Ayn Rand was a moron who thought she could survive on her own genius but when cancer threatened to wipe out the little bit of wealth she managed to put away for her old age she changed her name and applied for welfare benefits. The queen of the Libertarians, a stupid bitch preaching to the ignorant. She had a modicum of success on her own but like other so called self made successes, when she failed and she turned to the state to keep her ass off the street.
Are you crazy? People become CORRUPT! Sure businesses wants profit, but they become corrupt pursuing that profit. Even in Atlas Shrugged James Taggart was corrupt. For all the Dagny Taggarts and Reardens we are surrounded by far more James Taggarts.
Just goes to show you that Ayn was right about the Libertarians, at least as a movement. They use her ideas - badly handled - and yes, denigrate and insult her all the way through. If these men are the future, we're all in trouble.
I once met with Robert Poole Jr. when he visited Hawaii during my stint as Chairman of the Libertarian Party in Hi for 9 years. I found him to be a man of integrity and reason, but after seeing Katherine Mangu-Ward's ridiculous comments on Ron Paul, I believe Jordan Page's lyrics "The enemies of Freedom are cleverly disguised," now applies - it makes me sad to say - to Reason Magazine.
Another asshole calling facts "conspiracy theories" because you either dont know what you are talking about or you sympathize with these people. I guess we are at war with all Israel's enemies because of weapons of mass destruction too right? So I must be an anti-semite white supremist right? LOL Typical.. No you are right Israel has no influence on US policy....Your ignorance is boring...
Ideals are important, as they are shaped by your principles. If you don't follow what you stand for you become a liberal and a hypocrite. I for one, used to separate my principles from my life until I saw the importance of applying them and living it. I feel fantastic, and have had no regrets.
Ayn Rand is a fiction... her name was Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum... another jewish bullshit trap for the intellectual set... why do they change their names to anglo names...? that ought to explain everything...
just like MIke Wallace... real name Myron Leon Wallechinsky... who interviewed her for broadcasting... people haven't a clue about who controls the media...
@CrackerJackLee Well she was pro-business and most jews do run businesses. That's why, for the most part, they supported her ideas. Until she would speak about free markets and the necessity for competition in a marketplace, is when these big companies disagreed. Big companies do not enjoy competition for the fear of being dethroned by the next best thing.
@CrackerJackLee What it explains is a lack of familiarity of history. Immigrants, especially those from Eastern and Southern European countries, routinely altered their names when they came to the US. It wasn't some sort of evil plot. It was a defensive measure so as not being treated poorly by the narrowminded amongst the native population in the country they were immigrating to.
then why do they still do it...? do you think you're talking to punks...? (why do liars always claim to know more about history than the rest of us...?) just use your basic computer skills to discover that the entirety of hollywood has fake names and fake noses... even their children use new fake names while their parents present them as "talented" hollywood "stars"... and seeing as you raised the point of "familiarity", aren't we all getting a little familiar with these games...?
all of the russians, ukrainians and romanians that i've met have kept their family names... what are these "media" and "entertainment" moguls hiding...?
@CrackerJackLee Entirety? Hyperbole much? Immigrants used to change their names for a reason, people in Hollywood change their names and their noses and boobs et al for a reason. That does not mean those reasons are the same. It also doesn't mean they're dissimilar. Many feel that it is easier to change their names or their appearances than deal with narrowminded fools who allow personal bigotry to cloud their minds.
LOL! go back and read what i wrote... and stop being so pedantic... attacking people based on semantics... when you're so dull that you haven't any point... you're talkin' and talkin' but you ain't sayin' nothin'... how can i respond to you when you keep repeating the same thing in different words... you're like a hooker who changes her clothes after every trick... different package, same smell...
jews hide by using a false name... that's how all hollywood stars hide the fact that you can't work there if you're not a jew... marlon brando exposed them and was chastized... same goes for the media and publishers... and don't make me laugh... they still change their names... yet they are not under privileged... that makes it deceitful...
@CrackerJackLee Many immigrants change their names. Even non-Jewish Hollywood stars do it. Unless you think Martin Sheen's a Jew. That doesn't make it deceitful. It just means they feel they'd be better off changing their names to, in part, deal with people with small minds.
non-jewish hollywood stars...? really...? who's that...? mel gibson? and i would never change my name for any reason... for some inbred ethic groups, names mean nothing... they change their names like you would a condom... speaking of hollywood and music... have you ever seen such a bunch of un-talented ethnic changed-named bobbed-nose people in your entire life...? they're all the spoiled untalented offspring of an inner hollywood ethnic clique...
What if it was entirely Jewish? I doubt it's more than 5% so, I don't know and don't care though I hear that early film makers were often Jewish which I don't find hugely significant in any way. The only way you can take the wind out of the sails of these conspiracy theorists is to say, it's *irrelevant* whether bankers are Jewish, it's irrelevant whether 9/11 was orchestrated by the US State, what matters is property rights and the security against Statist means, end of.
@InfernalApocalypse Obviously it's Jewish-run. I mean, Jews are depicted as cheap or as zero-sex-appeal accountants while all races except for male middle to upper class American WASPs are portrayed as negative stereotypes or objects - clearly it's those damn dirty kosher bastards! Couldn't be anyone else!
@AshillaBeige Funny how every bad guy on TV is a racist white male or a blonde haired corrupt judge. Give me a fucking break. You are talking out of your fucking ass.How many films have been made about "the Halocaust" like the rest of the world was having cookies and tea while the Jews suffered during WW2. Millions more Gentiles died in WW2 than Jews. Hitler was the grandson of a Rothschild!!! Funny but the Rothschilds founded Isreal too. Don't hear about that one on the History channel do ya?
@InfernalApocalypse Uh... is is true you idiot. Go look at the names of the CEOs of just about every single movie house in Hollywood. Just because someone screams "anti-Semite" every time you state the fact doesnt mean its not true, because it is. They get their money from our good ole Jewish banking system that treats them with great favor. I suppose you will say that Jews don't control the central banks either? Go ahead make me laugh...lol
Whether or not that's true, it wasn't CrackerJackLee's thesis. He insists there aren't any non-Jewish actors in Hollywood. Indeed, much of the upper echelons of the behind-the-scenes aspects of Hollywood (financing, creative direction, etc.) are populated by Jews...but it makes little difference. They got their by working their ass off, and they stay there not by alienating consumers with long-winded stories about the Tabernacle. Stop drinking the kool-aid.
@InfernalApocalypse Oh yes and the rest of us don't work as hard, right? SO naive. Bullshit! It is because they have direct access to money via the corrupt central banking system which is also run by Zionists with an agenda. I live in NYC and have worked for the biggest banks in the world as well as for three member banks of the Federal Reserve WITH A HIGH LEVEL SECURITY CLEARANCE. I know what the fuck I'm talking about ..you dont. I will say though that the problem is Zionism not "Jews"
By all means, point out to me where I said that no one else worked hard. I really doubt you had high levels of security clearance if you can barely read, or put together a cohesive argument, or not let your emotions get the best of you.
@InfernalApocalypse Well, I took offense to your little "dpn't drink the cool aid" comment. If you want to call me a Liar thats fine. I was a Marine Corp 6333- Aviation electrician. I had good clearance in the Marine Corps and transfered that over to a civilian company that serviced all the big banks and most big government agencies. I guess the argument is over since you offered no rebuke except to call me a liar...oh and apparently my sentence structure and emotional content is weak...you win!
Give me a break; you came out of the gate calling me a naive idiot. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Put forward an argument that makes sense, support it with evidence, address actual arguments rather than straw men, and consider not lashing out at people right off the bat. Maybe then you won't have to be called an idiot.
Oh and for the record: plenty of people who have the same credentials as yours do not buy into the ZOG conspiracies. Frankly I'm a lot more willing to trust them; mostly because they don't froth at the mouth when they find someone who has the audacity to disagree with them.
True conservatism (the conservation of the principles of the founding of the United States of America) does not fit the stereotype of conservatism, and is indistinguishable from true libertarianism. Ron Paul is a great guy, but dead wrong on foreign policy unfortunately. The leaders of those movements DO want to kill us because we are free, precisely. Further, there is no such thing as "Muslim lands", nor Cherokee nor Jewish, for that matter. There is 1 rightful gov- 1 based on individual rights
At this point Australia and New Zealand are more free than the United States, yet they are not hated by Muslims.
It's more reasonable to think that Muslims hate the U.S. because they occupy what Muslims consider their Holy Land, and because they meddle in their politics, supporting puppets such as the former Shah.
I think the extremists who do hate the U.S. because of ideology are a minority. They are likely able to recruit far more due to the U.S. occupation.
"They are able to recruit" is my point. They- the ones who hate us because we're free- are the leaders of their movement.
All tribal cultures die, because they are not based on individual freedoms. but on collective control.
Australia and New Zealand were targeted in the Bali bombings, further.
"what they consider their Holy Land" is not holy, it's just land. This is true of Israel and of Mecca. Dirt is dirt, and god didn't give any specific dirt to any genetic strain.
Often Muslims hate the U.S. because they live under dictatorships, that rob their people blind and wreck their economies, which then proceed to scapegoat other countries (Israel and U.S.) in order to lay blame outside the regime and keep the people under constant fear of their "enemy". Ditto for dictators the world over: shall we list them?
That being said, considering the current situation, the U.S. should probably nuke the hell out of Iran since it's far too late to reverse things in any case.
Come on Erik, don't be conned by the neo-cons. They've never even read the Constitution, how can they know what the principle of individual liberty entails.
Remember, they take your money to go to war. Some you may agree with, but doesn't it really piss you off when you don't?
Coercion is not the way the forefathers intended us to lead, it was by our example of what the individual liberty to profit from your labor can bring to a society as a whole...
@brazenhubris Yeah, because Germany and Japan needs our permanent military bases to protect them right? Bombing people into liking U.S. won't work, Dr. Paul just understands that where neo-cons like yourself don't.
When Pol Pot marched into Pnom Penh, I wish there had been someone there to kill them all.
The calvary doesn't come for a lot of people, and we can't be the calvary for everyone, but when people like you characterize fighting evil communists and socialist-fascsists as "bombing people into liking the US", it betrays your true character. Dr. Paul and you are oblivious to the fact that the US exists for defense of liberty.
Well, when American sentiment is so strong as to go to war for a given cause, there are Constitutional channels for that. Congress, since the 70's, has done what they usually do, shirk their limited responsibilities and actually DECLARE war. Dr. Paul simply condemns the haphazard waging of war/conflicts/skirmishes and understands the consequences of occupying other people's countries. If Venezuela was occupying your hometown, wouldn't you try to blow them back to where they came from?
Glad people like you don't run our Federal government; oh wait, they do.
Since when being logical about how to increase our wealth as a nation make you a pussy? Spending $10,000 a bomb or $1mil per soldier on the ground isn't the way...
In addition, our forefathers only allowed for a standing Federal Navy in the Constitution. Armies were to be mustered from State militias at said order of Congress. And since America had vast coastal borders, they saw only a standing Navy fit for defense. Since not much has changed geographically, I tend to agree.
Quit trying to claim Constitutional high-ground from an intellectual low-ground.
We've got bigger problems here in the UK. When the majority of the working population are in state employment and in receipt of state benefits, it's a system hard to dismantle.
@NickDiPerna very true indeed, here in the states the problem i believe we face is the altruistic entitlement mentality that if one looses their employment state benefits are expected. Ayn Rand stated in an old interview that these types of welfare states are unsustainable and eventually fail. The real problem is the thought process of the herd not the herder that confines them.
One thing I have always liked about Rand, She said what she meant. She did not hide behind flowery words and mixed meanings. She was direct and to the point.
I don't like Rand. I don't dislike her either. I just have some minor issues with the philosophy of objectivism. Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Here Rand and I agree completely. Objectivism is a political and personal philosophy that I agree with on some points and dramatically disagree with on others.
Though I do respect Rand. She herself has been critical of things she believed in or other followers there of. She'd want me to be critical of her too, I think.
I am reading these comments and I just dont get it. Freedom is a natural law and once you start to ignore it perversion starts to permeate any system. A bunch of mumbo jumbo below without meaningful thread!
Capitalism is simply keeping what you worked for, and people were willing to pay for it and support it. Socialism is people living off what you worked for, and its demise is when people realize they don't have to work to receive, which is already happening here in the US. Capitalism works as long as its free to compete and not monopolized. Government control over free market is illegal as it too is a monopoly. Ron Paul is only disliked for not wanting our soldiers to die for elitist agendas.
I randomly picked up a copy of Reason at work and read it on a slow night. It was the beginning of my journey to being a hybrid conservative/ libertarian.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Opinion polling of Paultards? Hmm...wonder how much higher the rates of Asperger's sufferers would've tested.
Mayoclinic says symptoms include:
*Showing an intense obsession with 1 or 2 specific, narrow subjects, such as [Ayn Rand's horrible fiction, rtwing libertarianism], train schedules, or snakes
***Appearing not to understand, empathize with or be sensitive to others' feelings [obviously the big giveaway indicator]
you know, its amazing how people who have a problem with Ron Paul really only rely exclusively on personal insults - rather than debating actual principles.
I think the ignorance in your comment is ironic, because it's exactly the type of thing Jim Taggart would say.
sez you: its amazing how people who have a problem with Ron Paul...rely exclusively on personal insults..."
I believe the phrase is "beneath contempt"-- the ideas are just Galbraith's 'superior justification-seeking'. Bunk.
More amazing is how you robots gloss over the following: 'radical-for-capitalism' perennially finds zero support outside of a boutique embubblement of doughy middle class 'burb-dwellers.
Reason, Inc has a nice little niche to cater to...with self-help lit for pricks.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"It seems what you are saying is...what matters is who believes in [elite ideas]."
Yes, I'm saying that (& that righty libertarian "ideas" are ahistorical sophistry, "beneath contempt").
Paul is a politician, you may have noticed...& this a society where the popular vote is, cancers & all, a not insignificant part. But Paultards are a minority share of a lily-white minority conservatism.
There is no such thing as market tyranny. There is however government tyranny. That is when government controls everything like schools, banks, car companies, and so on. That's when people suffer and die. If a lot of people believe in bullshit doesn't mean it's any less bullshit.
While somewhat correct, I think a simpler way of putting it is there is no such thing as tyranny of competitors and always a tyranny of the Monopoly. Companies technically can be just as corrupt as the government in theory, but the reason they usually aren't is because of competition. Government is always tyrannical because of its monopoly status.
"(& that righty libertarian "ideas" are ahistorical sophistry,)
It's ironic that you say this. I don't know if you know anything about the last ten thousand years or so of human civilization but the basic pattern has been statism failing. So I'm not going to defend my convictions until you tell me how this time is the exception. How is the bankrupt debt financed welfare and warfare state and rapidly depreciating currency going to survive the next century?
The idea of libertarianism is basically that people should be able to do as they damn well please, and reap the consequences of their doing.
The fact that Ron Paul holds the title of being a congressman or that his supporters are a minority does not have any significance on the merit of his or their principles.
These labels are entirely beside the point. You may classify people as you wish - but you're fooling yourself if you think that it has any rational basis of argument.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Any system that would resort to enslaving human beings in pursuit of profit is absolutely abominable. A system based on property is a system based on serfdom. Period.
Capitalism, at it's core, is a system based on owning yourself and, by extension, the property and labor of yourself. Any philosophy which does not recognize the fact of self-ownership and absolute property rights must promote the subjugation of people to some degree. The denial of self-ownership is typically within the realm of government, and gets worse as government grows, further limiting people's liberties.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Capitalism, at it's core, is a system based on capital. How this capital is acquired is often of little to no concern and the labor it's subjected to is devalued at a constant. Any system that divides production from it's producer will promote the subjugation of people to some degree. The denial of this is typically within the realm of egoist rationale and gets worse as the consolidation of resources grows. Making life for the majority of living people...rather sucky.
Really, TruthDevours? Capitalism makes life "sucky"? Would you rather live in a piece of shit socialist country where one does not work for one's own self but rather works for the majority? I don't know about you, but I'd say capitalism has done a pretty goddamn good job of making life NOT "sucky." Do you even realize how fucking stupid you sound?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
LoL. Jesus, Mag.
Limbic system.
Diaper.
Do the math.
I don't mind sparring with FOAU. But the discourse between us is useless. I'm just going to keep insulting you in ways you can barely understand. Jerk off to some Rothbard and call it a day.
Mogadishu. A few civil wars in the early 90's and now all surviving warlords are enjoying the fruits of other people's labor. Accumulation via dispossession.
"Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalias service sector has managed to survive and grow Mogadishus main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets. Hotels continue to operate, and militias provide security." - CIA Factbook
"Somalia implemented a foreign investment law last year which is another step in the government's efforts to encourage private sector development. If the new law is adhered to, an investor could reap substantial profits, reports the U.S. Embassy in Mogadishu. Investment opportunities exist in oil exploration, agriculture, livestock and fisheries joint ventures, shipping, tourism, and light manufacturing." - Business America
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
War. Dispossession. Peace. And now profit. In 20 years socialists in Mogadishu will probably be having the same conversation about who owns property, who actually does the work, and who profits in the end.
All the violence aside, ownership isn't productive. Only matter, energy, and ideas provide us with what we have. Owning a copper deposit doesn't extract it for industrial use. What are your thoughts on this?
owning shoes doesn't win a marathon. point is owning a copper mine doesn't oblige one to mine the copper.
the point of ownership is that ppl keep the fruits of their labor. if I choose not to extract copper from my own mine then I'll get nothing. If you force me to do it so you can have copper for your industrial concers you've made me a slave.
ownership and capitalism are more about human rights than industrial production. capitalist economies are more productive b/c they put people first.
In my opinion, anyone can claim anything they want, they just have to have the consent of others, that is, until they actually produce something of value, i.e. inject their labor into the land so that what comes of that land could not have existed without that person's labor.
Just claiming a copper mine, though, that sounds wrong to me, like claiming a stream or tree. How else are you going to identify ownership?
You're close. Anyone can claim anything as long as they have the force to enforce it.
African Gov'ts claim ownership of elephants, but poachers are still killing them.
Now, in a society, we use thought and will often recognize and help enforce others claims to something. Sadly, the thoughts people use are not always rational or moral thoughts, and we wind up with people 'claiming' the labor of others. That's what Socialism is all about.
As terrible as what people are going through in Somalia, it sounds like things are actually getting better.
"Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalias service sector has managed to survive and grow Mogadishus main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets."
Sounds like anarchy to me. And no taxes? What could be better. What do you think about it?
I do think ownership is productive, though. Just a sound bite answer (500 char limit): "Tragedy of the commons."
"As terrible as what people are going through in Somalia, it sounds like things are actually getting better."
For who? At what cost? Things might be getting better in Iraq. Does that justify a foreign country absorbing 90% of it's oil profits through violence? Thousands killed in the process. I'm positive you don't support that. You don't see the same tyranny in Somalia?
Just from your quotes, I see it withering away rather than increasing. When violence goes down and trade goes back up, that's when I see freedom increasing. We can't say that the violence was preferable to no violence, but the lessening violence is absolutely preferable to continuing or increasing violence.
But that's my entire point. Violence. Dispossession. Peace. And now capitalists both foreign and domestic profitting off the labor of others. The entire premise of exchange is based on violence. And now those, once in possession of the subjects of labor, are working for capitalists in exchange for portions of their own property.
It's like charging you rent to live in your own house. You're ok with this?
Sorry, just to be clear: you're an anarcho-socialist, right? I just want to be sure because you're describing exactly what government does. Making violence claims upon other people and their property is the exact opposite of capitalism. That's the product of government. If that's what's going on, then it's not good.
But you could easily say that, if socialism was coming about, that it required the same slaughter. It would literally be violence, dispossession, and then peace.
I'm a technocratic socialist. I don't associate myself with anarchism. I like the way most of it sounds just not sure what it *is*.
"But you could easily say that, if socialism was coming about, that it required the same slaughter."
You really could. And that sucks. This is happening in Venezuela and it's terrible. I'm all for expropriation of abandoned factories and absent land ownership. But murder should avoided at all costs.
Hrm. I have to ask though, what do you propose as an alternative to capitalism?
Clearly you don't want to be a 'wage slave' (the term you are looking for) to a few privileged suits. Nor do I want to be the slave of some expansive state, which often sides with those few privileged suits (and likewise will ultimately seek out only its own betterment or profit, whatever benefits the state over whatever benefits the individual).
I guess what I am asking is, "Are you Lenin or are you Kaplan?"
I guess I'd just like to see a pure demand and supply economy with cognitive and physical labor representing bargaining power. An economy that reflects people exchaning labor, not property.
If I design a bridge and sell the idea to workers in exchange for goods or services, my level of bargaining power continges on how much they need my service, not my property. If I just own the materials needed to build the bridge that's more like a ransom.
property and materials consist of matter, and are generated through labor, the exertion of personal energy. Value is a marginal assessment of property. It is purely aesthetic.
By materials, I mean the subjects of labor. Nickel isn't a product of labor. It's a subject of labor. If you claim ownership over more nickel than you are currently extracting, you're claiming ownership of a subject of labor (capitalism), not ownership of the production of your own labor (socialism).
People do exchange labor, to an extent. In of itself exchanging a service for another service is a capitalist thing... you are trading one good (goods not necessarily being properties) for another.
Perhaps asking "Are you Lenin or Kaplan" wasn't the right way to pose my question. Are you a Marx (Lenin) or a Bakunin (Kaplan)? You sound like the later.
Though I think part of the problem here is that some of us have different definitions of what capitalism is. It isn't greed for me.
The alternative these people are looking for is everything for "free". They want government housing, food, and jobs (maybe jobs), clothes, etc. Its all gonna be free because our blessed Uncle Sam and his church choir will provide it for them. I am purely evil and would like to build my own destiny and work toward my own goals uninterrupted by anyone wearing a suit and tie telling me I owe them anything because someone I don't know legislated it. Long live the evils of capitalism and freedom!lol
Ownership is a motivator for labor and occasionally, innovation. If I own a copper mine, I am motivated to use my labor to extract copper and sell it or sell the mine. Owning, say, a garden, motivates the production of lawn mowers, pots, shears, sprinklers etc. as well as engages a gardener in exchanged for money, food or pleasure. Without ownership there is no incentive to clean, improve, employ, buy or sell. When no one owns something, it is ignored, abused or left to rot.
In terms of maintenance over the subjects of labor, you've conflated ownership with stewardship. Plenty of dilapidated buildings still have owners waiting to turn a profit out of them. Plenty of people clean beaches they don't own. In terms of innovation or motivation, needs necessitate change. I don't have to own a drug manufacturing company to innovate a drug therapy. And guys like Einstein and Tesla lacked profit motivation almost completely.
There are exceptions to every rule, and of course there are those who make very poor business decisions. But most of the time, and by far, the best kept properties are privately owned, where as "government housing" is synonymous with poor maintenance and crime. Plenty of people might clean a beach they don't own...but people are far less likely to litter their own beach. The best maintained roads in Florida, for example, are the ones on Disney property.
As far as innovation, you are wrong. Tesla, brilliant though he was, was a terrible businessman and tore up his contract with Westinghouse in sweet, but foolhardy solidarity. Edison, (who employed Tesla at one point) had a profit motive and employed thousands of people. And if I am a brilliant biochemist, and I own stock in the Company, its in my best interest to develop the best drug their is. Ownership is not everything, but its a hell of a motivator.
I'm right about Tesla. He discovered alternating current, an enormous leap in electronic engineering. His business tact was lacking, because he lacked profit motivation. He also designed the The Wardenclyffe Tower. This was partly financed by JP Morgan:
"When Morgan wanted to know 'Where can I put the meter?' Tesla had no answer. Tesla's vision of free power did not agree with Morgan's worldview"
Plenty of solutions result in a loss of profit. Like sustainable energy or a cure for cancer.
Which is why we remember Tesla for his science, not his economics. Same for Einstein. The Internet and Computer were little more than intellectual curiosities until left to the free market. As for "profit losing" cancer cures or sustainable energy (whatever that means). Lots of cancers have cures developed largely by a profit motive. Im sure the USSR had people just as caring, but where were the vast majority of scientific discoveries made? Let alone freedom of choice.
1. In the beginning both the internet and the computer in the US ( Semi Automatic Ground Environment and the Harvard Mark I) were outfitted for military purposes only. This doesn't mean war is integral to innovation. Needs necessitate change. If the need is present and the resources are available, we will innovate. JP Morgan and Wardenclyffe tower. Rember?
2. There's an enormous demand for cancer treatment. And yes, the cancer industry is still booming. But this is due to the frequency of cancer, not the frequency of cures. I'm not insinuating that the only reason cancer isn't completely eliminated is because of the lack of profit return. Just that a complete cure will have an adverse effect on the industry. You still insist otherwise.
You are dealing in hypotheticals. Im talking about practical cases. In the cases where diseases have been cured or eliminated (many have) there is the dividend of having a larger labor pool. In every case it only strengthened the economy, and allowed those scientific resources to be deployed elsewhere. Effective Companies do not simply shrug their shoulders and say "well that problem's solved, guess we are all unemployed now" They continue to make better or more effective cures for profit.
3. The USSR had plenty of innovations in biology, chemistry, and spacecraft propulsion. But almost all of it's very limited resources were relegated to military use.
Sure, they did. But almost every one of them was a technological cul-de-sac. That is precisely the point. Why, if it was a military App, did the Net Flourish creating millions of jobs, when the USSR's military apps wither and die? The Soviets Pioneered the satellite yet Private comm Sats far out perform anything the soviets did. Reagan's GPS was a good Military App, but it was GREAT when ordinary electronic companies started making GPS navigators.
Agreed. Both governments commanded the economy to produce a desired result. Whether it was the US or Russia, BOTH managed to innovate. The US has more domestic resources than Russia. That's why Russia's absent in the global economy. And it's the only reason Stalin used militarized government to funnel capital right back to government.
We're not really discussing the parameters for innovation right Russia's command economy just had less to work with.
Pardon, did you say Russia had "less" to work with? The Soviet Union had every natural and human resource any nation could ever want. Besides that, Switzerland, Singapore, Hong Kong with virtually no natural resources flourish while resource rich nations like Mexico, D.R. Congo, India and so on are largely impoverished? Prosperity has more to do with the freedoms afforded to common people, not central planning and not socializing institutions.
There seems to be a thought that there is an "end game" where ALL diseases can be cured and ALL energy needs can be met that there would be a utopia and a lack of a need for capitalism. But even if the above were true, there would still be an economy of limited time and resources. No matter the abundance, there will only ever be one Mona Lisa, thus time to see it must be rationed out by some kind of price system and through ownership and trade of such limited resources.
I agree. There will always be problems to solve. But sometimes the best solutions have less profit return. And industries like healthcare and energy appear to be far less scrupulous than you describe.
Also, laborers in countries like India continue to suffer greatly due to dispossession via capitalist expansion. Before capitalism, India experienced famines every 125 years. After capitalism, periods of starvation every 3-4 years.
That is categorically false, as I have worked in India in 6 separate cities. The difference between the "self reliant" days of Post Colonial India and today are staggering. Yes, tremendous poverty still exists, partially from bad governing, partially from cultural stigmas. They need more capitalism, not less. Hence why comparatively free Bangalore, not communist controlled Calcutta is a technological Mecca and is vastly better than most other Indian Cities.
And they are far less nefarious than you believe. Companies, like people, make good and bad choices, but over all, they cannot keep in business if they do not provide what consumers demand. Yes, some industries and unions bribe politicians for special protection, but this is all the more reason to have limited government and the maximum empowerment possible left to the individuals. The government should be in the business of impartial contract enforcement, little else.
"...they cannot keep in business if they do not provide what consumers demand."
This is incorrect. They cannot stay in business if consumers stop paying them. What consumers will pay for is not a reflection of what consumers *demand*. Consumers would love to drive a ultra-capacitor powered vehicle in a hydrogen fuel economy. Demand. The technology exists. Supply. Production? Completely contingent on a pre-existing profit margin.
You make it sound like the market ought to be some kind of wish-granting engine; it isn't. All markets regardless of how they are managed must eventually yield to practicality. Your Hydrogen fuel economy might be YOUR dream, but not everyone elses. But that aside, if socialized planning worked, we should expect the most controlled economies to innovate the most; but they don't. The freest markets produce the greatest and most widely available Technology.
Yes, back then only the government had the resources to spend on building such things, but the point is A new era in business, information and technology occurred AFTER the free market got a hold of them. So what if need produces change? By what engine can those changes be developed and delivered? Who decides what is needed? Some top down politburo? Or individuals? In every practical case, consumer demand, not government decree advances technology and elevates the standard of living.
This isn't at all a bad point and is an example of something that fuels my disdain of corporatism. But think of it this way. In a capitalist system if some one else had seen Tesla's idea and went "That's awesome. I'll help you with that" there would have been nothing Morgan or any other Robber Baron could have done about it. But perhaps in a society where government colludes with corporations... some one might also step in and stop that? You mention the USSR in another comment;
The USSR took people's resources (or property) and used them towards military ends. The people had no choice but to follow this. Stalin didn't equally distribute wealth, he intentionally horded food in cities to create the illusion of prosperity while other's starved. As much as corporations can't be trusted, the government even more so. Power corrupts, absolute power absolutely corrupts. I can reject a corporation in a capitalist system (a true capitalist system anywho). As to property rights:
If I do not own property... then I don't own my home? The land it is built upon? By this do I forfeit my right to privacy? Since I do not own my home other people may intrude in it as they wish and my trying to bar them from doing so would be a violation of their rights? Just some curiosities.
If I spend a year growing an nurturing an apple tree, weeding and killing pests, other people who did none of the work in caring for it can simply walk up and take an apple? How am I not a slave there?
Capitalism has two meanings. Profit driven markets, and freedom. I don't particularly care much for the former, but the later is what drives me towards capitalism.
Most capitalist enslavement occurs by non-capitalist methods. The instant the government becomes involved in the market, on any level, it ceases to be capitalism. I hate large international conglomerates.
I hate big corporations. I do see them as slave masters, as monsters. But the bigger monster is and always has been the state, which often enables these creatures to survive through phony capitalism. If we truly did practice free market capitalism, I believe most of them would be bankrupt and smaller, more localized, more kindred businesses would rule the market.
Serfdom is based on an impoverished majority being infinitely indebted to an opulent minority. Wealth is only a result of what you own, not what you've done. How do you see capitalism as a rejection of this?
Working for a boss or starving isn't a real choice. It's an ultimatum. If you lived in a socialist country and your only alternative to that way of life was leaving it, you wouldn't be satisfied with those circumstances would you?
You mentioned that you believe in "keeping what you worked for". I honor labor. Just not the ownership of the subjects of labor. I don't see ownership as a product of labor. Conservation of mass, etc.
then don't perform labor for someone else. it really is that simple.
my family farmed for years starting because they had to feed themselves when they moved West.
they kept the fruits of their labors and shared what they didn't use. some shared services with my family some shared coin, some shared nothing.
the need to reply upon each other will always exist. the point is, you have to take care of yourself first and there are few economic systems that allow the individual to make that choice.
Labor is only valuable when it is performed in the production of goods and services most in demand. There, the most people will find benefit, and you the laborer will be most greatly compensated. Only the market forces have been effective in putting values and driving workers to their most effective methods of labor and contribution to EVERYONE'S benefit. Every centrally planned system has failed. When an exchange happens, both parties gain something they want more for something wanted less
Not all socialist/communist schemes use central planning. Does participation in buiilding public policy translate into central planning for you?
As far as labor is concerned I don't disagree with anything you've said. I don't accept private ownership of the subjects of labor as a form of production. Ownership is not productive. Labor is. Any thoughts on Ricardian rent theory?
I wouldn't bother, trying to describe anarcho-socialism, libertarian-socialism, or anarcho-syndicalism to a Ron Paul/Ayn Rand fanboy isn't worth your time. Believe me I have tried. Any concept of anarchism escapes them completely.
I stay out of the state/anti-state debate and try to focus on labor, the subjects of labor, and the levels of participation in building public policy. When a capitalist defines his ownership of a fresh water lake as "the fruits of his labor", you've got enough on your plate as it is.
The question here is how did he come into possession of that lake? Did he inherit it? Did he buy it? If he bought it did he do so with money he came by through inheritance? Or through his own hard work and labor, perhaps utilizing that lake?
Lastly, what happens when fisherman (labourers) have their catches from that lake bought by a capitalist? Are they or are they not being rewarded for their labour by that capitalist?
Just have a sec. Here's the rub. Capitalist invest their money in the industries most likely to be profitable. Without that investment, there are few jobs and few in-demand goods. They're taking a great risk, & deserve to get paid. Without the investor, the worker has no job. Without the worker, the investor has no way to implement his plan. BOTH parties come out ahead. Many countries have tried to replace the investor with the gov, but it has always resulted in poor resource allocation.
Who says? The beauty of capitalism is that I can be self employed. In a serfdom or a socialist system I have a boss or I starve, that boss is the nobility or the state.
This has been flagged as spam show
Michael Prescott: Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman
michaelprescottDOTnet/hickmanDOThtm
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
Ayn Rand was a moron who thought she could survive on her own genius but when cancer threatened to wipe out the little bit of wealth she managed to put away for her old age she changed her name and applied for welfare benefits. The queen of the Libertarians, a stupid bitch preaching to the ignorant. She had a modicum of success on her own but like other so called self made successes, when she failed and she turned to the state to keep her ass off the street.
logtype47 2 months ago
@logtype47 Better get rid of government assistance programs then so that these assholes won't be saved!
dubified89 2 weeks ago
Are you crazy? People become CORRUPT! Sure businesses wants profit, but they become corrupt pursuing that profit. Even in Atlas Shrugged James Taggart was corrupt. For all the Dagny Taggarts and Reardens we are surrounded by far more James Taggarts.
pinstripedpants01 2 months ago in playlist ayn rand
Just goes to show you that Ayn was right about the Libertarians, at least as a movement. They use her ideas - badly handled - and yes, denigrate and insult her all the way through. If these men are the future, we're all in trouble.
shonstar 4 months ago
@shonstar She wasn't the first to come up with libertarian type ideas, there were many before her.
dubified89 2 weeks ago
I once met with Robert Poole Jr. when he visited Hawaii during my stint as Chairman of the Libertarian Party in Hi for 9 years. I found him to be a man of integrity and reason, but after seeing Katherine Mangu-Ward's ridiculous comments on Ron Paul, I believe Jordan Page's lyrics "The enemies of Freedom are cleverly disguised," now applies - it makes me sad to say - to Reason Magazine.
Blaseboniface 5 months ago
Nice videos this you tube world just gets bigger every day! When you have time come visit my channel!
pheromoneaction 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice videos this you tube world just gets bigger every day! When you have time come visit my channel!
FatReleaseSystem 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice videos this you tube world just gets bigger every day! When you have time come visit my channel!
chocolatediet11 9 months ago
Nice videos this you tube world just gets bigger every day! When you have time come visit my channel!
850Nexus 9 months ago
Nice videos this you tube world just gets bigger every day! When you have time come visit my channel!
TheHcgdietplan 9 months ago
Thomas Jefferson was my influence to becoming Libertarian. Ayn Rand came later.
atchisrj1 9 months ago
Small government always becomes big government. It doesn't matter what ideas you try to push around beneath its nose.
tehknologik 1 year ago
Another asshole calling facts "conspiracy theories" because you either dont know what you are talking about or you sympathize with these people. I guess we are at war with all Israel's enemies because of weapons of mass destruction too right? So I must be an anti-semite white supremist right? LOL Typical.. No you are right Israel has no influence on US policy....Your ignorance is boring...
ScrapMetalBomb 1 year ago 3
These comments make me happy.
ambigera 1 year ago 2
I love this guy! He is 100% right, and I am going to renew my subscription this instant for myself and my family members! You should all do the same!
Bravo!
libertarianjury 1 year ago 9
Rebuild the Case for the Constitution, and the rest will fall into place.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
Ideals are important, as they are shaped by your principles. If you don't follow what you stand for you become a liberal and a hypocrite. I for one, used to separate my principles from my life until I saw the importance of applying them and living it. I feel fantastic, and have had no regrets.
pSychOAtDawn 1 year ago
I'm not an objectivist but TY Ayn Rand.
ANARCHY
MirageScience 1 year ago
@MirageScience Anarchy is irrational.
El3ctricPenguin 1 year ago
ayn rand and objectivism? oh fuck. I was just starting to like this channel
Steve2323ZX 1 year ago
obongo wants to control the internet so no one will know how much he sucks
slayerkendra 1 year ago
Ayn Rand is a fiction... her name was Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum... another jewish bullshit trap for the intellectual set... why do they change their names to anglo names...? that ought to explain everything...
CrackerJackLee 1 year ago
just like MIke Wallace... real name Myron Leon Wallechinsky... who interviewed her for broadcasting... people haven't a clue about who controls the media...
CrackerJackLee 1 year ago
@CrackerJackLee Well she was pro-business and most jews do run businesses. That's why, for the most part, they supported her ideas. Until she would speak about free markets and the necessity for competition in a marketplace, is when these big companies disagreed. Big companies do not enjoy competition for the fear of being dethroned by the next best thing.
pSychOAtDawn 1 year ago
@pSychOAtDawn
so do most asians... what's your point...?
CrackerJackLee 1 year ago
@CrackerJackLee What it explains is a lack of familiarity of history. Immigrants, especially those from Eastern and Southern European countries, routinely altered their names when they came to the US. It wasn't some sort of evil plot. It was a defensive measure so as not being treated poorly by the narrowminded amongst the native population in the country they were immigrating to.
Anakha13 1 year ago
@Anakha13
then why do they still do it...? do you think you're talking to punks...? (why do liars always claim to know more about history than the rest of us...?) just use your basic computer skills to discover that the entirety of hollywood has fake names and fake noses... even their children use new fake names while their parents present them as "talented" hollywood "stars"... and seeing as you raised the point of "familiarity", aren't we all getting a little familiar with these games...?
CrackerJackLee 1 year ago
all of the russians, ukrainians and romanians that i've met have kept their family names... what are these "media" and "entertainment" moguls hiding...?
CrackerJackLee 1 year ago
@CrackerJackLee Entirety? Hyperbole much? Immigrants used to change their names for a reason, people in Hollywood change their names and their noses and boobs et al for a reason. That does not mean those reasons are the same. It also doesn't mean they're dissimilar. Many feel that it is easier to change their names or their appearances than deal with narrowminded fools who allow personal bigotry to cloud their minds.
Anakha13 1 year ago
@Anakha13
LOL! go back and read what i wrote... and stop being so pedantic... attacking people based on semantics... when you're so dull that you haven't any point... you're talkin' and talkin' but you ain't sayin' nothin'... how can i respond to you when you keep repeating the same thing in different words... you're like a hooker who changes her clothes after every trick... different package, same smell...
CrackerJackLee 1 year ago
@Anakha13
jews hide by using a false name... that's how all hollywood stars hide the fact that you can't work there if you're not a jew... marlon brando exposed them and was chastized... same goes for the media and publishers... and don't make me laugh... they still change their names... yet they are not under privileged... that makes it deceitful...
CrackerJackLee 1 year ago
@CrackerJackLee Many immigrants change their names. Even non-Jewish Hollywood stars do it. Unless you think Martin Sheen's a Jew. That doesn't make it deceitful. It just means they feel they'd be better off changing their names to, in part, deal with people with small minds.
Anakha13 1 year ago
@Anakha13
non-jewish hollywood stars...? really...? who's that...? mel gibson? and i would never change my name for any reason... for some inbred ethic groups, names mean nothing... they change their names like you would a condom... speaking of hollywood and music... have you ever seen such a bunch of un-talented ethnic changed-named bobbed-nose people in your entire life...? they're all the spoiled untalented offspring of an inner hollywood ethnic clique...
CrackerJackLee 1 year ago
@CrackerJackLee
Are you seriously that stupid that you buy into the retarded conspiracy that Hollywood is entirely Jewish? Wow.
InfernalApocalypse 1 year ago 3
@InfernalApocalypse
What if it was entirely Jewish? I doubt it's more than 5% so, I don't know and don't care though I hear that early film makers were often Jewish which I don't find hugely significant in any way. The only way you can take the wind out of the sails of these conspiracy theorists is to say, it's *irrelevant* whether bankers are Jewish, it's irrelevant whether 9/11 was orchestrated by the US State, what matters is property rights and the security against Statist means, end of.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@InfernalApocalypse Obviously it's Jewish-run. I mean, Jews are depicted as cheap or as zero-sex-appeal accountants while all races except for male middle to upper class American WASPs are portrayed as negative stereotypes or objects - clearly it's those damn dirty kosher bastards! Couldn't be anyone else!
AshillaBeige 1 year ago
@AshillaBeige Funny how every bad guy on TV is a racist white male or a blonde haired corrupt judge. Give me a fucking break. You are talking out of your fucking ass.How many films have been made about "the Halocaust" like the rest of the world was having cookies and tea while the Jews suffered during WW2. Millions more Gentiles died in WW2 than Jews. Hitler was the grandson of a Rothschild!!! Funny but the Rothschilds founded Isreal too. Don't hear about that one on the History channel do ya?
ScrapMetalBomb 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ScrapMetalBomb
"Hitler was the grandson of a Rothschild!"
Somehow I doubt you have any evidence whatsoever for that.
InfernalApocalypse 1 year ago
@ScrapMetalBomb
Don't you have water supplies to protect from evil Jews or something?
AshillaBeige 1 year ago
@InfernalApocalypse Uh... is is true you idiot. Go look at the names of the CEOs of just about every single movie house in Hollywood. Just because someone screams "anti-Semite" every time you state the fact doesnt mean its not true, because it is. They get their money from our good ole Jewish banking system that treats them with great favor. I suppose you will say that Jews don't control the central banks either? Go ahead make me laugh...lol
ScrapMetalBomb 1 year ago
@ScrapMetalBomb
Whether or not that's true, it wasn't CrackerJackLee's thesis. He insists there aren't any non-Jewish actors in Hollywood. Indeed, much of the upper echelons of the behind-the-scenes aspects of Hollywood (financing, creative direction, etc.) are populated by Jews...but it makes little difference. They got their by working their ass off, and they stay there not by alienating consumers with long-winded stories about the Tabernacle. Stop drinking the kool-aid.
InfernalApocalypse 1 year ago
@InfernalApocalypse Oh yes and the rest of us don't work as hard, right? SO naive. Bullshit! It is because they have direct access to money via the corrupt central banking system which is also run by Zionists with an agenda. I live in NYC and have worked for the biggest banks in the world as well as for three member banks of the Federal Reserve WITH A HIGH LEVEL SECURITY CLEARANCE. I know what the fuck I'm talking about ..you dont. I will say though that the problem is Zionism not "Jews"
ScrapMetalBomb 1 year ago
@ScrapMetalBomb
By all means, point out to me where I said that no one else worked hard. I really doubt you had high levels of security clearance if you can barely read, or put together a cohesive argument, or not let your emotions get the best of you.
InfernalApocalypse 1 year ago
@InfernalApocalypse Well, I took offense to your little "dpn't drink the cool aid" comment. If you want to call me a Liar thats fine. I was a Marine Corp 6333- Aviation electrician. I had good clearance in the Marine Corps and transfered that over to a civilian company that serviced all the big banks and most big government agencies. I guess the argument is over since you offered no rebuke except to call me a liar...oh and apparently my sentence structure and emotional content is weak...you win!
ScrapMetalBomb 1 year ago
@ScrapMetalBomb
Give me a break; you came out of the gate calling me a naive idiot. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Put forward an argument that makes sense, support it with evidence, address actual arguments rather than straw men, and consider not lashing out at people right off the bat. Maybe then you won't have to be called an idiot.
InfernalApocalypse 1 year ago
@ScrapMetalBomb
Oh and for the record: plenty of people who have the same credentials as yours do not buy into the ZOG conspiracies. Frankly I'm a lot more willing to trust them; mostly because they don't froth at the mouth when they find someone who has the audacity to disagree with them.
InfernalApocalypse 1 year ago
He of all people should know Ayn never liked the word "randian"
hbksid 1 year ago
True conservatism (the conservation of the principles of the founding of the United States of America) does not fit the stereotype of conservatism, and is indistinguishable from true libertarianism. Ron Paul is a great guy, but dead wrong on foreign policy unfortunately. The leaders of those movements DO want to kill us because we are free, precisely. Further, there is no such thing as "Muslim lands", nor Cherokee nor Jewish, for that matter. There is 1 rightful gov- 1 based on individual rights
brazenhubris 2 years ago
At this point Australia and New Zealand are more free than the United States, yet they are not hated by Muslims.
It's more reasonable to think that Muslims hate the U.S. because they occupy what Muslims consider their Holy Land, and because they meddle in their politics, supporting puppets such as the former Shah.
I think the extremists who do hate the U.S. because of ideology are a minority. They are likely able to recruit far more due to the U.S. occupation.
ErikNikolai 1 year ago 3
@ErikNikolai
"They are able to recruit" is my point. They- the ones who hate us because we're free- are the leaders of their movement.
All tribal cultures die, because they are not based on individual freedoms. but on collective control.
Australia and New Zealand were targeted in the Bali bombings, further.
"what they consider their Holy Land" is not holy, it's just land. This is true of Israel and of Mecca. Dirt is dirt, and god didn't give any specific dirt to any genetic strain.
brazenhubris 1 year ago
Often Muslims hate the U.S. because they live under dictatorships, that rob their people blind and wreck their economies, which then proceed to scapegoat other countries (Israel and U.S.) in order to lay blame outside the regime and keep the people under constant fear of their "enemy". Ditto for dictators the world over: shall we list them?
wesvillager 1 year ago
That being said, considering the current situation, the U.S. should probably nuke the hell out of Iran since it's far too late to reverse things in any case.
ErikNikolai 1 year ago
Comment removed
OPN3rdEYE 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Come on Erik, don't be conned by the neo-cons. They've never even read the Constitution, how can they know what the principle of individual liberty entails.
Remember, they take your money to go to war. Some you may agree with, but doesn't it really piss you off when you don't?
Coercion is not the way the forefathers intended us to lead, it was by our example of what the individual liberty to profit from your labor can bring to a society as a whole...
OPN3rdEYE 1 year ago
@brazenhubris Yeah, because Germany and Japan needs our permanent military bases to protect them right? Bombing people into liking U.S. won't work, Dr. Paul just understands that where neo-cons like yourself don't.
OPN3rdEYE 1 year ago
@OPN3rdEYE
Just dead wrong as usual, I suspect.
When Pol Pot marched into Pnom Penh, I wish there had been someone there to kill them all.
The calvary doesn't come for a lot of people, and we can't be the calvary for everyone, but when people like you characterize fighting evil communists and socialist-fascsists as "bombing people into liking the US", it betrays your true character. Dr. Paul and you are oblivious to the fact that the US exists for defense of liberty.
brazenhubris 1 year ago
Well, when American sentiment is so strong as to go to war for a given cause, there are Constitutional channels for that. Congress, since the 70's, has done what they usually do, shirk their limited responsibilities and actually DECLARE war. Dr. Paul simply condemns the haphazard waging of war/conflicts/skirmishes and understands the consequences of occupying other people's countries. If Venezuela was occupying your hometown, wouldn't you try to blow them back to where they came from?
OPN3rdEYE 1 year ago
Comment removed
brazenhubris 1 year ago
If you have hate in your heart...let it out.
Glad people like you don't run our Federal government; oh wait, they do.
Since when being logical about how to increase our wealth as a nation make you a pussy? Spending $10,000 a bomb or $1mil per soldier on the ground isn't the way...
OPN3rdEYE 1 year ago
Comment removed
OPN3rdEYE 1 year ago
In addition, our forefathers only allowed for a standing Federal Navy in the Constitution. Armies were to be mustered from State militias at said order of Congress. And since America had vast coastal borders, they saw only a standing Navy fit for defense. Since not much has changed geographically, I tend to agree.
Quit trying to claim Constitutional high-ground from an intellectual low-ground.
OPN3rdEYE 1 year ago
My influence is the one that's needed today. Check out my essays.
brazenhubris 2 years ago
Ron Paul inspired me to become a libertarian!
Nonoyawns 2 years ago
I would rather have the freedom to choose to be my own boss, my own master and responsible for the results of my labors.
The alternatives do not afford me that freedom.
I believe that is core of what Rand suggests and that is what motivates me.
jcruenv 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
We've tried limited government. Look where it got us!
Remember the definition of insanity...
furyofbongos 2 years ago
No we haven't. GWB introduced more new regulations than any President in the last 40 years.
MicroBalrog 2 years ago 2
we tried limited government up to TR, it's been downhill since unless we can get involved in a war somewhere else....
jcruenv 2 years ago 4
I wouldn't even say that was limited government. You can see dramatic over reachings of the state as early as John Adam's administration.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
We've got bigger problems here in the UK. When the majority of the working population are in state employment and in receipt of state benefits, it's a system hard to dismantle.
NickDiPerna 2 years ago 21
@NickDiPerna very true indeed, here in the states the problem i believe we face is the altruistic entitlement mentality that if one looses their employment state benefits are expected. Ayn Rand stated in an old interview that these types of welfare states are unsustainable and eventually fail. The real problem is the thought process of the herd not the herder that confines them.
MannyMarvel 1 year ago
@NickDiPerna ...but even harder to sustain.
f0ofyBunny 1 year ago
One thing I have always liked about Rand, She said what she meant. She did not hide behind flowery words and mixed meanings. She was direct and to the point.
Mackingster 2 years ago 5
Yay, Reason!
Yay, Ayn Rand!
Yay Robert Poole!
freesk8 2 years ago 5
I have loved just about every line and quote I ever heard from Ayn Rand.
She is without a doubt a rarest jewel of laser sharp reason.
People who don't like Ayn are just not good people. It's practically a foolproof litmus test.
averagejoe040 2 years ago
I have to disagree.
I don't like Rand. I don't dislike her either. I just have some minor issues with the philosophy of objectivism. Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Here Rand and I agree completely. Objectivism is a political and personal philosophy that I agree with on some points and dramatically disagree with on others.
Though I do respect Rand. She herself has been critical of things she believed in or other followers there of. She'd want me to be critical of her too, I think.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago 3
I am reading these comments and I just dont get it. Freedom is a natural law and once you start to ignore it perversion starts to permeate any system. A bunch of mumbo jumbo below without meaningful thread!
MrMDESTINY 2 years ago 2
Capitalism is simply keeping what you worked for, and people were willing to pay for it and support it. Socialism is people living off what you worked for, and its demise is when people realize they don't have to work to receive, which is already happening here in the US. Capitalism works as long as its free to compete and not monopolized. Government control over free market is illegal as it too is a monopoly. Ron Paul is only disliked for not wanting our soldiers to die for elitist agendas.
G0dspelronin 2 years ago 4
conservatives dont like how the Republicans are handling things. we need to help fix the republican party, like Reagan wanted libertarians to do.
achmedthedeadterror5 2 years ago 3
I randomly picked up a copy of Reason at work and read it on a slow night. It was the beginning of my journey to being a hybrid conservative/ libertarian.
bertly71 2 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Opinion polling of Paultards? Hmm...wonder how much higher the rates of Asperger's sufferers would've tested.
Mayoclinic says symptoms include:
*Showing an intense obsession with 1 or 2 specific, narrow subjects, such as [Ayn Rand's horrible fiction, rtwing libertarianism], train schedules, or snakes
***Appearing not to understand, empathize with or be sensitive to others' feelings [obviously the big giveaway indicator]
Friendlessness too.
Reason subscription = a cry for help?
terpis 2 years ago
you know, its amazing how people who have a problem with Ron Paul really only rely exclusively on personal insults - rather than debating actual principles.
I think the ignorance in your comment is ironic, because it's exactly the type of thing Jim Taggart would say.
Wcoltd 2 years ago 4
sez you: its amazing how people who have a problem with Ron Paul...rely exclusively on personal insults..."
I believe the phrase is "beneath contempt"-- the ideas are just Galbraith's 'superior justification-seeking'. Bunk.
More amazing is how you robots gloss over the following: 'radical-for-capitalism' perennially finds zero support outside of a boutique embubblement of doughy middle class 'burb-dwellers.
Reason, Inc has a nice little niche to cater to...with self-help lit for pricks.
terpis 2 years ago
there's nothing of substance, you are again relying on labeling my convictions rather than refuting any ideas of Rand or Paul.
Are you refuting the idea of capitalism and objectivity based on the fact that they by doughy middle class burb-dwellers believe in them?
It seems what you are saying is the ideas are irrelevant - what matters is who believes in them.
Wcoltd 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"It seems what you are saying is...what matters is who believes in [elite ideas]."
Yes, I'm saying that (& that righty libertarian "ideas" are ahistorical sophistry, "beneath contempt").
Paul is a politician, you may have noticed...& this a society where the popular vote is, cancers & all, a not insignificant part. But Paultards are a minority share of a lily-white minority conservatism.
If we're talking "Ayn", that's illiberal authoritarianism. Market tyranny. Anti-popular, coup-fantasy BS.
terpis 2 years ago
There is no such thing as market tyranny. There is however government tyranny. That is when government controls everything like schools, banks, car companies, and so on. That's when people suffer and die. If a lot of people believe in bullshit doesn't mean it's any less bullshit.
nadeau 2 years ago
While somewhat correct, I think a simpler way of putting it is there is no such thing as tyranny of competitors and always a tyranny of the Monopoly. Companies technically can be just as corrupt as the government in theory, but the reason they usually aren't is because of competition. Government is always tyrannical because of its monopoly status.
Skyler827 2 years ago
"(& that righty libertarian "ideas" are ahistorical sophistry,)
It's ironic that you say this. I don't know if you know anything about the last ten thousand years or so of human civilization but the basic pattern has been statism failing. So I'm not going to defend my convictions until you tell me how this time is the exception. How is the bankrupt debt financed welfare and warfare state and rapidly depreciating currency going to survive the next century?
IVoteNone 2 years ago 4
The idea of libertarianism is basically that people should be able to do as they damn well please, and reap the consequences of their doing.
The fact that Ron Paul holds the title of being a congressman or that his supporters are a minority does not have any significance on the merit of his or their principles.
These labels are entirely beside the point. You may classify people as you wish - but you're fooling yourself if you think that it has any rational basis of argument.
Wcoltd 2 years ago
"Appearing not to understand, empathize with or be sensitive to others' feelings"
Oh dear. Do I detect a hint of hypocrisy here?
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
What will we do when there are no jobs?
What will we do in 50 years when technology does our work?
We have been working towards not working for many years and didn't even know it.
We are slaves to the system now and will soon be free of it.
Being born on this planet and free to enjoy our stay is FREEDOM.
We are almost there and didn't plan for it.
CosmosPrivateer 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Guys like Newton, Tesla, and Einstein were a huge influence on me. All Rand did was try to turn the english language into diarrhea.
TruthDevours 2 years ago
Thank you for your intelligent and insightful comment.
ronpaul101789 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
capitalism is innately immoral.
Puabond 2 years ago
Other way around.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Any system that would resort to enslaving human beings in pursuit of profit is absolutely abominable. A system based on property is a system based on serfdom. Period.
TruthDevours 2 years ago
Enslaving? Do you even have any goddamn idea what "slavery" means, you fuckhead socialist?
MagnusIan 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Duurr hurrr hurr!!!!! :S
Mag. Close your mind. You're crapping all over the internet.
TruthDevours 2 years ago
Capitalism, at it's core, is a system based on owning yourself and, by extension, the property and labor of yourself. Any philosophy which does not recognize the fact of self-ownership and absolute property rights must promote the subjugation of people to some degree. The denial of self-ownership is typically within the realm of government, and gets worse as government grows, further limiting people's liberties.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Capitalism, at it's core, is a system based on capital. How this capital is acquired is often of little to no concern and the labor it's subjected to is devalued at a constant. Any system that divides production from it's producer will promote the subjugation of people to some degree. The denial of this is typically within the realm of egoist rationale and gets worse as the consolidation of resources grows. Making life for the majority of living people...rather sucky.
TruthDevours 2 years ago
Really, TruthDevours? Capitalism makes life "sucky"? Would you rather live in a piece of shit socialist country where one does not work for one's own self but rather works for the majority? I don't know about you, but I'd say capitalism has done a pretty goddamn good job of making life NOT "sucky." Do you even realize how fucking stupid you sound?
MagnusIan 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LoL. Jesus, Mag.
Limbic system.
Diaper.
Do the math.
I don't mind sparring with FOAU. But the discourse between us is useless. I'm just going to keep insulting you in ways you can barely understand. Jerk off to some Rothbard and call it a day.
TruthDevours 2 years ago
"Any system that divides production from it's producer will promote the subjugation of people to some degree."
This never made any sense to me (when you or anyone else says it). Can you tell me what you mean by it?
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago 3
Really? I'll try to dumb it down for ya:
Mogadishu. A few civil wars in the early 90's and now all surviving warlords are enjoying the fruits of other people's labor. Accumulation via dispossession.
"Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalias service sector has managed to survive and grow Mogadishus main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets. Hotels continue to operate, and militias provide security." - CIA Factbook
TruthDevours 2 years ago
Add a little foreign investment to production:
"Somalia implemented a foreign investment law last year which is another step in the government's efforts to encourage private sector development. If the new law is adhered to, an investor could reap substantial profits, reports the U.S. Embassy in Mogadishu. Investment opportunities exist in oil exploration, agriculture, livestock and fisheries joint ventures, shipping, tourism, and light manufacturing." - Business America
TruthDevours 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
War. Dispossession. Peace. And now profit. In 20 years socialists in Mogadishu will probably be having the same conversation about who owns property, who actually does the work, and who profits in the end.
All the violence aside, ownership isn't productive. Only matter, energy, and ideas provide us with what we have. Owning a copper deposit doesn't extract it for industrial use. What are your thoughts on this?
TruthDevours 2 years ago
Wow bro...Ignorance overwhelming.
ZackServo2point0 2 years ago 2
owning shoes doesn't win a marathon. point is owning a copper mine doesn't oblige one to mine the copper.
the point of ownership is that ppl keep the fruits of their labor. if I choose not to extract copper from my own mine then I'll get nothing. If you force me to do it so you can have copper for your industrial concers you've made me a slave.
ownership and capitalism are more about human rights than industrial production. capitalist economies are more productive b/c they put people first.
natdavi 2 years ago 7
How can you just claim a mine?
In my opinion, anyone can claim anything they want, they just have to have the consent of others, that is, until they actually produce something of value, i.e. inject their labor into the land so that what comes of that land could not have existed without that person's labor.
Just claiming a copper mine, though, that sounds wrong to me, like claiming a stream or tree. How else are you going to identify ownership?
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
You're close. Anyone can claim anything as long as they have the force to enforce it.
African Gov'ts claim ownership of elephants, but poachers are still killing them.
Now, in a society, we use thought and will often recognize and help enforce others claims to something. Sadly, the thoughts people use are not always rational or moral thoughts, and we wind up with people 'claiming' the labor of others. That's what Socialism is all about.
Joemantler 2 years ago
As terrible as what people are going through in Somalia, it sounds like things are actually getting better.
"Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalias service sector has managed to survive and grow Mogadishus main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets."
Sounds like anarchy to me. And no taxes? What could be better. What do you think about it?
I do think ownership is productive, though. Just a sound bite answer (500 char limit): "Tragedy of the commons."
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
"As terrible as what people are going through in Somalia, it sounds like things are actually getting better."
For who? At what cost? Things might be getting better in Iraq. Does that justify a foreign country absorbing 90% of it's oil profits through violence? Thousands killed in the process. I'm positive you don't support that. You don't see the same tyranny in Somalia?
TruthDevours 2 years ago
Just from your quotes, I see it withering away rather than increasing. When violence goes down and trade goes back up, that's when I see freedom increasing. We can't say that the violence was preferable to no violence, but the lessening violence is absolutely preferable to continuing or increasing violence.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
But that's my entire point. Violence. Dispossession. Peace. And now capitalists both foreign and domestic profitting off the labor of others. The entire premise of exchange is based on violence. And now those, once in possession of the subjects of labor, are working for capitalists in exchange for portions of their own property.
It's like charging you rent to live in your own house. You're ok with this?
TruthDevours 2 years ago
Sorry, just to be clear: you're an anarcho-socialist, right? I just want to be sure because you're describing exactly what government does. Making violence claims upon other people and their property is the exact opposite of capitalism. That's the product of government. If that's what's going on, then it's not good.
But you could easily say that, if socialism was coming about, that it required the same slaughter. It would literally be violence, dispossession, and then peace.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
I'm a technocratic socialist. I don't associate myself with anarchism. I like the way most of it sounds just not sure what it *is*.
"But you could easily say that, if socialism was coming about, that it required the same slaughter."
You really could. And that sucks. This is happening in Venezuela and it's terrible. I'm all for expropriation of abandoned factories and absent land ownership. But murder should avoided at all costs.
TruthDevours 2 years ago
Hrm. I have to ask though, what do you propose as an alternative to capitalism?
Clearly you don't want to be a 'wage slave' (the term you are looking for) to a few privileged suits. Nor do I want to be the slave of some expansive state, which often sides with those few privileged suits (and likewise will ultimately seek out only its own betterment or profit, whatever benefits the state over whatever benefits the individual).
I guess what I am asking is, "Are you Lenin or are you Kaplan?"
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
I can't really see myself as either.
I guess I'd just like to see a pure demand and supply economy with cognitive and physical labor representing bargaining power. An economy that reflects people exchaning labor, not property.
If I design a bridge and sell the idea to workers in exchange for goods or services, my level of bargaining power continges on how much they need my service, not my property. If I just own the materials needed to build the bridge that's more like a ransom.
TruthDevours 2 years ago
Except for the fact that both property and materials consist of value and removing that value is an impossibility.
mackdan7 2 years ago 3
property and materials consist of matter, and are generated through labor, the exertion of personal energy. Value is a marginal assessment of property. It is purely aesthetic.
TehBANN3D 2 years ago
By materials, I mean the subjects of labor. Nickel isn't a product of labor. It's a subject of labor. If you claim ownership over more nickel than you are currently extracting, you're claiming ownership of a subject of labor (capitalism), not ownership of the production of your own labor (socialism).
TruthDevours 2 years ago
People do exchange labor, to an extent. In of itself exchanging a service for another service is a capitalist thing... you are trading one good (goods not necessarily being properties) for another.
Perhaps asking "Are you Lenin or Kaplan" wasn't the right way to pose my question. Are you a Marx (Lenin) or a Bakunin (Kaplan)? You sound like the later.
Though I think part of the problem here is that some of us have different definitions of what capitalism is. It isn't greed for me.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
The alternative these people are looking for is everything for "free". They want government housing, food, and jobs (maybe jobs), clothes, etc. Its all gonna be free because our blessed Uncle Sam and his church choir will provide it for them. I am purely evil and would like to build my own destiny and work toward my own goals uninterrupted by anyone wearing a suit and tie telling me I owe them anything because someone I don't know legislated it. Long live the evils of capitalism and freedom!lol
G0dspelronin 2 years ago
Ownership is a motivator for labor and occasionally, innovation. If I own a copper mine, I am motivated to use my labor to extract copper and sell it or sell the mine. Owning, say, a garden, motivates the production of lawn mowers, pots, shears, sprinklers etc. as well as engages a gardener in exchanged for money, food or pleasure. Without ownership there is no incentive to clean, improve, employ, buy or sell. When no one owns something, it is ignored, abused or left to rot.
kev3d 2 years ago
In terms of maintenance over the subjects of labor, you've conflated ownership with stewardship. Plenty of dilapidated buildings still have owners waiting to turn a profit out of them. Plenty of people clean beaches they don't own. In terms of innovation or motivation, needs necessitate change. I don't have to own a drug manufacturing company to innovate a drug therapy. And guys like Einstein and Tesla lacked profit motivation almost completely.
TruthDevours 2 years ago
There are exceptions to every rule, and of course there are those who make very poor business decisions. But most of the time, and by far, the best kept properties are privately owned, where as "government housing" is synonymous with poor maintenance and crime. Plenty of people might clean a beach they don't own...but people are far less likely to litter their own beach. The best maintained roads in Florida, for example, are the ones on Disney property.
kev3d 2 years ago
As far as innovation, you are wrong. Tesla, brilliant though he was, was a terrible businessman and tore up his contract with Westinghouse in sweet, but foolhardy solidarity. Edison, (who employed Tesla at one point) had a profit motive and employed thousands of people. And if I am a brilliant biochemist, and I own stock in the Company, its in my best interest to develop the best drug their is. Ownership is not everything, but its a hell of a motivator.
kev3d 2 years ago
I'm right about Tesla. He discovered alternating current, an enormous leap in electronic engineering. His business tact was lacking, because he lacked profit motivation. He also designed the The Wardenclyffe Tower. This was partly financed by JP Morgan:
"When Morgan wanted to know 'Where can I put the meter?' Tesla had no answer. Tesla's vision of free power did not agree with Morgan's worldview"
Plenty of solutions result in a loss of profit. Like sustainable energy or a cure for cancer.
TruthDevours 2 years ago
Which is why we remember Tesla for his science, not his economics. Same for Einstein. The Internet and Computer were little more than intellectual curiosities until left to the free market. As for "profit losing" cancer cures or sustainable energy (whatever that means). Lots of cancers have cures developed largely by a profit motive. Im sure the USSR had people just as caring, but where were the vast majority of scientific discoveries made? Let alone freedom of choice.
kev3d 2 years ago
1. In the beginning both the internet and the computer in the US ( Semi Automatic Ground Environment and the Harvard Mark I) were outfitted for military purposes only. This doesn't mean war is integral to innovation. Needs necessitate change. If the need is present and the resources are available, we will innovate. JP Morgan and Wardenclyffe tower. Rember?
TruthDevours 2 years ago
2. There's an enormous demand for cancer treatment. And yes, the cancer industry is still booming. But this is due to the frequency of cancer, not the frequency of cures. I'm not insinuating that the only reason cancer isn't completely eliminated is because of the lack of profit return. Just that a complete cure will have an adverse effect on the industry. You still insist otherwise.
TruthDevours 2 years ago
You are dealing in hypotheticals. Im talking about practical cases. In the cases where diseases have been cured or eliminated (many have) there is the dividend of having a larger labor pool. In every case it only strengthened the economy, and allowed those scientific resources to be deployed elsewhere. Effective Companies do not simply shrug their shoulders and say "well that problem's solved, guess we are all unemployed now" They continue to make better or more effective cures for profit.
kev3d 2 years ago
3. The USSR had plenty of innovations in biology, chemistry, and spacecraft propulsion. But almost all of it's very limited resources were relegated to military use.
TruthDevours 2 years ago
Sure, they did. But almost every one of them was a technological cul-de-sac. That is precisely the point. Why, if it was a military App, did the Net Flourish creating millions of jobs, when the USSR's military apps wither and die? The Soviets Pioneered the satellite yet Private comm Sats far out perform anything the soviets did. Reagan's GPS was a good Military App, but it was GREAT when ordinary electronic companies started making GPS navigators.
kev3d 2 years ago
Agreed. Both governments commanded the economy to produce a desired result. Whether it was the US or Russia, BOTH managed to innovate. The US has more domestic resources than Russia. That's why Russia's absent in the global economy. And it's the only reason Stalin used militarized government to funnel capital right back to government.
We're not really discussing the parameters for innovation right Russia's command economy just had less to work with.
TruthDevours 2 years ago
@TruthDevours,
So what happened to Cuba? It seems they have the domestic resources, yet they do not prosper.
Could it be their form of government? Their command economy?
Innovation cannot be legislated.
It can be encouraged, funded, but not forced.
Whaddya think?
averagejoe040 2 years ago
Pardon, did you say Russia had "less" to work with? The Soviet Union had every natural and human resource any nation could ever want. Besides that, Switzerland, Singapore, Hong Kong with virtually no natural resources flourish while resource rich nations like Mexico, D.R. Congo, India and so on are largely impoverished? Prosperity has more to do with the freedoms afforded to common people, not central planning and not socializing institutions.
kev3d 2 years ago
There seems to be a thought that there is an "end game" where ALL diseases can be cured and ALL energy needs can be met that there would be a utopia and a lack of a need for capitalism. But even if the above were true, there would still be an economy of limited time and resources. No matter the abundance, there will only ever be one Mona Lisa, thus time to see it must be rationed out by some kind of price system and through ownership and trade of such limited resources.
kev3d 2 years ago
I agree. There will always be problems to solve. But sometimes the best solutions have less profit return. And industries like healthcare and energy appear to be far less scrupulous than you describe.
TruthDevours 2 years ago
Also, laborers in countries like India continue to suffer greatly due to dispossession via capitalist expansion. Before capitalism, India experienced famines every 125 years. After capitalism, periods of starvation every 3-4 years.
TruthDevours 2 years ago
That is categorically false, as I have worked in India in 6 separate cities. The difference between the "self reliant" days of Post Colonial India and today are staggering. Yes, tremendous poverty still exists, partially from bad governing, partially from cultural stigmas. They need more capitalism, not less. Hence why comparatively free Bangalore, not communist controlled Calcutta is a technological Mecca and is vastly better than most other Indian Cities.
kev3d 2 years ago
And they are far less nefarious than you believe. Companies, like people, make good and bad choices, but over all, they cannot keep in business if they do not provide what consumers demand. Yes, some industries and unions bribe politicians for special protection, but this is all the more reason to have limited government and the maximum empowerment possible left to the individuals. The government should be in the business of impartial contract enforcement, little else.
kev3d 2 years ago
"...they cannot keep in business if they do not provide what consumers demand."
This is incorrect. They cannot stay in business if consumers stop paying them. What consumers will pay for is not a reflection of what consumers *demand*. Consumers would love to drive a ultra-capacitor powered vehicle in a hydrogen fuel economy. Demand. The technology exists. Supply. Production? Completely contingent on a pre-existing profit margin.
TruthDevours 2 years ago
You make it sound like the market ought to be some kind of wish-granting engine; it isn't. All markets regardless of how they are managed must eventually yield to practicality. Your Hydrogen fuel economy might be YOUR dream, but not everyone elses. But that aside, if socialized planning worked, we should expect the most controlled economies to innovate the most; but they don't. The freest markets produce the greatest and most widely available Technology.
kev3d 2 years ago
Yes, back then only the government had the resources to spend on building such things, but the point is A new era in business, information and technology occurred AFTER the free market got a hold of them. So what if need produces change? By what engine can those changes be developed and delivered? Who decides what is needed? Some top down politburo? Or individuals? In every practical case, consumer demand, not government decree advances technology and elevates the standard of living.
kev3d 2 years ago
This isn't at all a bad point and is an example of something that fuels my disdain of corporatism. But think of it this way. In a capitalist system if some one else had seen Tesla's idea and went "That's awesome. I'll help you with that" there would have been nothing Morgan or any other Robber Baron could have done about it. But perhaps in a society where government colludes with corporations... some one might also step in and stop that? You mention the USSR in another comment;
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
The USSR took people's resources (or property) and used them towards military ends. The people had no choice but to follow this. Stalin didn't equally distribute wealth, he intentionally horded food in cities to create the illusion of prosperity while other's starved. As much as corporations can't be trusted, the government even more so. Power corrupts, absolute power absolutely corrupts. I can reject a corporation in a capitalist system (a true capitalist system anywho). As to property rights:
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
If I do not own property... then I don't own my home? The land it is built upon? By this do I forfeit my right to privacy? Since I do not own my home other people may intrude in it as they wish and my trying to bar them from doing so would be a violation of their rights? Just some curiosities.
If I spend a year growing an nurturing an apple tree, weeding and killing pests, other people who did none of the work in caring for it can simply walk up and take an apple? How am I not a slave there?
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
TruthDevours, you may be the biggest uppity cunt I have ever encountered. Choke on your own hubris.
MagnusIan 2 years ago 2
applause.
jcruenv 2 years ago
Capitalism has two meanings. Profit driven markets, and freedom. I don't particularly care much for the former, but the later is what drives me towards capitalism.
Most capitalist enslavement occurs by non-capitalist methods. The instant the government becomes involved in the market, on any level, it ceases to be capitalism. I hate large international conglomerates.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago 2
I hate big corporations. I do see them as slave masters, as monsters. But the bigger monster is and always has been the state, which often enables these creatures to survive through phony capitalism. If we truly did practice free market capitalism, I believe most of them would be bankrupt and smaller, more localized, more kindred businesses would rule the market.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
Says the communist, oh the irony.
ZackServo2point0 2 years ago
I dunno if he's a commie. I smell anarco-socialist in the air. He has that flavor about him.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
but it is also the only system that allows you to reject serfdom.
kiss the chains that bind you...
jcruenv 2 years ago
Serfdom is based on an impoverished majority being infinitely indebted to an opulent minority. Wealth is only a result of what you own, not what you've done. How do you see capitalism as a rejection of this?
TruthDevours 2 years ago
only when you accept being someone else's serf....
jcruenv 2 years ago
Working for a boss or starving isn't a real choice. It's an ultimatum. If you lived in a socialist country and your only alternative to that way of life was leaving it, you wouldn't be satisfied with those circumstances would you?
You mentioned that you believe in "keeping what you worked for". I honor labor. Just not the ownership of the subjects of labor. I don't see ownership as a product of labor. Conservation of mass, etc.
TruthDevours 2 years ago
then don't perform labor for someone else. it really is that simple.
my family farmed for years starting because they had to feed themselves when they moved West.
they kept the fruits of their labors and shared what they didn't use. some shared services with my family some shared coin, some shared nothing.
the need to reply upon each other will always exist. the point is, you have to take care of yourself first and there are few economic systems that allow the individual to make that choice.
jcruenv 2 years ago
Labor is only valuable when it is performed in the production of goods and services most in demand. There, the most people will find benefit, and you the laborer will be most greatly compensated. Only the market forces have been effective in putting values and driving workers to their most effective methods of labor and contribution to EVERYONE'S benefit. Every centrally planned system has failed. When an exchange happens, both parties gain something they want more for something wanted less
blurglide 2 years ago
Not all socialist/communist schemes use central planning. Does participation in buiilding public policy translate into central planning for you?
As far as labor is concerned I don't disagree with anything you've said. I don't accept private ownership of the subjects of labor as a form of production. Ownership is not productive. Labor is. Any thoughts on Ricardian rent theory?
TruthDevours 2 years ago
I wouldn't bother, trying to describe anarcho-socialism, libertarian-socialism, or anarcho-syndicalism to a Ron Paul/Ayn Rand fanboy isn't worth your time. Believe me I have tried. Any concept of anarchism escapes them completely.
trehansen 2 years ago
I stay out of the state/anti-state debate and try to focus on labor, the subjects of labor, and the levels of participation in building public policy. When a capitalist defines his ownership of a fresh water lake as "the fruits of his labor", you've got enough on your plate as it is.
TruthDevours 2 years ago
The question here is how did he come into possession of that lake? Did he inherit it? Did he buy it? If he bought it did he do so with money he came by through inheritance? Or through his own hard work and labor, perhaps utilizing that lake?
Lastly, what happens when fisherman (labourers) have their catches from that lake bought by a capitalist? Are they or are they not being rewarded for their labour by that capitalist?
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
Just have a sec. Here's the rub. Capitalist invest their money in the industries most likely to be profitable. Without that investment, there are few jobs and few in-demand goods. They're taking a great risk, & deserve to get paid. Without the investor, the worker has no job. Without the worker, the investor has no way to implement his plan. BOTH parties come out ahead. Many countries have tried to replace the investor with the gov, but it has always resulted in poor resource allocation.
blurglide 2 years ago 2
I have to work for a boss?
Who says? The beauty of capitalism is that I can be self employed. In a serfdom or a socialist system I have a boss or I starve, that boss is the nobility or the state.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago 39