone who hasn't read the works of Marx and Engels can claim to understand Communism.

+1 for the very appropriate Heinlein quote

Agree, and not snarky. You can't simply say: "I disagree because you're being emotional" and expect any results. I would counter with "What are the facts that you believe that make you so emotional?" You can then argue the facts; by definition you cannot argue emotions.