.... I think you got most of her view but missed a part that most people do. she said a few times when asked to clarify that she believed, my words in reasonable self interest not wild self interest. the difference being doing something that befits only you and hurts others and one that benefits you but is not overly harmful to others. the culture i grew up in understood this. with our saying "survivability takes priority". I.E. you can't save a drowning man if you are yourself drowning.
It doesn't matter if "most" Americans would prefer safety nets. The ECONOMIC argument is that these "safety nets" destroy more than they "save", but the ETHICAL argument is that they are founded on an immoral practice of property theft, force and violence. A crucial point of freedom and individualism is to spread ideas that teach people empathy and responsibility, because it's in their rational self-interest... NOT to teach people apathy and succumbing to authority, becoming devoid of empathy.
So you dismissed Objectivism based on what sounds likely to be a misrepresented/misunderstood view of what Objectivists mean by "the virtue of selfishness" - rational egoism, and even created a straw man argument against the case for removing these "safety nets", by appealing to emotions by pretty much saying Objectivism is really just for cold hearted people that don't care about those who have the least? Nonsensical. The whole video became nonsensically warped and made uneducated statements.
@serumclx ~ "one must become selfish before he can become generous". and where did you get that gem? from a magazine article called "stupid shit i just made up that doesn't make a bit of sense?
Worst thing society can do is add too much currency to the markets because it raises prices and destroys the wealth of the poor and middle class.If we lived in a truly free market there would never have been a central banking system the poor would be much better off today. In order to pay for the programs to help people we had to begin printing money which was based on debt. Income tax was created to pay the interest on money borrowed into existence. Mixing capitalism is short sighted and wrong.
@MrAtheistLibertarian ~ "to say that government prevents capitalism from polluting is nonsense and it contradicts history and reality".
except the epa stopped and cleaned up great lake pollution. it's cleaned up our air measurably, it stopped acid rain and ozone destruction, it keeps hundreds of deadly toxins out of products, it provides food and car safety, the government when not being undermined by greedy capitalists protects consumers from work place hazards, etc. etc. etc.
@tomitstube Yes, and what country is the most polluted on earth? Russia/the former Soviet Union. Why you might ask, because when you don't own the property you have much less of an incentive to keep it clean.
Free individuals have through out hisstory been the ones to find solutions to these problems. To say that the government prevents capitalism from polluting is nonsense and it contradicts history and reality. The most polluted countries in the world are the ones with more government control. Mixing government into a free market enables businesses to pollute. Government protects big business from litigation under the guise of regulation.
the milton friedman chicago university economics that steve pearlstein presents hear is nothing but propaganda refined by robber barons. the conventional wisdom of controlling ups and downs by ayn rand disciples like ronald reagan and alan greenspan have actually "slowed" the economy. some inflation stimulates growth, if you flatten inflation, the only way to make a profit is to depress wages and lay people off, which is why 30 years of reaganomics is killing us.
@tomitstube Even better? So called 'Trickle Down Economics' is just a repackage of 19th Century 'Horse and Sparrow Economics'. The theory was, "If you feed the horse enough oats, then some will make it through the horse intact and land on the road. Where the sparrows may then eat." I kid you not.....
@WhyMeMoFo ~ never heard that one, "horse and sparrow economics", pretty much the same concept as "trickle down" only cruder. the big myth only rich people create prosperity, amazing how many people buy into that "horseshit". lol, because poor people don't know how to spend money.
I think the point that you are missing is that in a society Rand would prefer, any individual would be free to pursue whatever they wanted. If a lot of individuals wanted to help out poor people and create jobs, etc., they could. It's not necessarily all about "promoting economic efficiency". It's about a society of free individuals pursuing their own interest. Interests which can certainly be helping those in need, might I add.
@laxattack5261 ~ pie in the sky. there's no such thing as a "free" market, or freely "doing what you want". everything you do has an impact on others. eg., electric companies found that if they raise their smoke stacks, their pollution (acid rain) lands 100's of miles away. what about food and drug safety? how many times have businesses put out products that kill people or pollute because profits outweigh your safety? what ayn rand advocates is complete nonsense.
Why do they assume that if we pursue capitalistic goals and want to make money for ourselves that we will just keep it for ourselves? When we let capitalism reign and people become wealthy they DONATE to charities to help the less fortunate. Doing this by force (what socialism does) is immoral. Yes, some people would not give to charity but it is their money not anyone else's. The wealth amassed by most of the population would easily take care of the needy.
@EthanE3 Why DONATE to charity when the vast majority of people would rather work instead of lying idle and taking charity? Granted, they must have jobs that allow them to support themselves, not the crappy service jobs the economy has cranked out since the tax incentives for relocating manufacturing overseas began. People, we have to MANUFACTURE. That is where the strenght and wealth of a nation comes from, not by haveing others do it for them at slave wages for a time! Wake up!
@EthanE3 "Why do they assume that if we pursue capitalistic goals and want to make money for ourselves that we will just keep it for ourselves?" Your question makes no sense. Capitalism ONLY means when the means of production and distribution are owned by and operated for Private Interests, ie Stockholders. This is the essence of Central Administration. Socialism just means that the people who work, control the workplace. That's it! A) you get a wage B) you get what you work for.
Rand's philosophies, would work...if every one were to spontaneously emerge from the rocks fully grown and educated, otherwise no it would not. However I do like the one law system "no is allow to being force"
I've always felt that a blending of philosophies would be healthier for society. It's like socialism covers one end of the spectrum and capitalism another. Both are very rigid in their philosophies and so consequently don't adapt to change very easily. What we need is a new "ism". Something a little more flexible that knows how to react to extreme changes and meets these two competing world views in the middle.
@FrankLightheart "Both are very rigid in their philosophies" Capitalism and Socialism are Economic systems, not philosophical. In A) People who don't work but 'own' keep the lions share of what is produced. They live off of 'interest, dividend and rent'. In B) People who work also control their work and that is how income is generated. There is very little 'philosophical' here.
@FrankLightheart Cheers! The Ayn Rand crowd seems intent on calling Capitalism a 'philosophy' and as an academic it just irks me to no end. But the rest of your point is not lost at all.
What?! You write "people who work....control their work and that is how income is generated," and you think that implies just a little bit of philosophical premises? What if they don't choose to respect the technology they use out of environmentalist ideology, a decision that makes their performance poor and eventually gets them terminated? That's a lot of philosophy!
Listening to the Commentator one can tell in the first sentence he is a Liberal, with his Up Tone at the end of every sentence. All liberals have the same UpTone, you hear it at the end of their sentences. Never mind what he says, you know what he's going to say by his tone, sort of like a flourish at the end. John Wayne he ain't.
@darthdad49 Almost all human beings on this planet disagree with you. On top of that, we're long past the stage in the material development of industrialism in which we can guarantee everyone the right to a job, shelter, food, education and healthcare.
@nilbud Americans agree that we have a Right to Persue Life, Liberty, and Happiness,
NOT ENTITLED, as if some big government breast is going to squirt these Attainments in our open mouths, like the Occupiers think should happen. Individual Responsibility.
@darthdad49 What did Romney, a capitalist, "create" when Bain Capital fired tens of thousands of workers, slashed business' reinvestment, loaded those businesses up with millions in debt? They created nothing but misery for communities, workers and the economy, and billion-dollar payouts to a handful of rich men.
first off, all are not moral, me and the wife, 50'000 a year , two kids, a grandbaby should be someone elseses dime, i choose, no sacrifice, a choice, no government case{could get}responsibility and accountability
I don't like being coercively harnessed. Better to game the system and take advantage of it 'cause it will take advantage of you. That's all you can really do is game the system. That and vote for freedom.
I don't like that people think I owe them something other than to pay for what I use. I'll help people out of compassion and sympathy. But if people tell me they will prosecute me if I don't help them, then all my sympathy and compassion evaporate. I don't like helping people who threaten me, no matter how rich I become or how poor they may be. I'm not rich, but I have pride enough not to envy the rich. Better to game the system and take advantage of it 'cause it will take advantage of you.
@BruceD1776 Nobody is self-made, nobody can exist on a little metaphorical island on their own. Everybody owes eachother an enormous debt. From the day you were born, you owed your mother a debt. Unfortunately, Randism breaks down there, since nobody asked you before you were born if you'd enter into a contract with your mother to be born. A 6-year-old cannot fund his or her own education, they must take on a debt from society until they graduate school at 18 or older.
@spartan2600 That's just a scam. When someone chosses to bring a child into existence, they have an obligation to support it because it was their choice. The child is born free and clear.
The education of which you speak is forced upon the child, so that the government can break and mold the child to their will. The government owes the child for oppressing it. I hated public school got thrown out and left as soon as I could. They can keep their indoctrination.
@BruceD1776 When we start working, we start paying of our massive debts we've already accrued to society by paying taxes. We also begin to start paying for our own retirements too by paying into Social Security. You have to read thousands of pages of Rand and Friedman to start hating Social Security. The average, non-objectivist human being doesn't mind paying into Social Security because they know when they retire, their hard work will be reciprocated. That's how human nature works.
@spartan2600 It's just a scam to screw you out of your life and earnings. Their is no moral debt. It's just a contrivance to control people. Give me any real moral basis for any debt. If people don't mind paying into Social Security, let them pay into it. That is their choice. Those who don't want to pay can forgo the benefits.
In practice, the "safety net" becomes a hammock, or a trampoline, or a dragnet. The % of government social spending is at least 40%. That's a lot more than a safety net.
Pearlstein is wrong. Economic insecurity comes from government intervention and the "mixed" economy specifically the Federal Reserve inflating the money supply causing booms and mal-investment which is followed by crashes as the debt comes due and capital is depleted. Government, not capitalism, causes economic instability.
If someone creates a business and makes billions for themselves then good for them. The only problems I have with unregulated capitalism is when corporations work to achieve monopolies and stifle competition. Capitalism is great because it rewards quality and lowers prices, except when perverted.
@BlindMaphisto A person who makes billions in a business hasn't done it "themselves" - they've done off all the people they've hired to make the business run. This is a flaw, because if people (as a whole) can't afford to buy back the monetary value of the products they make (as a whole), you get recession. Profits ensure recessions happen. Furthermore, capitalism actually rewards reducing the quality of your product, and raising your price whenever you can.
@dalellll A business that makes products that no one can afford is a poorly run business. Poorly run businesses fail or restructure. That's simple markets 101 and doesn't need socialism at any point there. The real hearts of capitalism are small business. They are however often over burdened by regulations written by lawyers for large corporations that benefit themselves and hurt small business which is why regulations are important but have to be sensible.
@dalellll You make it sound like they are stealing from their employees. People need jobs and they agree to a wage and benefits. If you have sour grapes about it later look for another job. That's not a flaw that's people working together. Everything else you said was equally twisted.
"if people (as a whole) can't afford to buy back the monetary value of the products they make (as a whole), you get recession" if that happens the company goes out of business. Not a recession.
I am a socialist, so I beleive in efficiency, and capitalism is fundamentally inefficient. It's not efficient to allow a minority class of owners to scoop off profits. Every dollar in profit decreases the buying power of the majority, leading to periodic wholesale destruction of wealth (recessions). It's not efficient to let markets do economic planning. Democratic control of the economy could achieve truly efficient plans & pursue other social goals - only under capitalism is this a trade-off!
@nilbud Because if we lived in a socialist nation, then the parasitic Capitalists who live on 'rent, dividend and interest' would actually have to work for a living!
@nilbud There are countless ways to define the word "socialism." The narrow, conservative definition of "socialism" is anything that is government owned. Socialists themselves never defined it that way. Historically, socialism most commonly meant worker control of the means of production. You might say that if the government owns parts of the means of production, and there is political democracy in that government, then you could say that indirectly, the workers own some of the means o produc...
@nilbud Either way, the most accurate term for a mixed economy with a welfare system is "Social Democracy." That is the model all developed nations have accepted to one degree or another. Sweden and other Scandinavian nations are the most Social-Democrat. The USA is an extremely weak Social Democracy. Only Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid keep it that way. However, the US has been moving in a neoliberal direction for the last 30+ years, that means reduced or elimination of welfare.
Atlas Shrugged resonated with me when I first read it because I was young, and still had a "F--- the world attitude," which is really what the "virtue" of selfishness boils down to. After recently re-reading, I am shocked how the book does not take into account the power of ordinary, simple folks, like all of us (admit it, you're no Hank Rearden).
you miss Rand's point completely .... Should a human being have the right to purse his or her own self interest? the point she makes is this question requires a YES or NO answer, not maybe or in some case where consensus permits ... this is an absolute
@markspqr "Should a human being have the right to purse his or her own self interest?" No one missed what she is saying. But she conveinently misses reality. Does anyone have a right to live anywhere they want on their own terms? That answer is NO. You CHOOSE to live in a place with society, that includes taxation and obligation to the community you CHOOSE. You have ZERO right to live in the bosum of society and then claim irresponsibility to it. She is a fraud and a charlatan.
and you are a fucking idiot...We've had 40 years of increased collectivism. the results of which have been devastating to the entire planet and is completely obvious to anyone w/half a brain but i'm sure that when the whole thing collapses,...fucktards like you and many other commentators here will "find a way" to blame capitalists and capitalism. wake up!.. the matrix has you
@ksknightflyer1 What are you babbling about? And why am I still sitting in the Drive-Thru. One more time, Supersize my order and stop talking to me about your nonsense, Wage Slave, or I'll be forced to complain to your manager/Master and you'll lose the highest paying job you'll ever hold.....
@ksknightflyer1 Unregulated and unrestrained capitalism is just as bad as communism. One winner-everyone else is a loser. I remember when there were so many choices of stores and doctors and banks, etc. to pick from. Now each city has the same 5 big box chains, same medical groups, etc., all screwing the consumer. We aren't enforcing our own anti-trust laws. We've let our steel industry go to China, our textiles, television and appliance makers, etc. Pfft! We will sooo regret it.
Is this the way Forward ? no its the way backwards to a system that just does not work the level of political debate in the US is just backwards ever backwards to the so called glory days of the 20th century, defunked theory's great its insane .
Libertarians profess to uphold the constitution but in a corporate environment, regulated by a "mutually agreed" contract the by-laws of the corporation gives the owners the ability to throw said constitution out the window. But of course the contract is not between equals. On one side the corporation with all the wealth. On the other the 99%, the worker, who must accept any terms, no matter how outrageous, or starve. That is NOT liberty.
@Grafight23 "Libertarians profess to uphold the constitution but in a corporate environment, regulated by a "mutually agreed" contract the by-laws of the corporation gives the owners the ability to throw said constitution out the window." And an even more pertinent point, Libertarianism has NOTHING to do with the Constitution. One more of our American perversions....
@smalzz100 And Rand was a 30 odd year drug abuser and cult leader who never 'Created' shit, as per her ordained 'Creator Class'. She was ironically, more of a 'parasite' than the working people she so despised.
The Entire idea is this: The FED! Take away the value of gold and then everyone becomes dependant on a piece of paper known as the dollar. Everyone in America depends on the government to print their lives and control the economy. Never could we use gold as a stand-alone currency ASIDE from the government. Entitlements and socialism only superimpose this idea. YOU HAVE NO LIFE WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT!
@evilbert81 "Take away the value of gold and then everyone becomes dependant on a piece of paper known as the dollar. " May I ask what universal law says that Gold has any 'worth' more than paper? This is just another arbitrary choice that some have elevated to gravity. Can you define 'Capitalism' and 'Socialism', it seems you don't understand what these terms mean....
@WhyMeMoFo Is there socialism in this country.....Yes. Is it Capitalist....Yes. It's a hybrid. Furthermore. America is one of the newest countries in the world. You have this idea like it's going to be here forever. Most likely it won't. Gold and Silver HAS BEEN the standard currency for EVERY civilization that EVER existed. No other country survived after it went off the gold standard. That's a fact. Please pull the ego away from the conversation.
@evilbert81 Let's start again. Can you please define the very basic terms, Capitalism and Socialism. I fear you don't understand what these terms mean, and it's best if we all begin on the same page. Thanks!
@WhyMeMoFo Let's not start again. I see you trolling on here asking others the same question. Why won't you take in other people's statements before you ask for rhetoric and definitions. I'm stating history and you're stating textbook.
@evilbert81 HAHA! Clearly, you have zero idea what you're talking about, and the only things cutting off conversation with me will save you is the embarrassment of your ignorance and the education I could bring you.
Capitalism: The means of Production and Distribution are owned by and operated for the benefit of private interests, ie Shareholders
Socialism: The means of P&D are owned and operated by those who do the work as well those directly effected by it, ie Stakeholders.
@evilbert81 "Furthermore. America is one of the newest countries in the world." By what standard? The Netherlands is newer, so is France, Germany, Russia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Israel, the list goes on and on and on.....
"You have this idea like it's going to be here forever." I do? News to me! How long have I had this idea?
"Gold and Silver HAS BEEN the standard currency for EVERY civilization that EVER existed." Really? Ancient Eskimos trade(d) in gold?
Yes! Self- interest IS better than welfare in a society. We all see it in the streets already. People who think that they are entitled to what you've earned instead of admiring someone who's really done something with their lives and are reaping the benefits. Human beings aren't animals as this guy would have you believe. Charities help the less fortunate and I donate every time I see the Salvation Army. Keep the Government out of my pocket and I might actually donate more.
Yes, it makes economic sense to transfer money from those with a lesser propensity(rich and upper middle class) to spend to those with a higher propensity to spend (poor and working class), because there is a resulting increase in aggregrate demand, which then increases the value of the equity that the rich/middle class own. This is basic economics, if you took an econ course in college, it's a rather simple concept that works quite well.
It’s the middle and upper middle class that must bare the cost of tax increases. So you transfer wealth from the most productive people in the economy to the industrial military complex and other large parasitic corporations while scattering a few crumbs for the poor to provide misdirection. Put rhetoric aside and think rationally, morality has nothing to do with the arguement lets look at reality.
When people hear the argument that the rich should pay more taxes, they picture some fat cat sitting around with piles of money. They dont think of the small business owner, the entrepreneur. But what they don’t understand is that the elite pay little or no taxes. They have teams of lawyers, accountants that work around the clock setting up complex trusts and company structures that turn a 100 million in profit into a 100 million in recorded loss. The elites will never pay taxes, dont be naive.
I always took Rand's philosophy to expect that men, in a completely free an intelligent society, will understand that it is logically beneficial to help others, that helping others helps the individual. I've never taken Rand's rejection of altruism to mean that people should let others die in pursuit of individual happiness. An awakened society based solely on reason will choose to help each other without being coerced or forced into doing so.
All I have to say is this: A progressive does not work because it disproportionately taxes the private sector, making it that some pay most while most pay none. I'll give you a real world example: Right now, the top 5% of Americans pay 50% of taxes while the bottom 45% pay nothing. How is this fair? The bottom 45% are mostly recieving gov't assistance which raises the tax rate because more and more will see the virtue of gov't handouts. Unemployment pays better. continued in the following coment
@heystupidopenthedoor More people will lose their job, causing more people to go on unemployment and stop looking because they're getting more money. This is not capitalism or even MIXED capitalism. Mixed capitalism does have some good and some bad, but true capitalism is better. It gives people more risk and higher reward. People are allowed to fail rather than get a bail out like the banks, GM or AIG. Those bailouts then make them property of the government. That is the start of communism.
@heystupidopenthedoor I agree with your premise but want to point out that you should not look at taxes in such a one dimensional way. Inflation deteriorates the standard of living of the poor and middle class. Government protectionist and interventionist policies reallocate wealth from the poor/middle class to entities with political influence through higher prices. You can argue these are all different forms of taxes that the lower and middle disproportional bare.
@yuuka926 The Progressive tax keeps people in poverty by allowing them to suck at the tite of the government. A Flat tax makes is so that everyone that gets gives and those that give are allowed to keep more of what they EARN. The Progressive tax does not help the economy, rather it helps the government stay funded to fund the entitlements that continue to grow and attract more people to latch on. It's wrong for the top 5% to pay 10 times what they should to cover the bottom 50%.
@WhyMeMoFo All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick
@WhyMeMoFo who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."
@WhyMeMoFo Taxes are not meant to be tools used to take from the rich forcibly and give to the poor. That is not the role of government. Now, if you're a Soviet, a North Korean, or Chineese then it is but in America it isn't. That is not what our funders set up. That you would resort to insults means you don't have a real argument. Let me know when you're ready to have an intelligent conversation devoid of such insults.
@heystupidopenthedoor "That is not what our funders set up." Says the person who can't read so well. I just put up a three part quote from Ben Franklin to Robert Morris Dec 25, 1783. You can read it yourself in context. Now it's your turn to call Ben Franklin a Communist....
@heystupidopenthedoor "Let me know when you're ready to have an intelligent conversation devoid of such insults." You mean like your name? I'm sorry, I must be irritable in my old age, but when people so clearly misrepresent, it's hard to be charitable.... But you can see what Ben Franklin said and then decide how that squares with your misconceptions...
@WhyMeMoFo Look, sir. I typed that before your comment showed up on my screen. Don't assume I'm illiterate or stupid. Before I give you a real reply, I will have to do more research so you don't leap to assumptions like that again. Don't be condescending, especially when you don't know the circumstances behind a comment, thank you.
@heystupidopenthedoor I read em as they come. It's not my responsibility to be omnipotent about the sequence of posts...
Please, take the time to read up yourself, the beginning of the Franklin letter is even more damning to those people who are drum major's for the 'Tax is Theft' cult. It certainly undercuts the 'conventional wisdom' that the FF's were ruthless capitalists.
@heystupidopenthedoor From Ben Franklin to poople like you: "All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it.....
Government cannot show compassion, only individuals can show compassion. Saying that welfare based off of taxes or inflation or borrowing is compassion is just simply wrong. Whether theft is done legally through government for a good cause or not it is still theft. People take care of eachother whether government is there or not.
@htimsrecneps There is no abstract entity with agency called 'The Government'. In the US, The Government is an abstraction of the will of the people who live under their jurisdiction. You are never forced to pay taxes or any other obligations, at least in the US. Want to know how? Get lost. Leave. Vote with your feet. You have no 'right' to live in any society, and if you don't like the terms you are free to go. But you can't stay (agree to pay) and then cry 'theft'!
@WhyMeMoFo Well if I actually own the land that I live on then telling me that I either have to pay taxes or leave is theft. Unless of course you completely don't believe in property rights then that is a whole other issue that takes more explaining. The will of the people is what the majority want, that means the minority of people are not getting what they want. Unfortunately, today the minority are those people who want freedom instead of tyranny.
@htimsrecneps "Well if I actually own the land that I live on then telling me that I either have to pay taxes or leave is theft." Really? And how per chance can you make any claim of 'ownership' outside of society? Murder everyone else who disagrees with you? In society we have a certain respect for property rights predicated upon accepting one's responsibility in that society, as society dictates, not you. In the forest, you just kill people who dispute your claim, or die.
@WhyMeMoFo In a free society the government protects property rights and you are allowed to protect your own property rights. The rights I have are not given to me by society, they are natural which mean that if society takes away my right to my property then it is theft.The only responsibility we have to society is not to take others rights away.
@htimsrecneps "In a free society the government protects property rights and you are allowed to protect your own property rights." Show me this definition somewhere besides springing from your own mind....
@WhyMeMoFo And yes, that is basically how prperty rights are established. If you take this from me, I will kill you. Thats the most practical role for government, to establish property rights so people don't kill eachother over it.
@htimsrecneps You mean you kill them or someone bigger kills you, takes your stuff and murders your family.... A MAJOR reason people band together and cooperate.
@htimsrecneps Yeah? No according to Founders like Franklin. He said ALL property, aside from the barest essentials, are ONLY products of the community. And it is the Community that has ultimate right to tell each of us what, how much and how to use our property. So according to the Intellectual Father of the Nation, you are 100% dead wrong. You've been listening to way too much propaganda from your Capitalist Masters.
@htimsrecneps "Thats odd, It contradicts what the constitution stands for and the idea of limited government." My goodness, you are just unbelievable. You have been TAUGHT one thing and stick to it so dogmatically that a fanatic would blush. Mr Franklin is saying very clearly here that we are a communal nation, here making common cause. I'm giving you fact, cited in context so you can read and see for yourself.
@htimsrecneps "But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it." But read the whole thing, it's even better!
@htimsrecneps To quote the Constitution DIRECTLY: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Notice NOTHING about free markets, individuality or Ayn Rand 'principles'. But language such as 'WELFARE'.
@WhyMeMoFo "secure the blessings of liberty" explains "promote the general welfare". The welfare of the people is promoted through liberty. liberty = free markets
@htimsrecneps I prefer real liberty. Liberty = control over your own life and working conditions. Not possible with free markets, or profiteering owners.
@htimsrecneps ""secure the blessings of liberty" explains "promote the general welfare". The welfare of the people is promoted through liberty. liberty = free markets"
It takes a willful mind to be so very ignorant of facts.
@WhyMeMoFo O definitely, i suppose you love J. M. Keynes and everything he thought. Look as East and West Germany during the cold war, look at North and South Korea, did the ones with more liberty prosper or did the ones with completely controlled markets.
@htimsrecneps Are you in a contest with other Randists to see who can say the stupidest things? it's ironic since you are part of the Ayn Rand Cult....
@htimsrecneps dream on, sunshine. Have you ever met homeless people? Oh yeah, they were all probably horribly people who deserved their fate... right.
@ALPHAHXCORE There will always be homeless people. Government welfare hasn't stopped homelessness. Actually, trying to increase home ownership artificially is what created the bubble that eventually burst and put us in this recession we have now. The poor people are the ones that benefit the most from a free society and free markets
@WhyMeMoFo Those people do not have "control" because they can not force you to buy their product. Control requires force. Only government is allowed to use force in todays world, so when companies have control it is because of government intervention.
@htimsrecneps "Those people do not have "control" because they can not force you to buy their product. Control requires force." Go read some Adam Smith, he'll explain this to you, and perhaps you need Authoritarianism to accept it..... Good luck!
@yuuka 962 So really, the Austrian School is less of an economic school and more of a moral and political doctrine--if you buy into it, that's fine, but like communism, it's fringe at best, and is not adequate in addressing real economic issues. Economic policy is not a morality play, it is used to advance a nations goals as defined by the nations social contract.
@wahdyr Propertarianism is moral doctrine, and anarchocapitalism is political doctrine. Austrian school is purely economic school, some austrians like Carl Menger weren't even laissez faire'ists.
@GompCelticPL I'm not sure if you're fully aware of the Austrian School, then. Mainstream AS uses praxeology to derive its models and assumptions, unlike mainstream economics. Read Von Mises (if you want a better understanding of the schools philosophy). But instead of reading and studying a rather useless economic system, try reading an actual economics text book. However, if you're under sway by the Austrian/objectivist doctrine, then that's your call.
@wahdyr I'm not a right libertarian myself I was just correcting your statements based on ignorance of the actual ideology. Objectivists were actually in a harsh conflict with Austrians so in your attempt to be superior you made an ignorant retard out of yourself again. You don't know fuck about the subject, don't run your mouth like a fool then.
@GompCelticPL Lol, you mad bro? You have no idea what you're talking about. Menger wrote Principles to explain his understanding of political economy, which founded the AS, lol. You say that AS is purely an economic school, I contend that it's "less of an economic school and more of a moral and political doctrine." You're an idiot, bro. I really don't think that you know much, unfortunately for your ego, and your obvious sensitivity is demonstrative of that, lol.
@wahdyr I would disagree. The Austrian School has predicted many economic bubbles that was developed under keynsian economic policy. Historically, in the 1920, recessions ended relatively quickly without govt intervention. Govt involvement distorts market values and leave business to base decisions on uncertainty. Business cannot predict what the govt is going to do next.
@wahdyr The nations social contract, which is the constitution, does not allow govt to be extensively involve with the economy. The most it could do is to tax the economy. Most of the welfare program should be unconstitutional. Govt was never meant to run our life, but to protect our liberty. Only in times of war is govt allow to make sanctions and embargoes. Private business is private property or the pursuit of happiness.
Private ownership of the means of production is actually against freedom; to advocate that is to condone the most extensive form of tyranny present in Industrial countries and around the Globe.
It seemed pretty obvious actually at the time of the civil war that wage labor was comparable to slavery; Lincoln gave a speech on that, saying that you could argue it was better than slavery ONLY IF it allows people to own and hire at their turn which obviously isn't the case.
In his time, many people owned small shops, small business and there were many owners of various kinds -- he himself specifically make a distinction between people who receive a pay and free labor, explicitly saying that at least in the North, more than 50% of people in each State constituted free labor.
Want to go further back? Say Tocqueville. Want just the title of the Chapter? "HOW AN ARISTOCRACY MAY BE CREATED BY MANUFACTURES"
Check it out for the actual details, it's the 20th chapter of the second section in his second volume of Democracy in America.
But, very simply, he argues that the division of labor gets away from men the ability to control their production and affect them to always simpler tasks. This, in turns, makes him always lesser capable to exercise his mind outside of his limited activity. And, here, it's Tocqueville not Marx who says this:
"The magnitude of the efforts required and the importance of the results to be obtained attract [wealthy men]. Thus at the very time at which the science of manufactures lowers the class of workmen, it raises the class of masters."
"Each of them fills the station which is made for him, and which he does not leave; the one is continually, closely, and necessarily dependent upon the other and seems as much born to obey as that other is to command. What is this but aristocracy?"
Do you want to know why is that so important? Because the only way you can argue in favor of freedom and assume power to be illegitimate, not self-justifying, is by saying that men are fundamentally good and that their intent is reducible to the pursuit of well-being.
But, at the very instant you do that, you seal the deal for capitalism: private ownership is a structure of authority that hands control within the hand of an unaccountable autocrat -- or else of few of them.
So, either you argue for private ownership of the means of production and against freedom or you are a libertarian socialist, but you can't defend freedom will defending corporations and economic institutions are they are. They ought to be under democratic control, not under private control, nor under State control.
@KrugmanTheKing I argue for freedom and private ownership of the means of production. After all, who gave the worker their jobs? Who owns the business? The problem with a democracy is that most people don't know what they want or how to accomplish what they want. I do not believe that business should be under a democratic control. It should be in the hands of the person taking the risk.
@rzxwm10 "The problem with a democracy is that most people don't know what they want or how to accomplish what they want." So then you think people are not right for freedom and should be ruled over by benevolent masters...such as yourself. 'Am I not merciful!" People like you, historically, have found their heads placed upon pikes and over the gates of city walls.....
@WhyMeMoFo Relax, I'm not a dictator. We can clearly see that in a democracy, the majority rule, and minority basically ignored. I think people is right for freedom, and act in their own self-interest. Only capitalism will allow a person to act in such a way. People want a job, that is the biggest issue right now. But they don't know how to get a job, much less create one. They are dependent on someone else to provide them a job. That's why we have unemployment issue: the dependency
@rzxwm10 I'm relaxed :). "Only capitalism will allow a person to act in such a way." I think you have this backwards. Social Libertarianism allows people freedom, freedom from domination from Capital owners. "They are dependent on someone else to provide them a job." Only because of the theft that is private property.
One can hardly call rent, dividend or interest 'work'. And R,D& I are the primary means of income for the highest incomes under Capitalism, not laboring or work.
@rzxwm10 Where Private Property and Capitalism goes, so goes theft, corruption and violence. Whatever the problems the Soviets had, they have very little need for street police. No one robbed each other. Murder and theft were unheard of. Why? People worked together to a certain extent. The problem of the Soviets was that at the heart of the system it was dictatorial, which is why Libertarian Socialism is the right path.
@WhyMeMoFo Believe me, I do not want to tell anyone what to do. I want to leave people on their own so they can fend for themselves. People should be able to do whatever they want so long as they do not hurt others. Fair enough? I believe in the Bills of right and private ownership. I believe in democracy over any other form of govt. I think people don't know what they want as a whole, and certainly no central planner would know that either. I argue that in a free society, we have capitalism.
@rzxwm10 Capitalism: The means of production and distribution and owned by and operated for the benefit of private interests, ie Stockholders. The highest incomes come from rent, interest and dividend.
Socialism: The means of production and distribution are owned and operated by those who do the actual work as well as those people directly effected by the processes of these institutions, ie Stakeholders. Income is derived through work and labor.
@WhyMeMoFo It's sound like people who favor socialism by this definition would be satisfy to not have a job. The incentive to start a business and hopefully become wealthy is not inherent in this definition. Why would I ever take risk for the people if it didn't promote myself?
People start businesses to make a living for themselves. Through good competitive service, they become rich. With socialism, what drives a person to want to be the best in the market? Where is the reward for innovation?
@rzxwm10 "I believe in democracy over any other form of govt." There is no higher democratic form than Lib Socialism. None. People are not merely politically enfranchised, but economically as well.
"I think people don't know what they want as a whole, and certainly no central planner would know that either." Corporations are the epitome of central planning.....
"I argue that in a free society, we have capitalism." Except it always leads to inequity and violence... not too free.
.... I think you got most of her view but missed a part that most people do. she said a few times when asked to clarify that she believed, my words in reasonable self interest not wild self interest. the difference being doing something that befits only you and hurts others and one that benefits you but is not overly harmful to others. the culture i grew up in understood this. with our saying "survivability takes priority". I.E. you can't save a drowning man if you are yourself drowning.
demonwalker01 2 days ago
According to Ayn Rand's philosophy, if you want to help the poor no one will stop you. Government stealing your earnings is wicked.
whyyesyes 2 days ago
It doesn't matter if "most" Americans would prefer safety nets. The ECONOMIC argument is that these "safety nets" destroy more than they "save", but the ETHICAL argument is that they are founded on an immoral practice of property theft, force and violence. A crucial point of freedom and individualism is to spread ideas that teach people empathy and responsibility, because it's in their rational self-interest... NOT to teach people apathy and succumbing to authority, becoming devoid of empathy.
dradeel 2 days ago
So you dismissed Objectivism based on what sounds likely to be a misrepresented/misunderstood view of what Objectivists mean by "the virtue of selfishness" - rational egoism, and even created a straw man argument against the case for removing these "safety nets", by appealing to emotions by pretty much saying Objectivism is really just for cold hearted people that don't care about those who have the least? Nonsensical. The whole video became nonsensically warped and made uneducated statements.
dradeel 2 days ago
everyone puts themselves first no matter what. its human nature to ensure your own survival.
birdliz 2 days ago
his writers seem to be very leftist ....
TheJasonDR 2 days ago
One must become selfish before he can become generous. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it .
serumclx 3 days ago
@serumclx ~ "one must become selfish before he can become generous". and where did you get that gem? from a magazine article called "stupid shit i just made up that doesn't make a bit of sense?
tomitstube 2 days ago
@tomitstube A good man does not argue, and An arguer is a trolly. So I say GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR!
serumclx 22 hours ago
It depends what your definition of selfishness. As wanting a better life for oneself selfishness.
serumclx 3 days ago
To the maker of this video, you clearly do not understand Ayn Rand, her philosophy or the ideas behind Atlas Shrugged. Please try again.
MaScotheneyfield 3 days ago
Worst thing society can do is add too much currency to the markets because it raises prices and destroys the wealth of the poor and middle class.If we lived in a truly free market there would never have been a central banking system the poor would be much better off today. In order to pay for the programs to help people we had to begin printing money which was based on debt. Income tax was created to pay the interest on money borrowed into existence. Mixing capitalism is short sighted and wrong.
MrAtheistLibertarian 3 days ago
@MrAtheistLibertarian ~ "to say that government prevents capitalism from polluting is nonsense and it contradicts history and reality".
except the epa stopped and cleaned up great lake pollution. it's cleaned up our air measurably, it stopped acid rain and ozone destruction, it keeps hundreds of deadly toxins out of products, it provides food and car safety, the government when not being undermined by greedy capitalists protects consumers from work place hazards, etc. etc. etc.
tomitstube 3 days ago
@tomitstube Yes, and what country is the most polluted on earth? Russia/the former Soviet Union. Why you might ask, because when you don't own the property you have much less of an incentive to keep it clean.
engineman2050 2 days ago
@engineman2050 ~ the biggest polluters are china and america.
tomitstube 2 days ago
Free individuals have through out hisstory been the ones to find solutions to these problems. To say that the government prevents capitalism from polluting is nonsense and it contradicts history and reality. The most polluted countries in the world are the ones with more government control. Mixing government into a free market enables businesses to pollute. Government protects big business from litigation under the guise of regulation.
MrAtheistLibertarian 3 days ago
the milton friedman chicago university economics that steve pearlstein presents hear is nothing but propaganda refined by robber barons. the conventional wisdom of controlling ups and downs by ayn rand disciples like ronald reagan and alan greenspan have actually "slowed" the economy. some inflation stimulates growth, if you flatten inflation, the only way to make a profit is to depress wages and lay people off, which is why 30 years of reaganomics is killing us.
tomitstube 4 days ago
@tomitstube Even better? So called 'Trickle Down Economics' is just a repackage of 19th Century 'Horse and Sparrow Economics'. The theory was, "If you feed the horse enough oats, then some will make it through the horse intact and land on the road. Where the sparrows may then eat." I kid you not.....
WhyMeMoFo 4 days ago
@WhyMeMoFo ~ never heard that one, "horse and sparrow economics", pretty much the same concept as "trickle down" only cruder. the big myth only rich people create prosperity, amazing how many people buy into that "horseshit". lol, because poor people don't know how to spend money.
tomitstube 3 days ago
I think the point that you are missing is that in a society Rand would prefer, any individual would be free to pursue whatever they wanted. If a lot of individuals wanted to help out poor people and create jobs, etc., they could. It's not necessarily all about "promoting economic efficiency". It's about a society of free individuals pursuing their own interest. Interests which can certainly be helping those in need, might I add.
laxattack5261 4 days ago
@laxattack5261 ~ pie in the sky. there's no such thing as a "free" market, or freely "doing what you want". everything you do has an impact on others. eg., electric companies found that if they raise their smoke stacks, their pollution (acid rain) lands 100's of miles away. what about food and drug safety? how many times have businesses put out products that kill people or pollute because profits outweigh your safety? what ayn rand advocates is complete nonsense.
tomitstube 4 days ago
Economic efficiency made US more wealthy than ZSRR. Sarcasm: What a greedy bastards!
Btw. I think u truly are v. smart.
kulo891 4 days ago
Why do they assume that if we pursue capitalistic goals and want to make money for ourselves that we will just keep it for ourselves? When we let capitalism reign and people become wealthy they DONATE to charities to help the less fortunate. Doing this by force (what socialism does) is immoral. Yes, some people would not give to charity but it is their money not anyone else's. The wealth amassed by most of the population would easily take care of the needy.
EthanE3 5 days ago
@EthanE3 Why DONATE to charity when the vast majority of people would rather work instead of lying idle and taking charity? Granted, they must have jobs that allow them to support themselves, not the crappy service jobs the economy has cranked out since the tax incentives for relocating manufacturing overseas began. People, we have to MANUFACTURE. That is where the strenght and wealth of a nation comes from, not by haveing others do it for them at slave wages for a time! Wake up!
gumb4nhl 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EthanE3 "Why do they assume that if we pursue capitalistic goals and want to make money for ourselves that we will just keep it for ourselves?" Your question makes no sense. Capitalism ONLY means when the means of production and distribution are owned by and operated for Private Interests, ie Stockholders. This is the essence of Central Administration. Socialism just means that the people who work, control the workplace. That's it! A) you get a wage B) you get what you work for.
WhyMeMoFo 5 days ago
Rand's philosophies, would work...if every one were to spontaneously emerge from the rocks fully grown and educated, otherwise no it would not. However I do like the one law system "no is allow to being force"
fullmetal515 5 days ago
I've always felt that a blending of philosophies would be healthier for society. It's like socialism covers one end of the spectrum and capitalism another. Both are very rigid in their philosophies and so consequently don't adapt to change very easily. What we need is a new "ism". Something a little more flexible that knows how to react to extreme changes and meets these two competing world views in the middle.
FrankLightheart 6 days ago
@FrankLightheart "Both are very rigid in their philosophies" Capitalism and Socialism are Economic systems, not philosophical. In A) People who don't work but 'own' keep the lions share of what is produced. They live off of 'interest, dividend and rent'. In B) People who work also control their work and that is how income is generated. There is very little 'philosophical' here.
WhyMeMoFo 5 days ago
@WhyMeMoFo Point taken. "philosophy" was a poor choice of words. "Economic system" is much more accurate.
FrankLightheart 4 days ago
@FrankLightheart Cheers! The Ayn Rand crowd seems intent on calling Capitalism a 'philosophy' and as an academic it just irks me to no end. But the rest of your point is not lost at all.
WhyMeMoFo 4 days ago
@WhyMeMoFo Well thanks.
Honestly, I get moments were I'm just at a loss for a vocabulary.
FrankLightheart 4 days ago
@WhyMeMoFo
What?! You write "people who work....control their work and that is how income is generated," and you think that implies just a little bit of philosophical premises? What if they don't choose to respect the technology they use out of environmentalist ideology, a decision that makes their performance poor and eventually gets them terminated? That's a lot of philosophy!
ClovenHoovedWorld 4 days ago
@ClovenHoovedWorld Terminated from what? I'm not sure you understand what 'philosophy' is in precise terms....
WhyMeMoFo 4 days ago
2478 people are dirty ayn rand fans
Alan123123123 6 days ago 2
Listening to the Commentator one can tell in the first sentence he is a Liberal, with his Up Tone at the end of every sentence. All liberals have the same UpTone, you hear it at the end of their sentences. Never mind what he says, you know what he's going to say by his tone, sort of like a flourish at the end. John Wayne he ain't.
oiytouy 1 week ago
just sit there, do nothing, where's "anything" coming from?
darthdad49 1 week ago
just because your born , dos'nt mean your entitled to something
darthdad49 1 week ago
@darthdad49 Almost all human beings on this planet disagree with you. On top of that, we're long past the stage in the material development of industrialism in which we can guarantee everyone the right to a job, shelter, food, education and healthcare.
spartan2600 1 week ago
@darthdad49 What about your entitlement to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. You are a descendent of slave owners with that attitude.
nilbud 1 week ago
@nilbud Americans agree that we have a Right to Persue Life, Liberty, and Happiness,
NOT ENTITLED, as if some big government breast is going to squirt these Attainments in our open mouths, like the Occupiers think should happen. Individual Responsibility.
got it?
oiytouy 1 week ago
@oiytouy Ahh you're a fuckwit, I get it.
nilbud 1 week ago
@oiytouy Are you just another dumb white person? Your Capitalist Masters must be very pleased to have such a devoted Dog.
WhyMeMoFo 6 days ago
memofo, liberals regulate, capitalist create
darthdad49 1 week ago
@darthdad49 What did Romney, a capitalist, "create" when Bain Capital fired tens of thousands of workers, slashed business' reinvestment, loaded those businesses up with millions in debt? They created nothing but misery for communities, workers and the economy, and billion-dollar payouts to a handful of rich men.
spartan2600 1 week ago
first off, all are not moral, me and the wife, 50'000 a year , two kids, a grandbaby should be someone elseses dime, i choose, no sacrifice, a choice, no government case{could get}responsibility and accountability
darthdad49 1 week ago
@darthdad49 It's a pity you didn't choose to learn english.
nilbud 1 week ago
fail
90jmt 1 week ago
I don't like being coercively harnessed. Better to game the system and take advantage of it 'cause it will take advantage of you. That's all you can really do is game the system. That and vote for freedom.
BruceD1776 1 week ago
I don't like that people think I owe them something other than to pay for what I use. I'll help people out of compassion and sympathy. But if people tell me they will prosecute me if I don't help them, then all my sympathy and compassion evaporate. I don't like helping people who threaten me, no matter how rich I become or how poor they may be. I'm not rich, but I have pride enough not to envy the rich. Better to game the system and take advantage of it 'cause it will take advantage of you.
BruceD1776 1 week ago
@BruceD1776 its too late for that. if you're paid taxes at any time in your life, its too late.
AhYaOk 1 week ago
@BruceD1776 Nobody is self-made, nobody can exist on a little metaphorical island on their own. Everybody owes eachother an enormous debt. From the day you were born, you owed your mother a debt. Unfortunately, Randism breaks down there, since nobody asked you before you were born if you'd enter into a contract with your mother to be born. A 6-year-old cannot fund his or her own education, they must take on a debt from society until they graduate school at 18 or older.
spartan2600 1 week ago
@spartan2600 That's just a scam. When someone chosses to bring a child into existence, they have an obligation to support it because it was their choice. The child is born free and clear.
The education of which you speak is forced upon the child, so that the government can break and mold the child to their will. The government owes the child for oppressing it. I hated public school got thrown out and left as soon as I could. They can keep their indoctrination.
BruceD1776 1 week ago
@BruceD1776 When we start working, we start paying of our massive debts we've already accrued to society by paying taxes. We also begin to start paying for our own retirements too by paying into Social Security. You have to read thousands of pages of Rand and Friedman to start hating Social Security. The average, non-objectivist human being doesn't mind paying into Social Security because they know when they retire, their hard work will be reciprocated. That's how human nature works.
spartan2600 1 week ago
@spartan2600 It's just a scam to screw you out of your life and earnings. Their is no moral debt. It's just a contrivance to control people. Give me any real moral basis for any debt. If people don't mind paying into Social Security, let them pay into it. That is their choice. Those who don't want to pay can forgo the benefits.
BruceD1776 1 week ago
Comment removed
nilbud 1 week ago
In practice, the "safety net" becomes a hammock, or a trampoline, or a dragnet. The % of government social spending is at least 40%. That's a lot more than a safety net.
Pearlstein is wrong. Economic insecurity comes from government intervention and the "mixed" economy specifically the Federal Reserve inflating the money supply causing booms and mal-investment which is followed by crashes as the debt comes due and capital is depleted. Government, not capitalism, causes economic instability.
BruceD1776 1 week ago
@BruceD1776 That's such ignorant horseshit. Looks like you should have spent more time in school.
nilbud 1 week ago
@nilbud What's ignorant about it?
BruceD1776 1 week ago
@BruceD1776 Bruce, you're whole worthless line is ignorant. Did I not school you enough Dimwit?
WhyMeMoFo 6 days ago
If someone creates a business and makes billions for themselves then good for them. The only problems I have with unregulated capitalism is when corporations work to achieve monopolies and stifle competition. Capitalism is great because it rewards quality and lowers prices, except when perverted.
BlindMaphisto 1 week ago
@BlindMaphisto A person who makes billions in a business hasn't done it "themselves" - they've done off all the people they've hired to make the business run. This is a flaw, because if people (as a whole) can't afford to buy back the monetary value of the products they make (as a whole), you get recession. Profits ensure recessions happen. Furthermore, capitalism actually rewards reducing the quality of your product, and raising your price whenever you can.
dalellll 1 week ago
@dalellll A business that makes products that no one can afford is a poorly run business. Poorly run businesses fail or restructure. That's simple markets 101 and doesn't need socialism at any point there. The real hearts of capitalism are small business. They are however often over burdened by regulations written by lawyers for large corporations that benefit themselves and hurt small business which is why regulations are important but have to be sensible.
BlindMaphisto 1 week ago
@dalellll You make it sound like they are stealing from their employees. People need jobs and they agree to a wage and benefits. If you have sour grapes about it later look for another job. That's not a flaw that's people working together. Everything else you said was equally twisted.
"if people (as a whole) can't afford to buy back the monetary value of the products they make (as a whole), you get recession" if that happens the company goes out of business. Not a recession.
BlindMaphisto 1 week ago
I am a socialist, so I beleive in efficiency, and capitalism is fundamentally inefficient. It's not efficient to allow a minority class of owners to scoop off profits. Every dollar in profit decreases the buying power of the majority, leading to periodic wholesale destruction of wealth (recessions). It's not efficient to let markets do economic planning. Democratic control of the economy could achieve truly efficient plans & pursue other social goals - only under capitalism is this a trade-off!
dalellll 1 week ago
Thank you for this clip!
FoolieFishing 1 week ago
Mixed Capitalism my ass it's socialism why are so many yanks terrified of the word.
nilbud 1 week ago
@nilbud Because if we lived in a socialist nation, then the parasitic Capitalists who live on 'rent, dividend and interest' would actually have to work for a living!
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
@nilbud There are countless ways to define the word "socialism." The narrow, conservative definition of "socialism" is anything that is government owned. Socialists themselves never defined it that way. Historically, socialism most commonly meant worker control of the means of production. You might say that if the government owns parts of the means of production, and there is political democracy in that government, then you could say that indirectly, the workers own some of the means o produc...
spartan2600 1 week ago
@nilbud Either way, the most accurate term for a mixed economy with a welfare system is "Social Democracy." That is the model all developed nations have accepted to one degree or another. Sweden and other Scandinavian nations are the most Social-Democrat. The USA is an extremely weak Social Democracy. Only Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid keep it that way. However, the US has been moving in a neoliberal direction for the last 30+ years, that means reduced or elimination of welfare.
spartan2600 1 week ago
Hurrrr durrrrr.
StatelessLiberty 1 week ago
Atlas Shrugged resonated with me when I first read it because I was young, and still had a "F--- the world attitude," which is really what the "virtue" of selfishness boils down to. After recently re-reading, I am shocked how the book does not take into account the power of ordinary, simple folks, like all of us (admit it, you're no Hank Rearden).
TheCoughlm 1 week ago 2
@TheCoughlm
I'll admit it, I'm not some tool who gives his wife a necklace made of railway metal. What a fucking tool.
leeharveyosmosis 1 week ago 2
you miss Rand's point completely .... Should a human being have the right to purse his or her own self interest? the point she makes is this question requires a YES or NO answer, not maybe or in some case where consensus permits ... this is an absolute
markspqr 1 week ago
@markspqr "Should a human being have the right to purse his or her own self interest?" No one missed what she is saying. But she conveinently misses reality. Does anyone have a right to live anywhere they want on their own terms? That answer is NO. You CHOOSE to live in a place with society, that includes taxation and obligation to the community you CHOOSE. You have ZERO right to live in the bosum of society and then claim irresponsibility to it. She is a fraud and a charlatan.
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago 2
and you are a fucking idiot...We've had 40 years of increased collectivism. the results of which have been devastating to the entire planet and is completely obvious to anyone w/half a brain but i'm sure that when the whole thing collapses,...fucktards like you and many other commentators here will "find a way" to blame capitalists and capitalism. wake up!.. the matrix has you
ksknightflyer1 6 days ago
@ksknightflyer1 What are you babbling about? And why am I still sitting in the Drive-Thru. One more time, Supersize my order and stop talking to me about your nonsense, Wage Slave, or I'll be forced to complain to your manager/Master and you'll lose the highest paying job you'll ever hold.....
WhyMeMoFo 6 days ago
@ksknightflyer1 Unregulated and unrestrained capitalism is just as bad as communism. One winner-everyone else is a loser. I remember when there were so many choices of stores and doctors and banks, etc. to pick from. Now each city has the same 5 big box chains, same medical groups, etc., all screwing the consumer. We aren't enforcing our own anti-trust laws. We've let our steel industry go to China, our textiles, television and appliance makers, etc. Pfft! We will sooo regret it.
gumb4nhl 5 days ago
@markspqr No it isn't you simpleton.
nilbud 1 week ago
Dog eat dog a system first invented by the Dinosaurs i think , wow how the human race has progressed .
woofalot13 1 week ago
Is this the way Forward ? no its the way backwards to a system that just does not work the level of political debate in the US is just backwards ever backwards to the so called glory days of the 20th century, defunked theory's great its insane .
woofalot13 1 week ago
Pretentious loser, much?
budgallant 1 week ago
Libertarians profess to uphold the constitution but in a corporate environment, regulated by a "mutually agreed" contract the by-laws of the corporation gives the owners the ability to throw said constitution out the window. But of course the contract is not between equals. On one side the corporation with all the wealth. On the other the 99%, the worker, who must accept any terms, no matter how outrageous, or starve. That is NOT liberty.
Grafight23 1 week ago
@Grafight23 "Libertarians profess to uphold the constitution but in a corporate environment, regulated by a "mutually agreed" contract the by-laws of the corporation gives the owners the ability to throw said constitution out the window." And an even more pertinent point, Libertarianism has NOTHING to do with the Constitution. One more of our American perversions....
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
Objectivism is the biggest load of shit "philosophy" ever. Ayn Rand didn't practice what she preached--she took Social Security and Medicare.
smalzz100 1 week ago
@smalzz100 And Rand was a 30 odd year drug abuser and cult leader who never 'Created' shit, as per her ordained 'Creator Class'. She was ironically, more of a 'parasite' than the working people she so despised.
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
The Entire idea is this: The FED! Take away the value of gold and then everyone becomes dependant on a piece of paper known as the dollar. Everyone in America depends on the government to print their lives and control the economy. Never could we use gold as a stand-alone currency ASIDE from the government. Entitlements and socialism only superimpose this idea. YOU HAVE NO LIFE WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT!
evilbert81 1 week ago
@evilbert81 "Take away the value of gold and then everyone becomes dependant on a piece of paper known as the dollar. " May I ask what universal law says that Gold has any 'worth' more than paper? This is just another arbitrary choice that some have elevated to gravity. Can you define 'Capitalism' and 'Socialism', it seems you don't understand what these terms mean....
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
@WhyMeMoFo Is there socialism in this country.....Yes. Is it Capitalist....Yes. It's a hybrid. Furthermore. America is one of the newest countries in the world. You have this idea like it's going to be here forever. Most likely it won't. Gold and Silver HAS BEEN the standard currency for EVERY civilization that EVER existed. No other country survived after it went off the gold standard. That's a fact. Please pull the ego away from the conversation.
evilbert81 1 week ago
@evilbert81 Let's start again. Can you please define the very basic terms, Capitalism and Socialism. I fear you don't understand what these terms mean, and it's best if we all begin on the same page. Thanks!
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
@WhyMeMoFo Let's not start again. I see you trolling on here asking others the same question. Why won't you take in other people's statements before you ask for rhetoric and definitions. I'm stating history and you're stating textbook.
evilbert81 1 week ago
@evilbert81 HAHA! Clearly, you have zero idea what you're talking about, and the only things cutting off conversation with me will save you is the embarrassment of your ignorance and the education I could bring you.
Capitalism: The means of Production and Distribution are owned by and operated for the benefit of private interests, ie Shareholders
Socialism: The means of P&D are owned and operated by those who do the work as well those directly effected by it, ie Stakeholders.
Dolt.
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@evilbert81 "Furthermore. America is one of the newest countries in the world." By what standard? The Netherlands is newer, so is France, Germany, Russia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Israel, the list goes on and on and on.....
"You have this idea like it's going to be here forever." I do? News to me! How long have I had this idea?
"Gold and Silver HAS BEEN the standard currency for EVERY civilization that EVER existed." Really? Ancient Eskimos trade(d) in gold?
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
Yes! Self- interest IS better than welfare in a society. We all see it in the streets already. People who think that they are entitled to what you've earned instead of admiring someone who's really done something with their lives and are reaping the benefits. Human beings aren't animals as this guy would have you believe. Charities help the less fortunate and I donate every time I see the Salvation Army. Keep the Government out of my pocket and I might actually donate more.
evilbert81 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes, it makes economic sense to transfer money from those with a lesser propensity(rich and upper middle class) to spend to those with a higher propensity to spend (poor and working class), because there is a resulting increase in aggregrate demand, which then increases the value of the equity that the rich/middle class own. This is basic economics, if you took an econ course in college, it's a rather simple concept that works quite well.
wahdyr 1 week ago
Comment removed
wahdyr 1 week ago
It’s the middle and upper middle class that must bare the cost of tax increases. So you transfer wealth from the most productive people in the economy to the industrial military complex and other large parasitic corporations while scattering a few crumbs for the poor to provide misdirection. Put rhetoric aside and think rationally, morality has nothing to do with the arguement lets look at reality.
yuuka926 1 week ago
When people hear the argument that the rich should pay more taxes, they picture some fat cat sitting around with piles of money. They dont think of the small business owner, the entrepreneur. But what they don’t understand is that the elite pay little or no taxes. They have teams of lawyers, accountants that work around the clock setting up complex trusts and company structures that turn a 100 million in profit into a 100 million in recorded loss. The elites will never pay taxes, dont be naive.
yuuka926 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I always took Rand's philosophy to expect that men, in a completely free an intelligent society, will understand that it is logically beneficial to help others, that helping others helps the individual. I've never taken Rand's rejection of altruism to mean that people should let others die in pursuit of individual happiness. An awakened society based solely on reason will choose to help each other without being coerced or forced into doing so.
Crust218 1 week ago
Comment removed
Crust218 1 week ago
All I have to say is this: A progressive does not work because it disproportionately taxes the private sector, making it that some pay most while most pay none. I'll give you a real world example: Right now, the top 5% of Americans pay 50% of taxes while the bottom 45% pay nothing. How is this fair? The bottom 45% are mostly recieving gov't assistance which raises the tax rate because more and more will see the virtue of gov't handouts. Unemployment pays better. continued in the following coment
heystupidopenthedoor 1 week ago
@heystupidopenthedoor More people will lose their job, causing more people to go on unemployment and stop looking because they're getting more money. This is not capitalism or even MIXED capitalism. Mixed capitalism does have some good and some bad, but true capitalism is better. It gives people more risk and higher reward. People are allowed to fail rather than get a bail out like the banks, GM or AIG. Those bailouts then make them property of the government. That is the start of communism.
heystupidopenthedoor 1 week ago
@heystupidopenthedoor I agree with your premise but want to point out that you should not look at taxes in such a one dimensional way. Inflation deteriorates the standard of living of the poor and middle class. Government protectionist and interventionist policies reallocate wealth from the poor/middle class to entities with political influence through higher prices. You can argue these are all different forms of taxes that the lower and middle disproportional bare.
yuuka926 1 week ago
@yuuka926 The Progressive tax keeps people in poverty by allowing them to suck at the tite of the government. A Flat tax makes is so that everyone that gets gives and those that give are allowed to keep more of what they EARN. The Progressive tax does not help the economy, rather it helps the government stay funded to fund the entitlements that continue to grow and attract more people to latch on. It's wrong for the top 5% to pay 10 times what they should to cover the bottom 50%.
heystupidopenthedoor 1 week ago
Comment removed
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
@WhyMeMoFo All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
@WhyMeMoFo who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
@WhyMeMoFo Taxes are not meant to be tools used to take from the rich forcibly and give to the poor. That is not the role of government. Now, if you're a Soviet, a North Korean, or Chineese then it is but in America it isn't. That is not what our funders set up. That you would resort to insults means you don't have a real argument. Let me know when you're ready to have an intelligent conversation devoid of such insults.
heystupidopenthedoor 1 week ago
@heystupidopenthedoor "That is not what our funders set up." Says the person who can't read so well. I just put up a three part quote from Ben Franklin to Robert Morris Dec 25, 1783. You can read it yourself in context. Now it's your turn to call Ben Franklin a Communist....
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
@heystupidopenthedoor "Let me know when you're ready to have an intelligent conversation devoid of such insults." You mean like your name? I'm sorry, I must be irritable in my old age, but when people so clearly misrepresent, it's hard to be charitable.... But you can see what Ben Franklin said and then decide how that squares with your misconceptions...
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
@WhyMeMoFo Look, sir. I typed that before your comment showed up on my screen. Don't assume I'm illiterate or stupid. Before I give you a real reply, I will have to do more research so you don't leap to assumptions like that again. Don't be condescending, especially when you don't know the circumstances behind a comment, thank you.
heystupidopenthedoor 1 week ago
@heystupidopenthedoor I read em as they come. It's not my responsibility to be omnipotent about the sequence of posts...
Please, take the time to read up yourself, the beginning of the Franklin letter is even more damning to those people who are drum major's for the 'Tax is Theft' cult. It certainly undercuts the 'conventional wisdom' that the FF's were ruthless capitalists.
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
@heystupidopenthedoor From Ben Franklin to poople like you: "All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it.....
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
Government cannot show compassion, only individuals can show compassion. Saying that welfare based off of taxes or inflation or borrowing is compassion is just simply wrong. Whether theft is done legally through government for a good cause or not it is still theft. People take care of eachother whether government is there or not.
htimsrecneps 2 weeks ago 2
@htimsrecneps Completely argee.
yuuka926 1 week ago
@htimsrecneps There is no abstract entity with agency called 'The Government'. In the US, The Government is an abstraction of the will of the people who live under their jurisdiction. You are never forced to pay taxes or any other obligations, at least in the US. Want to know how? Get lost. Leave. Vote with your feet. You have no 'right' to live in any society, and if you don't like the terms you are free to go. But you can't stay (agree to pay) and then cry 'theft'!
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
@WhyMeMoFo Well if I actually own the land that I live on then telling me that I either have to pay taxes or leave is theft. Unless of course you completely don't believe in property rights then that is a whole other issue that takes more explaining. The will of the people is what the majority want, that means the minority of people are not getting what they want. Unfortunately, today the minority are those people who want freedom instead of tyranny.
htimsrecneps 1 week ago
@htimsrecneps "Well if I actually own the land that I live on then telling me that I either have to pay taxes or leave is theft." Really? And how per chance can you make any claim of 'ownership' outside of society? Murder everyone else who disagrees with you? In society we have a certain respect for property rights predicated upon accepting one's responsibility in that society, as society dictates, not you. In the forest, you just kill people who dispute your claim, or die.
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
@WhyMeMoFo In a free society the government protects property rights and you are allowed to protect your own property rights. The rights I have are not given to me by society, they are natural which mean that if society takes away my right to my property then it is theft.The only responsibility we have to society is not to take others rights away.
htimsrecneps 1 week ago
@htimsrecneps "In a free society the government protects property rights and you are allowed to protect your own property rights." Show me this definition somewhere besides springing from your own mind....
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
@WhyMeMoFo And yes, that is basically how prperty rights are established. If you take this from me, I will kill you. Thats the most practical role for government, to establish property rights so people don't kill eachother over it.
htimsrecneps 1 week ago
@htimsrecneps You mean you kill them or someone bigger kills you, takes your stuff and murders your family.... A MAJOR reason people band together and cooperate.
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
@WhyMeMoFo Exactly, but the purpose people band together is so that they can help protect eachothers wealth, not to redistribute it.
htimsrecneps 1 week ago
@htimsrecneps Yeah? No according to Founders like Franklin. He said ALL property, aside from the barest essentials, are ONLY products of the community. And it is the Community that has ultimate right to tell each of us what, how much and how to use our property. So according to the Intellectual Father of the Nation, you are 100% dead wrong. You've been listening to way too much propaganda from your Capitalist Masters.
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
@WhyMeMoFo Would you mind showing me where you found that quote.
htimsrecneps 1 week ago
@htimsrecneps With pleasure. You can search out "Ben Franklin to Robert Morris Dec 25, 1783".
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
@WhyMeMoFo Thats odd, It contradicts what the constitution stands for and the idea of limited government.
htimsrecneps 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@htimsrecneps "Thats odd, It contradicts what the constitution stands for and the idea of limited government." My goodness, you are just unbelievable. You have been TAUGHT one thing and stick to it so dogmatically that a fanatic would blush. Mr Franklin is saying very clearly here that we are a communal nation, here making common cause. I'm giving you fact, cited in context so you can read and see for yourself.
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
@htimsrecneps "But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it." But read the whole thing, it's even better!
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
@WhyMeMoFo I read all of it. That one statement contradicted his whole life's work
htimsrecneps 1 week ago
@htimsrecneps To quote the Constitution DIRECTLY: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Notice NOTHING about free markets, individuality or Ayn Rand 'principles'. But language such as 'WELFARE'.
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
@WhyMeMoFo "secure the blessings of liberty" explains "promote the general welfare". The welfare of the people is promoted through liberty. liberty = free markets
htimsrecneps 1 week ago
@htimsrecneps I prefer real liberty. Liberty = control over your own life and working conditions. Not possible with free markets, or profiteering owners.
dalellll 1 week ago
@dalellll I can't tell if you are serious or not.
htimsrecneps 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@htimsrecneps ""secure the blessings of liberty" explains "promote the general welfare". The welfare of the people is promoted through liberty. liberty = free markets"
It takes a willful mind to be so very ignorant of facts.
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
@WhyMeMoFo O definitely, i suppose you love J. M. Keynes and everything he thought. Look as East and West Germany during the cold war, look at North and South Korea, did the ones with more liberty prosper or did the ones with completely controlled markets.
htimsrecneps 1 week ago
@htimsrecneps Are you in a contest with other Randists to see who can say the stupidest things? it's ironic since you are part of the Ayn Rand Cult....
Keep slurping Rand's Juice!
WhyMeMoFo 6 days ago
@htimsrecneps dream on, sunshine. Have you ever met homeless people? Oh yeah, they were all probably horribly people who deserved their fate... right.
ALPHAHXCORE 1 week ago
@ALPHAHXCORE There will always be homeless people. Government welfare hasn't stopped homelessness. Actually, trying to increase home ownership artificially is what created the bubble that eventually burst and put us in this recession we have now. The poor people are the ones that benefit the most from a free society and free markets
htimsrecneps 1 week ago
I'm from Sweden where we have a mix of capitalism and sociallism, my view is simpy this:
Capitalism is like fire, very helpfull and valiuble if YOU (the consumers) have control, lack of control will cause FIRE
serialdad 2 weeks ago
@serialdad Free markets create prosperity, trying to control markets just reduces prosperity.
htimsrecneps 1 week ago
@htimsrecneps There is no such thing as free markets, just different levels of control by Capital owners.
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
@WhyMeMoFo Those people do not have "control" because they can not force you to buy their product. Control requires force. Only government is allowed to use force in todays world, so when companies have control it is because of government intervention.
htimsrecneps 1 week ago
@htimsrecneps "Those people do not have "control" because they can not force you to buy their product. Control requires force." Go read some Adam Smith, he'll explain this to you, and perhaps you need Authoritarianism to accept it..... Good luck!
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
anyone who has read atlas shrugged would know that the scenario in the book is exactly where this country is headed thanks to Obama's socialist ways
jcman13 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
wahdyr 2 weeks ago
@yuuka 962 So really, the Austrian School is less of an economic school and more of a moral and political doctrine--if you buy into it, that's fine, but like communism, it's fringe at best, and is not adequate in addressing real economic issues. Economic policy is not a morality play, it is used to advance a nations goals as defined by the nations social contract.
wahdyr 2 weeks ago
@wahdyr Propertarianism is moral doctrine, and anarchocapitalism is political doctrine. Austrian school is purely economic school, some austrians like Carl Menger weren't even laissez faire'ists.
GompCelticPL 2 weeks ago
@GompCelticPL I'm not sure if you're fully aware of the Austrian School, then. Mainstream AS uses praxeology to derive its models and assumptions, unlike mainstream economics. Read Von Mises (if you want a better understanding of the schools philosophy). But instead of reading and studying a rather useless economic system, try reading an actual economics text book. However, if you're under sway by the Austrian/objectivist doctrine, then that's your call.
wahdyr 2 weeks ago
@wahdyr I'm not a right libertarian myself I was just correcting your statements based on ignorance of the actual ideology. Objectivists were actually in a harsh conflict with Austrians so in your attempt to be superior you made an ignorant retard out of yourself again. You don't know fuck about the subject, don't run your mouth like a fool then.
GompCelticPL 2 weeks ago
@GompCelticPL Lol, you mad bro? You have no idea what you're talking about. Menger wrote Principles to explain his understanding of political economy, which founded the AS, lol. You say that AS is purely an economic school, I contend that it's "less of an economic school and more of a moral and political doctrine." You're an idiot, bro. I really don't think that you know much, unfortunately for your ego, and your obvious sensitivity is demonstrative of that, lol.
wahdyr 2 weeks ago
@wahdyr I would disagree. The Austrian School has predicted many economic bubbles that was developed under keynsian economic policy. Historically, in the 1920, recessions ended relatively quickly without govt intervention. Govt involvement distorts market values and leave business to base decisions on uncertainty. Business cannot predict what the govt is going to do next.
rzxwm10 2 weeks ago
@wahdyr The nations social contract, which is the constitution, does not allow govt to be extensively involve with the economy. The most it could do is to tax the economy. Most of the welfare program should be unconstitutional. Govt was never meant to run our life, but to protect our liberty. Only in times of war is govt allow to make sanctions and embargoes. Private business is private property or the pursuit of happiness.
rzxwm10 2 weeks ago
@rzxwm10
Private ownership of the means of production is actually against freedom; to advocate that is to condone the most extensive form of tyranny present in Industrial countries and around the Globe.
It seemed pretty obvious actually at the time of the civil war that wage labor was comparable to slavery; Lincoln gave a speech on that, saying that you could argue it was better than slavery ONLY IF it allows people to own and hire at their turn which obviously isn't the case.
KrugmanTheKing 2 weeks ago
@rzxwm10
In his time, many people owned small shops, small business and there were many owners of various kinds -- he himself specifically make a distinction between people who receive a pay and free labor, explicitly saying that at least in the North, more than 50% of people in each State constituted free labor.
Want to go further back? Say Tocqueville. Want just the title of the Chapter? "HOW AN ARISTOCRACY MAY BE CREATED BY MANUFACTURES"
KrugmanTheKing 2 weeks ago
@rzxwm10
Check it out for the actual details, it's the 20th chapter of the second section in his second volume of Democracy in America.
But, very simply, he argues that the division of labor gets away from men the ability to control their production and affect them to always simpler tasks. This, in turns, makes him always lesser capable to exercise his mind outside of his limited activity. And, here, it's Tocqueville not Marx who says this:
KrugmanTheKing 2 weeks ago
@rzxwm10
"The magnitude of the efforts required and the importance of the results to be obtained attract [wealthy men]. Thus at the very time at which the science of manufactures lowers the class of workmen, it raises the class of masters."
"Each of them fills the station which is made for him, and which he does not leave; the one is continually, closely, and necessarily dependent upon the other and seems as much born to obey as that other is to command. What is this but aristocracy?"
KrugmanTheKing 2 weeks ago
@rzxwm10
Do you want to know why is that so important? Because the only way you can argue in favor of freedom and assume power to be illegitimate, not self-justifying, is by saying that men are fundamentally good and that their intent is reducible to the pursuit of well-being.
But, at the very instant you do that, you seal the deal for capitalism: private ownership is a structure of authority that hands control within the hand of an unaccountable autocrat -- or else of few of them.
KrugmanTheKing 2 weeks ago
@rzxwm10
So, either you argue for private ownership of the means of production and against freedom or you are a libertarian socialist, but you can't defend freedom will defending corporations and economic institutions are they are. They ought to be under democratic control, not under private control, nor under State control.
KrugmanTheKing 2 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing I argue for freedom and private ownership of the means of production. After all, who gave the worker their jobs? Who owns the business? The problem with a democracy is that most people don't know what they want or how to accomplish what they want. I do not believe that business should be under a democratic control. It should be in the hands of the person taking the risk.
rzxwm10 1 week ago
@rzxwm10 "The problem with a democracy is that most people don't know what they want or how to accomplish what they want." So then you think people are not right for freedom and should be ruled over by benevolent masters...such as yourself. 'Am I not merciful!" People like you, historically, have found their heads placed upon pikes and over the gates of city walls.....
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
@WhyMeMoFo Relax, I'm not a dictator. We can clearly see that in a democracy, the majority rule, and minority basically ignored. I think people is right for freedom, and act in their own self-interest. Only capitalism will allow a person to act in such a way. People want a job, that is the biggest issue right now. But they don't know how to get a job, much less create one. They are dependent on someone else to provide them a job. That's why we have unemployment issue: the dependency
rzxwm10 1 week ago
@rzxwm10 I'm relaxed :). "Only capitalism will allow a person to act in such a way." I think you have this backwards. Social Libertarianism allows people freedom, freedom from domination from Capital owners. "They are dependent on someone else to provide them a job." Only because of the theft that is private property.
One can hardly call rent, dividend or interest 'work'. And R,D& I are the primary means of income for the highest incomes under Capitalism, not laboring or work.
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
@rzxwm10 Where Private Property and Capitalism goes, so goes theft, corruption and violence. Whatever the problems the Soviets had, they have very little need for street police. No one robbed each other. Murder and theft were unheard of. Why? People worked together to a certain extent. The problem of the Soviets was that at the heart of the system it was dictatorial, which is why Libertarian Socialism is the right path.
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
@WhyMeMoFo Believe me, I do not want to tell anyone what to do. I want to leave people on their own so they can fend for themselves. People should be able to do whatever they want so long as they do not hurt others. Fair enough? I believe in the Bills of right and private ownership. I believe in democracy over any other form of govt. I think people don't know what they want as a whole, and certainly no central planner would know that either. I argue that in a free society, we have capitalism.
rzxwm10 1 week ago
@rzxwm10 Capitalism: The means of production and distribution and owned by and operated for the benefit of private interests, ie Stockholders. The highest incomes come from rent, interest and dividend.
Socialism: The means of production and distribution are owned and operated by those who do the actual work as well as those people directly effected by the processes of these institutions, ie Stakeholders. Income is derived through work and labor.
Which allows people to be free?
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
@WhyMeMoFo It's sound like people who favor socialism by this definition would be satisfy to not have a job. The incentive to start a business and hopefully become wealthy is not inherent in this definition. Why would I ever take risk for the people if it didn't promote myself?
People start businesses to make a living for themselves. Through good competitive service, they become rich. With socialism, what drives a person to want to be the best in the market? Where is the reward for innovation?
rzxwm10 1 week ago
@rzxwm10 "There's no difference between renting yourself and selling yourself."
Adam Smith: "The man whose whole life is spent in performing a
few simple operations....generally becomes
as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to
become." p637 WoN
Aristotle: "all paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind"
"With socialism, what drives a person to want to be the best in the market?" Paradigm Shift, you know 'innovation'!
"Where is the reward for innovation?" Itself.
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago
@rzxwm10 "I believe in democracy over any other form of govt." There is no higher democratic form than Lib Socialism. None. People are not merely politically enfranchised, but economically as well.
"I think people don't know what they want as a whole, and certainly no central planner would know that either." Corporations are the epitome of central planning.....
"I argue that in a free society, we have capitalism." Except it always leads to inequity and violence... not too free.
WhyMeMoFo 1 week ago