Are we allowed to cry, too?
I'll tell you, it's been tough teaching in the public schools. I went because that's where I was needed, deliberately picking some of the toughest districts I could find. I loved it. I hated it. The kids and most of the parents were a blessing. The ANGRY parents were a blessing - they just wanted to help their kids.
It was the staff and administration that was depressing.
Boy, do I have stories, I'll share them as time goes.
Now I teach private courses for parents on how to help their children become "gifted" (silly term, that, when you can get there deliberately) without all the pressure. We have such potential and the public schools never let me apply what I knew and was able to do with my own daughter (eight, reading at high school level now and LOVES reading).
Being your own boss is such a pleasure. I'm learning and I'm listening. Thank you for the encouraging words, like a hand held out to pull myself up. Pulling myself up...

To me... what you said... would make you a candidate for the gulch. A looter and/or a moocher could not have spoken so honestly (and eloquently) about their beliefs. Someone who was sapping the system for all it was worth, who regarded pull more important than Pride, who had one hand in the pocket of their supposed partner, and the other down the front of their pants to grab them by the you-know-whats, could never - NEVER - be that upfront.

Being in the gulch does not necessarily take wealth. It takes moral fiber, integrity, and courage to stand up for ones beliefs; The ability to look at something without coloring the facts, or hiding from reality, but in its bare, naked truth, to not only recognize that A=A, but feel it instinctively in your soul of souls.

You may look in a mirror - and see a broken, scattered wreck of a human, but in your writing, you show the courage of Danneskjöld, the depth of thought of Galt, and the fighting against the status quo of my hero, Dagny...

NEVER sell yourself short, for in so doing, you let the looters - the ones who would steal your soul and then sell it back to you on their terms - and the moochers who would guilt you into giving up everything you have to make them fat and lazy, win... Only if you do that, would you then affirm what you said. And I think, as a business owner and someone who has the courage to speak their mind honestly you could never do that.

we're out here, mckenzie, to save this nation for ALL
of us, especially for fine folks like you!!! -- j

Comparatively, yes.
And I've seen conservatives carrying the banner for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and equality far better than my party of late.

Naw...you're all a bunch of racist bigoted white guys...right? Sure - I can tell - it says so right here in my manual of Democratic Socialism.

Seriously - you folks help me stay a little less despairing knowing I'm not the only one noticing these things and posting them. I should keep my eyes out and do some posting as well.

Keep speaking up, all. I'm grateful for it.

If it goes over well in PR. perhaps it will gain more widespread traction. Until that happens I don't see it getting enough attention here. One can hope. :)

hey, mckenzie! a jfk Democrat is a conservative,
compared with today's Democrats!!! -- j

"Government cannot function without the taxes collected from businesses."

Actually it can, as long as it has access to a printing press (or its electronic equivalent) and willing lenders (such as the Fed).

Then I am working toward that.
I thank you for the orientation.
Working on getting it further...

Objectivism is a philosophy for living on this earth as Rand said. It is about fully loving your life and living as if you do by honoring yourself - that is by living by what you rationally conclude is the most conducive to your true well being at all levels, material and spiritual/internal. It is about living for and in your own esteem of yourself. Not by someone else's standards but by your own honest evaluation. Anyone that does that, even sincerely works toward that, imho really "gets it". Many that claim to be objectivists unfortunately imho make it too much of a head trip that doesn't get integrated all the way down to the emotional level. They make it another fancy set of oughts without really getting the main point.

Yeah, keep on shrugging!

Serving is providing something that someone else needs or wants. We move forward and produce amazing things b/c of specialization, which requires us to serve one another. We do it under some kind of threat or in a voluntary trade. There's no other choice.

I'm confused as to what this has to do with what stage of the economic cycle we're in.

And did you just say you don't think laissez faire policies had anything to do with the industrialization of the US? I must be misunderstanding something.

" I and others who have changed how we produce have asked and answered you. Myself, several times. Why do you continue to press your point?"
By changed how you produce, do you mean that you would enjoy and are capable of producing large amounts of wealth but choose to subsist b/c of the policy issues you mention in your previous post?

JFK Democrat.
Why wouldn't I?
But the party slid socialist.
Those that left the party essentially left it in the hands of the socialist and made all of the present troubles possible.
As much as I understand the idea behind Galt's Gulch, the idea is also abhorrent to me because it means abandoning civilization to those whom we essentially disagree with. I feel the same way with my party. They've gone of the rails. I haven't. I still vote and speak up for freedom as I mentioned above. You'd be surprised how often just because of that I get told I am NOT a Democrat by fellow Democrats.

Ou continually bring up the first point about production. I and others who have changed how we produce have asked and answered you. Myself, several times. Why do you continue to press your point? Manufacturing has changed in the US. I 'll bet those producers considering striking have a good relationship with their employees or that their employees value their positions within the company. We of course are speculating. However, where unions are involved, there is always another stakeholder at the table. Who does not produce but is paid to incite and stand between the employer /employee relationship. In PR, most citizens do not pay taxes. The majority of working citizens are govt employees. The territory is facing bankruptcy and companies have fled the island due to high taxes and policies. The governor (I 'm not sure what he is called there) said he was meeting bond obligations before pensions. So they are striking. What 's left? The well is dry

For what reason(s) are you a democrat?

Um...who's the lead cheerleader??

"serve" is a strange word choice. Do you mean service?

"due to favorable laissez faire policies..."
ya think?
I disagree. I might decide to change how I frame my arguments with you, since I think you are the only one on the site convinced we are in an expansion

On your last two sentences we are in perfect agreement.

I agree with most of what you say, i.e. taxes are too high, rules inhibit labor mobility.

I don't think striking will help, but of course people should do what they like.

My main problem with striking is that producing stuff sucessfully is so hard; when I hear someone is *not* producing to make a political point, I immediately question if that was the reason. People find all kinds of reasons *not* to work. Some people really will not work for a good political reason; I'm just talking about how it looks. If you're not doing to win support for the cause, then this argument doesn't matter.

A second problem is I believe the main impetus for socialism in the near future will be that automation is causing rising return on capital and falling prices of labor. This makes the "rich get richer", which leads to socialist approaches. A strike IMHO could just underscore this fact about capital vs labor and hasten the socialism. I don't have a solution to this problem, but I hope smart economists are thinking of one.

I'm where the characters were at the beginning of the book who think we can work within the system. I think someone will be leading industry and gov't, and it will be run by those who show up. AS is a warning that if it goes too far, everything can fall apart. It's a warning not to think that liberty is the normal state of human existence and it will persist without work.

The part about seeing it first-hand makes me want to read an unbiased account of how much business activity it affects b/c it's so easy to ignore something just b/c you haven't seen it personally. The US had a similar GDP to other countries at one point and grew amazingly fast; maybe it was due to favorable laissez faire policies.

That part about me personally is pointless, since it adds nothing to know whether one person is foolish and/or biased for personal reasons.

The two broad reasons people serve each other are guns or money, and when I say "free to serve" I'm talking about the latter.

I am a business owner, I understand the hard costs. My reply is to the potential employee