Do you want to live in the world of Atlas Shrugged?
Unfortunately, we already do.
More excellent analysis from Professor Burns.
Forward to friends not already familiar with Rand's work.
More excellent analysis from Professor Burns.
Forward to friends not already familiar with Rand's work.
SOURCE URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HfJ7km_SxU
Sad.....
Statists, collectivists, progressives, marxists, liberals,... whatever name they find suitable to adopt in order to obfuscate their connection to their history or true ideology they will... It is a matter of what sells best at any given point in time. Modern liberalism is far removed from traditional liberalism.
There is a great story surrounding the founders use of the terms federalist and anti-federalist shaped by this same misdirection, employed by the self named "federalists" who were in fact more nationalist.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I met another Rand biographer, Ann Heller, at the NYC Ayn Rand Meetup and the NYC Junto. Most local Objectivists seem to prefer her, Heller, to Burns I like them both.
Either Rand says this is rational, or it has to be irrational. There is no other way....
I love Ayn Rand, and I call for some flexibility in order to maybe see her vision become our reality.
I'll let the others that are reading this thread decide if I am the one that needs to 'flex' more! ;-)
To answer you, I am looking for ideas as to using what Ayn showed me in my daily world...and that world is a lot different than what goes on in here.
That means, to me, a pragmatic approach to her philosophy...not an intellectual 'got ya'!
I don't think that I am that alone in this.
She says Rand's main point is individualism. Objectivism does not start with individualism, it starts with reason and Man as Man.
she then talks about characters in AS. and she brings up early in the discussion how their creativity "contributes to society as a whole." this is not a randian concept.
the Professor does not know what capitalism really is. check 3:35. crony capitalism is really fascism-not capitalism at all.
She then confuses capitalists with businesspeople. The two are not the same at all.
Then she says capitalism is about having a "fair, honest, fight .." it is not about "fair." it is about rights. she does bring it home with several strong statements about freedom.
She skims the top of a good economic argument but that is about the depth she got the plot of the book. On society, she did not speak to altruism, reason, objective reality. I'm not sue of her goals, but society was a cornerstone of the discussion. Might she make an argument for capitalism as being the greatest good for society? She recognizes Rand would not agree to that, but she frames the entire discussion that way.
There is no reason that Reardon's selfish act of developing the next level of steel innovation could not logically "contribute to society as a whole'. Why would one exclude the other?
He could have accomplished this for his own personal interests (which he did), without any thought whatsoever as to the advancement of society as his goal. That is what happened.
Crony capitalism can definitely exist independent of Fascism. They also co-exist, but are not always one-in-the-same.
A "fair, honest, fight" assumes that rights are being honored...or it isn't either "fair", or "honest". Pretty simple.
She was not confused, and wasn't interested in parsing words.
There is no reason that Reardon's selfish act of developing the next level of steel innovation could not logically "contribute to society as a whole'. Why would one exclude the other?
Firstly there is no such entity as "society".
Secondly Readon's selfish actions benefitted other INDIVIDUALS who worked in his factories.
Thiirdly, crony capitalism, fascism and socialism are all collectivist in nature and are all the same thing regardless of the variations.
Lastly, khalling was correct that we should all define our terms so that we all know what is meant by "fair" and "honest" .
"Firstly there is no such entity as "society"."
When did this happen? Better alert Aristotle....
"Secondly Readon's selfish actions benefitted other INDIVIDUALS who worked in his factories."
And the purchasers of his metal? He promoted his metal as beneficial to any steel user...that was his vision.
"Thiirdly, crony capitalism, fascism and socialism are all collectivist in nature and are all the same thing regardless of the variations."
Man, apes, and chimpanzees are DNA connected in nature, but have some very important differences. Variations matter.
"Man, apes, and chimpanzees are DNA connected in nature, but have some very important differences. Variations matter."
Nope. There is individualism or collectivism. There is no in-between. Either we have individual rights or we do not. The last 100 plus years have demonstrated that any attempt at compromise has always diminished individual rights. And now they are almost gone.
Since you claim that there are only two possibilities (individualism or collectivism), and there is "no in-between", I challenge you to give me just one example of each that meets your own description.
AR once wrote to the effect that he who initiates the use of physical force is wrong. Ergo, when the US government adopted the 16th amendment, it was telling (A) that his income no longer belonged to him but was being seized by the collective using physical force.
There can be no such thing as a little individualism or a little collectivism. It is either-or and no in-between. We became a collectivist state in 1913.
A quote from my not-favorite philosopher, Plato, sums up my beliefs well. He wrote in his Republic that "…And this is tyranny, which both by stealth and by force takes away what belongs to others…"
How can anyone perceive a middle ground here?
You live in Rand's fictional novel, where there are no colors...just black and white. I love the novel, and the message...but I don't live between the pages, and ignore the complex world where we REALLY live. The 16th Amendment wasn't the beginning of government's taxing us for the purpose of fulfilling their obligations to the citizens.
You example of A and B closing a deal could easily be applied to taxation: we expect the government to provide certain services, and the government collects monies from us in payment. The deal is set, and both parties do their expected part.
In the 1950s, the top marginal income
tax rate was 90%. Producers produced
and the government confiscated. Is that
what you mean by "the deal is set,and
both parties do their expected part"? I believe the
producers had a government gun to their
heads and were being robbed.
Barter is normal, and crying that you are being 'robbed' just as normal...that is what makes bartering fun.
There was plenty of collectivism in AS, what are you talking about? That was the point of the book, to point it out and see it for what it is. Gov intrusion, for the "greater good" at the expense of earners. "In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." THAT, my friend, IS the gray area you keep talking about. (If good compromises with evil, then the outcome will be evil...and gray.)
Every American citizen makes demands on government. We expect to have clean water at our demand, the lights to come on when we flip the switch, the police to arrive if we call, the firemen to put my burning house out, the sewer system to git rid of what we don't want, streets that are navigable, airplanes that don't run into each other every other minute, protection from foreign barbarians looting and sacking our towns....
That is the "A" side of an example earlier.
The "B" side is the government receiving funds in return for the services. As it stands now, they are not receiving enough to supply all of the services that we demand...hence the deficit.
Your argument is that you never agreed on paying anything, even though you will not tolerate losing any of those services. By being forced to pay something, you are living in a collectivist world, and that is the end of the debate.
I say that you are demanding things without payment, and that makes you the 'looter'.
Before you get your panties all in a wad, I know that you will come back and say that you didn't mean to say that you shouldn't pay at all...but that you never got to barter about the amount.
But you have bartered, when you chose whom to represent you at the table. Fiscal conservatives have tried to tell us that there will be a reduction in services, to offset the reduction in taxes. Too few of us are OK with this...the 'looters' outshout the debate, and out-stuff the ballot boxes.
In short: nothing is as simple as the life in Galt's Gulch under the loving protection of Ayn and her magic pen. Real life can not be reduced to it has to be this, or it must be that.
Sometimes I think that some of the wonderful people that hang out in here, lose sight of the fact that we are all in love with a work of fiction, but that is 'what it is'...a fantasy world, where no one ever needs to worry about their role in life.
Ayn's 'got their back'.
Rand wrote many non fiction books by the way, and some of us have read those as well. I am not protected by her and she didn't have a magic pen...she had a thinking brain with ideas that made sense. And you talk about those who hang out in here as if you're not one of them.
A does not equal B no matter how much you want to make it so. We should have a choice in what we pay for and don't pay for...right now I'm paying for a lot of other people's stuff. I'm not a looter, I'm a lootee. And who in here thinks they shouldn't need to worry about their roll in life?? What do you really mean by that comment anyway?
I guess you missed where I suggested that you have always had a say in what you receive, and what you are charged for.
I misread nothing. You made false accusations about me and I'd like YOU to explain why you did that.
Reality is that this will take time, and there will be compromises during that trip. That was what I was trying to convey...that we can't expect to get anywhere if we are mired in some sort of 'Ayn Rand's way, or the highway' world view. We don't have the numbers, so we better have the patience and the ability to adapt!
Oh, yeah: Rand Paul would be a good beginning.
1. education. Many in this site loved the movie but have not read the book, or know about Objectivism.In here, it's fair game to be quite rigid about the intellectual argument. In here, we owe it to ourselves to not compromise. Out there-do what you need to do, but I owe it to myself to not compromise my intellectual principles.
permalinked aaaarrrrgggghhhh!
Yes, I work toward and advocate for and educate Rand's writings and philosophy. there is nothing magic about it.
Ayn's 'got their back'.
I do not understand what you mean here. Please clarify with specifics.
She is the creator of Galt's Gulch...their 'God', so to speak.
They play out their roles in her novel, as she sees fit. They have nothing to worry about, since they are actors in her mind, and they only read their parts. Any decision they make, will make sense by the ending...all by design.
'Ayn's got their back.'
Rand was giving us a parable to learn from...not to try to duplicate exactly. If that had been the cause, she surely had enough wealth to start a Gulch on her own private island.
But she didn't...and it seems to me that I witnessed her bless America, in all of it's collectivist debauchery.
"Under fascism, citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property, without freedom to act and without any of the advantages of ownership. Under socialism, government officials acquire all the advantages of ownership, without any of the responsibilities, since they do not hold title to the property, but merely the right to use it—at least until the next purge. In either case, the government officials hold the economic, political and legal power of life or death over the citizens." The Fascist New Frontier, AR
Problem with the word "fair" is it does not mean to all people that rights are respected. ie. any speech by our current president. Fair is always the word they use to avoid talking about natural rights. crony capitalism is a term used oft to SMEAR capitalism and is a contradiction in terms logically. so, I, don't want you to use it. of your own free will of course
No, she didn't.
She correctly pointed out that the producers in AS were good for the society, but the government overlooked this in their effort to bring them down. She never claimed that the producers were obligated to raise societal conditions, but that the moochers were obligated to bring the producers down...REGARDLESS of the impact on their society. Huge difference....
"What I HAVE done is paid what has been demanded of me to fund things I don't care to fund via threat of force."
This is a Republic, and the budget covers many things that don't interest you, as well as things that you like, but maybe don't interest someone else. This is not an a la carte system...where you get to pick and choose to fund only what interests you. There is no itemized tax bill that only reflects your pet peeves.
By the same token, the other tax payers are probably funding things you love, but they hate. That is the nature of being a Republic.
In AS there weren't any public services per se, so this never comes up. That works out easily, doesn't it?
Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, J. P. Morgan and Henry Ford.
I liked the atmosphere under their guise, and wonder if we were right to stifle them?
A dominant competitor is not a monopoly. There are always alternatives and competitors as long as there is not a legal barrier to entry in the market.
Ford had a dozen competitors. success in the market is not a monopoly.
The reasoning was that there needed to be a singular continuity, in order to build a nationwide network. It worked, and once the lines were in place the market was deregulated for competition's sake.
That also worked!
The railroads were almost similar, since a competing set of track gauges were fast becoming a nightmare. One company's rolling stock could not proceed on another company's lines, and so on. National interest was to build one system that had no technical barriers.
Ford almost never got going when he was dragged into court over patent violation issues. The government sided with the alleged patent holder, who demanded that Ford pay a royalty for every car built. Ford won...and 'owned' the automobile market for decades.
it was only when MCI started providing private communication lines that they were forced to look at the issue. politics of the time allowed the competition and court decision to break up. I couldn't see that happening under the current administration.
Railroads were originally all private without govt incentives. so were most of the long distance roads and canals. The canals looked like they had a "natural" monopoly, guess what? all of a sudden had to compete with private toll roads! huh. and then those roads looked to be monopolies and along come railroads! and the original telegraph lines. they were put up all over the US without govt monopoly. so it is nonsense that there was a national Need for one dominant telephone company.
First rules about modern monopolies come about in statutes of monopolies in late 1600s England. this law limited power of govt(monarchy) to hand out monopolies called "patents" (not the same) to the King's friends. These patents gave them the right to keep competitors out of a specific market. A property right (patent) is neither property rights or patents do not give you a right to an entire market. US anti-trust law turned this on its head by enhancing govt's authority to restrict people's property and contractual rights. exact opposite of statute of monopolies. US anti-trust is standard liberal sleight of hand. thank you teddy roosevelt. it is about enhancing the power of the govt and taking away peoples' natural rights.
"Monopolies can be established by a government, form naturally, or form by integration.
In many jurisdictions, competition laws restrict monopolies. Holding a dominant position or a monopoly of a market is often not illegal in itself, however certain categories of behavior can be considered abusive and therefore incur legal sanctions when a business is dominant. A government-granted monopoly or legal monopoly, by contrast, is sanctioned by the state, often to provide an incentive to invest in a risky venture or enrich a domestic interest group. Patents, copyright, and trademarks are sometimes used as examples of government granted monopolies. The government may also reserve the venture for itself, thus forming a government monopoly."
PATENTS ARE NOT MONOPOLIES.
they are property rights. Do you have a monopoly over your house? no. it is your property. In the case of patents, it is recognized for a limited time period. this must be wikipedia gone wild.
"monopoly of a market is often not illegal in itself, however certain categories of behavior can be considered abusive and therefore incur legal sanctions when a business is dominant" when a business is dominant. I guess that means evil.
Progressive much??!
See also Engel Ind. v. Lockformer Co. (“We hold that the disputed royalties provisions do not inappropriately extend the patent monopoly to unpatented parts of the patented system”); Carborundum Co. v. Molten Metal Eq. Co. (“A patentee, in demanding and receiving full compensation for the wrongful use of his invention in devices made and sold by a manufacturer adopts the sales as though made by himself, and therefore, necessarily licenses the use of the devices, and frees them from the monopoly of the patent.”)
Here are some links explaining in depth:
Patents: Monopoly or Property Right a Testable Hypothesis http://hallingblog.com/patents-monopoly-...
Monopoly/Rent Seeking vs. Property Rights/Intellectual Property http://hallingblog.com/monopolyrent-seek...
More on the Myth that Patents are Monopolies http://hallingblog.com/more-on-the-myth-...
The Myth that Patents are a Monopoly http://hallingblog.com/the-myth-that-pat...
Whatever weight is attached to the value of encouraging disclosure and of inhibiting secrecy, we believe a more compelling consideration is that a process patent in the chemical field, which has not been developed and pointed to the degree of specific utility, creates a monopoly of knowledge which should be granted only if clearly commanded by the statute. Until the process claim has been reduced to production of a product shown to be useful, the metes and bounds of that monopoly are not capable of precise delineation. It may engross a vast, unknown, and perhaps unknowable area. Such a patent may confer power to block off whole areas of scientific development, without compensating benefit to the public. The basic quid pro quo contemplated by the Constitution and the Congress for granting a patent monopoly is the benefit derived by the public from an invention with substantial utility. Unless and until a process is refined and developed to this point — where specific benefit exists in currently available form – there is insufficient justification for permitting an applicant to engross what may prove to be a broad field.
just read this bullshit! "unknowable"-I guess they're worried about a "monopoly" on God.
"without compensating benefit to the public." well that's a statement straight out of Atlas Shrugged!
You are now a 'Hooter'.
Every red blooded American dude loves a Hooter.
That means that I love you....
Since the answer followed the part you are upset about, and in my subsequent posts about your tax situation.
We wouldn't have to do this if you would just read my posts in sequence....
Fine. But we are in a budgetary system, and don't get to 'pick and choose' our tax item liabilities. Other people are paying for your choices, even if they hate them. For you to opt out of funding their favorite things is stealing from them.
"It should be a vote, by individual citizens, not up to the corrupt fed who have a separate set of rules for themselves."
Two issues, but end up in the same answer: We are NOT a democracy, and never have been. We elect individuals to represent us, and make these decisions. If we are unhappy with their choices, we vote for someone else.
Now: assuming that you pay your taxes as prescribed, you are not a looter, in my mind.
Your sorta acknowledgement that some taxes are yours to pay, helps...but if you are willing to let others pick up the budgetary tab, while you only want to contribute to your personal items, then all bets are off.
What I do NOT want to pay for is other people's needs/wants/desires: education, food, rent, pensions, retirement, healthcare, vacations, seminars, retreats, golf, easter egg hunts, stimuluses, bail outs (of ANY kind), subsidies, stipends... etc. Forced charity...I want NO part of it. What I do want to pay for is the military, police, firemen, roads, trash pick up, water, and electricity.....the same things everybody else needs, and some could be run by private companies (and some are already). And it should be my choice to pay for these or not as well....if I don't pay then I don't get the service. Oh...I was using logic there again. Sorry. (Why are all bets off if I don't want to pay for other peoples shit. I don't want them to pay for mine...)
You've 'jumped the shark', and entered into the Wonderful World of Trolling. 'Congratulations' on your side of a civil debate.
Talk to the hand....
which month of the calendar are you?
Very informative, and I am glad to be steered to it!
Thanks!