Objectivism is an ideology; the purpose of an ideologist is to enslave the free mind an ideology; producing drones without room in their head for a free thought, which always defer to the ideology first. Objectivism dead; objectiism self-contradictory as a whole.
In Britain, in 1843, the newspaper The Economist was founded, and became an influential voice for laissez-faire capitalism.[13] In response to the Irish famine of 1846–1849, in which over 1.5 million people died of starvation, they argued that for the government to supply free food for the Irish would violate natural law.
@ZrazorRozenstrauch She didnt embrace EVERY aspect of the time. She embraced most of the aspects. The aspects she embraced were mostly those of economic policy. Not social problems. thats why I said "closest." You can like the NFL without liking the Green Bay Packers. You dont have to embody every damn characteristic. And that doesnt make you a hypocrit
Sosialism will probably take over, and we'll live like in Anthem (just totally unstable, sosialism have never, and will never be stable), then we will discover it.
If EVERYBODY were self-centered "objectivists", who the hell would be willing to risk their hides as police officers, firemen, military, etc., etc, etc., The ivorytower existence of these elite navel-gazers depends on the existence of millions of "collectivist parasites" who put their lives on the line to make their "virtuous" existence possible!
Where do these characters come from? No female "objectivist" would sacrifice herself for the sake of birthing and raising parasitic offspring!
It's mind-boggling that the elitists have been able to twist logic so successfully that there is even a discussion of possibly following Ayn Rand's sociopathic recipe for disaster. They spout individual rights - yet Rand was only concerned with the rights of the elite "supermen" that would rule over the masses serving them. Is this a joke - Ayn Rand Center For Individual Rights? It's closer to Ayn Rand Center For Elitist Control of the Ignorant Masses. What a coup. I'd never thought it possible.
@Serial520 What rights of the majority? Their is no such thing. Only individuals have rights. A right is a moral principle sanctioning a person's freedom of action. Their is no such thing as a majority action.
@Serial520, Randians would tell you that "majorities" aren't objective realities. (they're a fiction of our imaginations). So ONE individual is objective, but a MILLION to one individuals don't count!
@Rayosun4 is the author of a web site exposing the incompatibility of THIS extreme of the Republican Party's thinking and policies with the religious views of so many Christians who are duped by that party's lies and rhetoric. Google "thegodlessconservativeparty"
That guy has nothing of a successful and libertarian objectivist like Hank Rearden could be, he's an unfriendly know-it-all with an awful taste is clothes.
Ah yes, the greatest confession! Early America was the closest to the Objectivist vision. This only shows how economically unsound laissez-faire is. Anybody willing to do the necessary research will find that every successful economy, including that of the United States, only achieved its success through regulated markets. Just read "Bad Samaritans" or "How Rich Countries Got Rich and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor." As I said, anybody willing to research can confirm the necessity of regulations.
I don't think lassez faire capitalism is morally just. We all are well aware of the arbitrary factors that hinder our ability to be productive. Government regulation at least compensates for these arbitrary factors. Morality is a compromise between the individual and the society. Individuals are morally obligated to the society because they are generally not self-sufficient; they are dependent on the society. A properly regulated market for compensation is therefore morally just.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I am sorry but the early American economy was based upon slavery. Laizzes faire capitalism assumes a lack of coercion. How in the hell is subjugated and forced slavery non-coercive.
In Ideology American Economy was Lezzie Fare based capitalism which is what he is talking about. Traditionally it was the Bible belting south who wanted to hold on to slavery based on there bible. We would need a course to explain this as such and or all day but in principle, American was the most lezzie fare which rights can only exist in that type of society. Individual, property rights ect.
@Bigturns33: I think you are a little mistaken. The Bible Belting South wasn't holding on to slavery because of the bible, it was holding on to slavery because the agrarian economy was based on manual labor in the fields and slavery was the most EFFICIENT. That was changing world wide at the same time. Please do some ACTUAL research before you put things on the internet.
Are we to assume you are saying that the reason that African tribes enslaved each other was the bible?
@idm13 Capitalism is more efficient than slavery. A slave owner is responsible for the life of the slave but a businessman is only responsible for providing a limited wage to the worker. The worker also has to buy the same service his company provides using the same money as well. The reason south defended slavery is deeply rooted on traditions of class and feudalism based on land/property. Free white men were capable of moving up the class by owning slaves.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Which Government is the Most Laissez-Faire? Lets see Somalia comes to mind. Business and those with wealth can do as they please, basically no government which is a pre-requisite in Libertarian ideology, no regulations, environmental laws, labor rights, guns for everyone, so why don't you guys promote them as an example?
Oh yeah because it is an absolute disaster!!!! They are a basket case! How does it feel to be a cult like ideology that is as idiotic as laissez-faire is? Pretty pathetic
You realize there is more order in their anarchistic form than when there was a government?
They are statistically better than they were under a coercive state and have not had any major violent outbreaks since 1995. They continually get better statistically, economically and socially every year. Lets not forget the oppressive regimes (UN) trying to force a government on them and creating chaos.
You also have to remember that switching from one regime to another is not easy, especially going from oppressive government to no government or very little government and gaining sudden individual freedoms.
I think the world is going to have to experience a period of time similar to the Dark Ages before it wakes up and discovers the morality and value of unqualified individual liberty. It's time for Atlas to shrug.
@bradwatson7324 Is that a joke? We are in a dark age. A time in which people worship money & material things. Where they don't give a shit about each other. Where invading sovereign nations is acceptable and watched on TV as if it were entertainment. Where creative thinking is called subversive. Where hatred is called strength and thoughtful discussion is called weakness. Aren't you paying attention?
Hmm yes, government is bad yes, let corporations do everything hmmm hmmm yes, Goldman Sachs engineered the current recession but that's not a bad thing, yes capitalism is not totalitarian in any way shape or form hmmm hmmm
If hell exists then Ayn Rand is eating her own stomach there
The trouble with believing the government to be the protector of individual rights is that government seems to inevitably grow to become the greatest violator of individual rights, even when it starts with the best constitution in the world.
Man, I'm getting pretty tired of Objectivists never paying any attention to Hong Kong. It's like they don't do their research. Hong Kong is currently the freest place on earth in all economic and political senses. Far freer than America. For starters, they have 15% income tax, we have progressive with the max at 40%, plus state tax, etc, etc.
But it's within a massive, repressive super-state: China. How could that possibly be considered a free place? The Chinese government can take away all of Hong Kong's rights and freedoms with the stroke of a pen. That's not freedom.
So? That can be said of ANY government. That's just the nature of the beast. But anyway, that wasn't the case just 12 years ago; it was a colony of Great Britain. Also, so far China hasn't shown any signs of changing the way Hong Kong operates. They agreed to the conditions of the handover that they do nothing to Hong Kong's legal and economic system for 50 years, and they've kept that promise so far. China is actually about as free as America is, economically and in many other ways.
I agree with what you're saying about China not messing with hong kong (for now).
however, that cannot be said for ANY government. In the US, I am afforded certain inalienable rights. These rights are outlined and protected by the Constitution and cannot be revoked. That is simply not the case in China. I'm sure there is much to love about China and their economic progress and history as a civilization is impressive. Their record on rights leaves much to be desired.
drd32, do you honestly believe that the U.S. government cannot revoke your rights? If so, I don't think you've been paying close enough attention for the last eight years or so.
if you're deemed an "enemy combatant" your due process consists of waterboarding. Obama continues this practice which Bush started but uses different words. If you're falsely accused it's even worse b/c then you're a PR risk and they have an incentive to "lose" you. Many of our troops are against this policy of guilty until proven innocent and they're losing their jobs or resigning. Guess who that leaves?
@jimmutenno We have 40% tax, but that doesn't mean we always did. I recall that the tax-rate that caused the rebellion from Britain was somewhere in the 2% territory, but that's just recollection. The income tax was 0% until 1913.
Of course, the US today is nowhere near to bastion of capitalism and individual rights it once was.
@jimmutenno I was waiting for him to mention Hong Kong too. I spent two months there living with my (ex-)girlfriend. Pretty awesome place. Definitely freest market in the world... and as far as I can tell the only side-effect of that (which I believe to be a positive one) is that people are more skeptical of trickery and are quite savvy consumers.
One of the problems I see about smaller, freer countries is that they don't have anything to back up their claims. In an increasingly collectivist world, what is to stop someone from just marching into Costa Rica and setting up shop? They simply do not have the means to defend themselves.
Military strength and intellectual strength go hand-in-hand, I think, because without one you can't protect the other (Or in the case of military strength, keep it in line).
Because the other countries are more inclined to view economic freedom as a clever parlor trick, rather than a moral necessity. They won't see the key connection between economic freedom and personal freedom.
Why could it not happen in some other country? Currently, the U.S. is lagging in both political and economic measures of freedom compared to a handful of other countries.
Japan and Korea have their own terrible form of "mysticism," just as Rand said of Soviet Russia's supposed atheism. The individual in Korea and Japan is totally disregarded and considered unimportant; I've had 1st hand experience of this in Korean corporations.
Britain is morally cowardly, and thereby inviting Islamism; Canada isn't much better in that regard.
Not all atheisms are created equal. Those whose atheism is used to support moral relativism and ontological subjectivism are perhaps worse off than a Thomist or some other kind of religionist.
Atheism is not a belief system, just as not believing in Santa is not a belief system.
Atheism is just the affirmation that a belief in God does not play a part in my view of the world.
Saying I have something in common with Stalin (or any other atheist) based on that, is like saying a deist or theist has something in common with Stalin (or any person over the age of seven), who doesn't believe in Santa.
You are bashing on your own team, dude. I am an atheist myself. Please reread my comment (and my post to your wall). I think you will see you misunderstood me.
I've got to disagree with you and Paul here. Statistical measures of how atheistic a country is don't mean much, we all know that there are plenty of evil secular ideologies out there. If the US goes totalitarian with the amount of force-wielding power that it has, I don't think a free state anywhere on the globe would survive. All the smaller ones today are under the umbrella of American military hegemony. Even if, say, the US stayed the same and Canada went capitalist, I don't see Canada's...
Remember that it was Scotland, not England, which became ~the most advanced nation in Europe~ intellectually. I'm just saying there is nothing deterministically indicating that some other country couldn't rise up intellectually. You guys have a brutal educational system going against you.
I know our education system is awful, I really can't find the words to stress how bad it is. But is education in other countries really that much better? I'm not doubting what you're saying here, I just only have knowledge about the American system.
Also the US is currently by far the country with the greatest influence of Objectivism. IMO, Objectivism is our only hope, anything less could only serve as a temporary bulwark against statism.
The way things are going, before too long we're seriously going to have to have some discussions with Objectivists about plans for getting out of here. I don't want to sound crazy but really, things are going downhill so quickly. 10-15 years from now, we might need to take some drastic measures. Set up a town in the middle of nowhere in northern Canada? Assemble a small army and take over some African country? I'm actually not kidding...
Haha! I'd like some of that just for Rochester, damn. But when the statists get their way, global warming is supposed to end, right? I hope not, I'm cold.
"I think we got at least 30 years till it's time to go ~underground~."
See that's what I thought until recently, but seeing the reactions Obamalamading-dong (trademark Legendre007) is getting, I'm worried about the next 4-8 years quite honestly.
"See that's what I thought until recently, but seeing the reactions Obamalamading-dong (trademark Legendre007) is getting, I'm worried about the next 4-8 years quite honestly."
You think he's going to nationalize major industries?
I don't know, I hope not. Did you ever read Eric Hoffer's The True Believer? It's an interesting book with lots of observations about makes a place ripe for totalitarianism. The general psychology of Americans is perfect right now for a mass movement, and the "Ominous Parallels" between the US and pre-Hitler Germany seem to be stronger than ever before. The comparison between Hitler and Obama is being made all over, and as far as I can tell it's pretty valid.
Right now though he has a full Democratic majority in Congress. The Republicans are DEAD, so there will be no opposition to anything he wants to do, IF he has the spine to actually try and do it. He might go center or he might go far left, but either way things will get worse before they get better. You know, I thought socialism was dead, but now I don't know. The Republicans were too damn pathetic to ever fully IDENTIFY it and kill it. This mess is more their fault than anyone's.
"Well, dude, you're right across Lake Ontario. I don't think Canada's going anywhere soon. Unless Obama tries to invade :-)."
Ha, yes this is true. BUT I'm also contractually obligated for the next 9 1/2 years to the military. I graduate in 1 1/2, then I have a minimum obligation of 4 years active duty, 4 years reserve. My god I hope we make it that long. Realistically I think we will, but the seeds for something else are planted right now...
Yeah, I agree. I used to be a Republican. Bought into the whole Revolution of '94 (?) ...Gingrich...the first 100 days blah blah blah.
They failed miserably. During the Republican controlled Congress they even passed a law regulating your toilet! If I don't have the freedom to buy, make, and sell the crapper I want for my private business; if I can't take a dump without Congressional oversight, I argue the U.S. is DE FACTO dead.
Hahaha. Didn't that same Republican Congress vow to "simplify" the tax code, and then proceed to add 5 million words of "simplification," taking the whole code from 4 million words to 9 million?
I don't understand the tax code... "lets lower the standards... dee dee dee"
lol, but yea... maybe the tax code isn't too complex, but the people reading it are too stupid. Lets not mislabel a symptom of the problem, as the problem itself.
What I'm worried about now is *covert* socialism. Obama has the ability to say nothing at all more eloquently than any sleazy politician before him. He can rationalize all kinds of nasty things with his convoluted jargon, and he just might turn this country into the USSR without anyone ever uttering the words socialism, nationalization, collectivism, etc., except us Oists of course. I didn't think someone could get away with statism here just through double-talk, but as you say Americans are...
I've thought about where an independent community could go to gather strength against such a government. I've concluded that the best bet would be to move back to Alaska and join the Alaska Independence Party, and push for a vote to secede from the rest of the U.S. and restore the constitution.
It is good though to have the internet for if things do get to that point. Today Objectivists everywhere are networked together in a lot of ways through YouTube, the blogosphere, ARI, etc..
Part of me wants to just get the hell out of here now and let all these damn fools get what's coming to them, "in the neck," as Arthur Jones said.
It's a good thing to have the internet, yes, but it could prove to be a totalitarian government's most powerful weapon against people such as us who may try to organize. Imagine Google being secretly infiltrated by thought police. They would have access to your friends, your banks accounts, your messages, and every web site you visit. As in the past, the tools of man's mind and his survival will be turned against him...
...dumber than ever right now due to this education system. Most people I know literally can not construct a sentence, let alone connect thoughts together in a logical, coherent fashion. They all think by association and are ripe for Obama's verbiage to dance circles through their brains.
The solution? Why, invest in Brandon Cropper of course!
Right well that is why freedom of speech is the key thing. As long as we still have that, there is hope, but once that goes it's time to skidaddle. That's why I'm saying that really do need to start discussing these kinds of ideas, because when the shit hits the fan we won't be allowed to discuss them anymore. Objectivists are all over the internet and are easy to find.
Laissez Faire the only way to go
Scattnam 2 months ago
Sorry, but plutocracy is not in my interest, socialism is.
Adeikov 2 months ago
@Adeikov Socialism is not in your interest, it is in your rulers interest.
brangelito 2 weeks ago
@brangelito
Objectivism is an ideology; the purpose of an ideologist is to enslave the free mind an ideology; producing drones without room in their head for a free thought, which always defer to the ideology first. Objectivism dead; objectiism self-contradictory as a whole.
Adeikov 1 week ago
In Britain, in 1843, the newspaper The Economist was founded, and became an influential voice for laissez-faire capitalism.[13] In response to the Irish famine of 1846–1849, in which over 1.5 million people died of starvation, they argued that for the government to supply free food for the Irish would violate natural law.
PANDAjoe2x 2 months ago
The unfortunate part is what most people don't notice is that 'capitalism' and 'freedom' are interchangeable. For Americans this is true.
For religion, the military, and capitalism to flourish, civil liberties are not necessary and may even be a hinderance to the three.
visvaldisX 3 months ago
So the United States during the 18th century represents Ayn Rand's ideal vision of a society that protected individual rights.
But the United States permitted white people to own black slaves during the 18th century.
So much for that, eh?
ZrazorRozenstrauch 8 months ago
@ZrazorRozenstrauch She says it was the closest. She also has condemned slavery.
gocrusaderz 8 months ago
@gocrusaderz Which would make her a hypocrite?
ZrazorRozenstrauch 8 months ago
@ZrazorRozenstrauch She didnt embrace EVERY aspect of the time. She embraced most of the aspects. The aspects she embraced were mostly those of economic policy. Not social problems. thats why I said "closest." You can like the NFL without liking the Green Bay Packers. You dont have to embody every damn characteristic. And that doesnt make you a hypocrit
gocrusaderz 7 months ago
Sosialism will probably take over, and we'll live like in Anthem (just totally unstable, sosialism have never, and will never be stable), then we will discover it.
genstian 9 months ago
I'm guessing these guys never heard of Alexander Hamiltons protectionism?
Salvysahagun 9 months ago
If EVERYBODY were self-centered "objectivists", who the hell would be willing to risk their hides as police officers, firemen, military, etc., etc, etc., The ivorytower existence of these elite navel-gazers depends on the existence of millions of "collectivist parasites" who put their lives on the line to make their "virtuous" existence possible!
Where do these characters come from? No female "objectivist" would sacrifice herself for the sake of birthing and raising parasitic offspring!
Rayosun4 9 months ago
Remember in Atlas shrugged, John Galt leads a collectivist strike of the bourgeoisie against the masses. What a hypocrite?
dan24b 10 months ago
It's mind-boggling that the elitists have been able to twist logic so successfully that there is even a discussion of possibly following Ayn Rand's sociopathic recipe for disaster. They spout individual rights - yet Rand was only concerned with the rights of the elite "supermen" that would rule over the masses serving them. Is this a joke - Ayn Rand Center For Individual Rights? It's closer to Ayn Rand Center For Elitist Control of the Ignorant Masses. What a coup. I'd never thought it possible.
tripfunkmonster 10 months ago
Ayn rand is a capitalist bitch. Why should the rights of an individual abridge the freedoms of the majority?
Serial520 11 months ago
@Serial520 What rights of the majority? Their is no such thing. Only individuals have rights. A right is a moral principle sanctioning a person's freedom of action. Their is no such thing as a majority action.
rational1776 10 months ago 2
@Serial520, Randians would tell you that "majorities" aren't objective realities. (they're a fiction of our imaginations). So ONE individual is objective, but a MILLION to one individuals don't count!
Rayosun4 9 months ago
@Rayosun4 is the author of a web site exposing the incompatibility of THIS extreme of the Republican Party's thinking and policies with the religious views of so many Christians who are duped by that party's lies and rhetoric. Google "thegodlessconservativeparty"
Rayosun4 9 months ago
That guy has nothing of a successful and libertarian objectivist like Hank Rearden could be, he's an unfriendly know-it-all with an awful taste is clothes.
lessiv 1 year ago
Ah yes, the greatest confession! Early America was the closest to the Objectivist vision. This only shows how economically unsound laissez-faire is. Anybody willing to do the necessary research will find that every successful economy, including that of the United States, only achieved its success through regulated markets. Just read "Bad Samaritans" or "How Rich Countries Got Rich and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor." As I said, anybody willing to research can confirm the necessity of regulations.
GuyMontag92 1 year ago
I don't think lassez faire capitalism is morally just. We all are well aware of the arbitrary factors that hinder our ability to be productive. Government regulation at least compensates for these arbitrary factors. Morality is a compromise between the individual and the society. Individuals are morally obligated to the society because they are generally not self-sufficient; they are dependent on the society. A properly regulated market for compensation is therefore morally just.
Achilles9924 1 year ago
Congratulations. If you follow this, you follow a pseudo philosophy that is self contradictory.
TheAvidAnarchist 1 year ago
@TheAvidAnarchist Congratulations, you made no attempt to articulate your assertion. You are a troll.
TheWiseCommenter 1 year ago
See the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom U.S. economy is no longer free.
Atlas Shrugged parallels/predicted Americas destructive trend.
islandmuffin 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I am sorry but the early American economy was based upon slavery. Laizzes faire capitalism assumes a lack of coercion. How in the hell is subjugated and forced slavery non-coercive.
trehansen 2 years ago
In Ideology American Economy was Lezzie Fare based capitalism which is what he is talking about. Traditionally it was the Bible belting south who wanted to hold on to slavery based on there bible. We would need a course to explain this as such and or all day but in principle, American was the most lezzie fare which rights can only exist in that type of society. Individual, property rights ect.
Bigturns33 2 years ago
@Bigturns33: I think you are a little mistaken. The Bible Belting South wasn't holding on to slavery because of the bible, it was holding on to slavery because the agrarian economy was based on manual labor in the fields and slavery was the most EFFICIENT. That was changing world wide at the same time. Please do some ACTUAL research before you put things on the internet.
Are we to assume you are saying that the reason that African tribes enslaved each other was the bible?
idm13 2 years ago
@idm13 Capitalism is more efficient than slavery. A slave owner is responsible for the life of the slave but a businessman is only responsible for providing a limited wage to the worker. The worker also has to buy the same service his company provides using the same money as well. The reason south defended slavery is deeply rooted on traditions of class and feudalism based on land/property. Free white men were capable of moving up the class by owning slaves.
Achilles9924 1 year ago
@trehansen, I thought your question was a good one. I'm disappointed that people just downthumbed it instead of addressing it.
EyeLean5280 2 years ago
@trehansenit wasn't laissez-faire. It was only because the government upheld the law of slavery that slavery was uphold.
Sivels 1 year ago
Early America's individual rights? erm...what about the slaves?
And as far as an example, what about Victorian England?
MemeScythe 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Which Government is the Most Laissez-Faire? Lets see Somalia comes to mind. Business and those with wealth can do as they please, basically no government which is a pre-requisite in Libertarian ideology, no regulations, environmental laws, labor rights, guns for everyone, so why don't you guys promote them as an example?
Oh yeah because it is an absolute disaster!!!! They are a basket case! How does it feel to be a cult like ideology that is as idiotic as laissez-faire is? Pretty pathetic
Navywxman 2 years ago
You realize there is more order in their anarchistic form than when there was a government?
They are statistically better than they were under a coercive state and have not had any major violent outbreaks since 1995. They continually get better statistically, economically and socially every year. Lets not forget the oppressive regimes (UN) trying to force a government on them and creating chaos.
pink3y 2 years ago
You also have to remember that switching from one regime to another is not easy, especially going from oppressive government to no government or very little government and gaining sudden individual freedoms.
pink3y 2 years ago
@Navywxman Wrong. Somalia is Anarchistic, not Laissez-Faire. Laissez-Faire means that there is a minimal government to secure freedom
stephleom 1 year ago
i agree if it happens, likely it will be here
johncattermole 2 years ago
I think the world is going to have to experience a period of time similar to the Dark Ages before it wakes up and discovers the morality and value of unqualified individual liberty. It's time for Atlas to shrug.
bradwatson7324 2 years ago 10
@bradwatson7324 Is that a joke? We are in a dark age. A time in which people worship money & material things. Where they don't give a shit about each other. Where invading sovereign nations is acceptable and watched on TV as if it were entertainment. Where creative thinking is called subversive. Where hatred is called strength and thoughtful discussion is called weakness. Aren't you paying attention?
TheStulzRage 10 months ago
I see that somebody already said somalia.
Ghosafizzle 2 years ago 2
Hmm yes, government is bad yes, let corporations do everything hmmm hmmm yes, Goldman Sachs engineered the current recession but that's not a bad thing, yes capitalism is not totalitarian in any way shape or form hmmm hmmm
If hell exists then Ayn Rand is eating her own stomach there
TurboSpaghettiRobot 2 years ago
if hell exists then ayn rand is working in a coal mine in the 1800s, forever
cnek 2 years ago
but it probably doesn't, so don't worry
Scout140 2 years ago
somalia
poolofAIDS 2 years ago
The trouble with believing the government to be the protector of individual rights is that government seems to inevitably grow to become the greatest violator of individual rights, even when it starts with the best constitution in the world.
NoDeity 2 years ago
lol yeah businesses never do anything bad. clearly united fruit has the interests of their workers at heart
concordat 2 years ago 2
False dichotomy. Government and big corporations are not the only two options.
NoDeity 2 years ago
I am aware of this, but do not pretend that objectivists think in any other way than that.
concordat 2 years ago
[shrug] I don't spend a lot of time worrying about how Objectivists think.
NoDeity 2 years ago
hahahaha
concordat 2 years ago
Man, I'm getting pretty tired of Objectivists never paying any attention to Hong Kong. It's like they don't do their research. Hong Kong is currently the freest place on earth in all economic and political senses. Far freer than America. For starters, they have 15% income tax, we have progressive with the max at 40%, plus state tax, etc, etc.
jimmutenno 2 years ago 17
But it's within a massive, repressive super-state: China. How could that possibly be considered a free place? The Chinese government can take away all of Hong Kong's rights and freedoms with the stroke of a pen. That's not freedom.
drd32 2 years ago
So? That can be said of ANY government. That's just the nature of the beast. But anyway, that wasn't the case just 12 years ago; it was a colony of Great Britain. Also, so far China hasn't shown any signs of changing the way Hong Kong operates. They agreed to the conditions of the handover that they do nothing to Hong Kong's legal and economic system for 50 years, and they've kept that promise so far. China is actually about as free as America is, economically and in many other ways.
jimmutenno 2 years ago
I agree with what you're saying about China not messing with hong kong (for now).
however, that cannot be said for ANY government. In the US, I am afforded certain inalienable rights. These rights are outlined and protected by the Constitution and cannot be revoked. That is simply not the case in China. I'm sure there is much to love about China and their economic progress and history as a civilization is impressive. Their record on rights leaves much to be desired.
drd32 2 years ago
drd32, do you honestly believe that the U.S. government cannot revoke your rights? If so, I don't think you've been paying close enough attention for the last eight years or so.
NoDeity 2 years ago
of course the government can revoke my rights. But, per the Constituion, not without due process of law.
drd32 2 years ago
There is nothing magical about law that stops a government from violating it.
NoDeity 2 years ago
if you're deemed an "enemy combatant" your due process consists of waterboarding. Obama continues this practice which Bush started but uses different words. If you're falsely accused it's even worse b/c then you're a PR risk and they have an incentive to "lose" you. Many of our troops are against this policy of guilty until proven innocent and they're losing their jobs or resigning. Guess who that leaves?
natdavi 2 years ago
@jimmutenno We have 40% tax, but that doesn't mean we always did. I recall that the tax-rate that caused the rebellion from Britain was somewhere in the 2% territory, but that's just recollection. The income tax was 0% until 1913.
Of course, the US today is nowhere near to bastion of capitalism and individual rights it once was.
JETZcorp 1 year ago
@jimmutenno
Yet, Hong Kong is not completely capitalist.
The existence of an income tax, as well as the fact that ALL LAND is owned by the state, is anti-capitalist.
1800's US was one of the most individualist in history, but still not laissez-faire.
Valenhiem 1 year ago
@Valenhiem
By your definition of laissez-faire, there can be no such thing.
NathanRomml 1 year ago
@jimmutenno I was waiting for him to mention Hong Kong too. I spent two months there living with my (ex-)girlfriend. Pretty awesome place. Definitely freest market in the world... and as far as I can tell the only side-effect of that (which I believe to be a positive one) is that people are more skeptical of trickery and are quite savvy consumers.
TheWiseCommenter 1 year ago
@jimmutenno
I tend to agree, Hong Kong is great yet I fear China will seep in too much and ruin it.
BenjaminWirtz 1 year ago
@jimmutenno
Yeah, Hong Kong is gay yet I hope China will seep in an ruin it.
NathanRomml 1 year ago
@jimmutenno
dude but hong kong inst a country
binary180 3 months ago
you assfucked your self you communist bastard
n7275 3 years ago
When you say something so preposterous, give a source please
aweiss 3 years ago
That is plainly not true.
aweiss 3 years ago
The market was almost perfectly unregulated in America. Where did you get that information?
aweiss 3 years ago
closest
sexdrugsRnR 3 years ago
Sorry, thought he'd say Hong Kong. Got to stop typing so quickly.
ThePissedOffAtheist 3 years ago
I tought he'd say Hong Kong.
ThePissedOffAtheist 3 years ago
One of the problems I see about smaller, freer countries is that they don't have anything to back up their claims. In an increasingly collectivist world, what is to stop someone from just marching into Costa Rica and setting up shop? They simply do not have the means to defend themselves.
Military strength and intellectual strength go hand-in-hand, I think, because without one you can't protect the other (Or in the case of military strength, keep it in line).
Sarrisan98 3 years ago
thanks for posting
shovelcharge 3 years ago
Costa Rica is pretty darn close.
RodCornholio 3 years ago
Somebody else mentioned Costa Rica to me recently. You think it might be a good uh, back-up plan someday?
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
Costa Rica = carbon neutral by 2021
The mechanics of getting there = regulation
Woo.
Radeo 3 years ago
Because the other countries are more inclined to view economic freedom as a clever parlor trick, rather than a moral necessity. They won't see the key connection between economic freedom and personal freedom.
MetaMorphy 3 years ago
An excellent observation.
The battle is for a new code of morality.
snakeinthegrass20 3 years ago
"They won't see the key connection between economic freedom and personal freedom."
Suppose Objectivism takes over in another country, that could change.
qtronman 3 years ago
Why could it not happen in some other country? Currently, the U.S. is lagging in both political and economic measures of freedom compared to a handful of other countries.
qtronman 3 years ago
The US is also much more mired down in mysticism than such countries as Japan, Britain, or Canada, which are much more atheistic, statistically.
PaulMcKeever 3 years ago
...way then spreading anywhere. The West has followed the US for a long time, and I don't see that changing for a while.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
Japan and Korea have their own terrible form of "mysticism," just as Rand said of Soviet Russia's supposed atheism. The individual in Korea and Japan is totally disregarded and considered unimportant; I've had 1st hand experience of this in Korean corporations.
Britain is morally cowardly, and thereby inviting Islamism; Canada isn't much better in that regard.
qtronman 3 years ago 2
Not all atheisms are created equal. Those whose atheism is used to support moral relativism and ontological subjectivism are perhaps worse off than a Thomist or some other kind of religionist.
MetaMorphy 3 years ago
Atheism is not a belief system, just as not believing in Santa is not a belief system.
Atheism is just the affirmation that a belief in God does not play a part in my view of the world.
Saying I have something in common with Stalin (or any other atheist) based on that, is like saying a deist or theist has something in common with Stalin (or any person over the age of seven), who doesn't believe in Santa.
deinse81 3 years ago
I understand that. Let me rephrase---not all atheists are equal.
MetaMorphy 3 years ago
You are bashing on your own team, dude. I am an atheist myself. Please reread my comment (and my post to your wall). I think you will see you misunderstood me.
MetaMorphy 3 years ago
I was just adding to your point.
deinse81 3 years ago
I've got to disagree with you and Paul here. Statistical measures of how atheistic a country is don't mean much, we all know that there are plenty of evil secular ideologies out there. If the US goes totalitarian with the amount of force-wielding power that it has, I don't think a free state anywhere on the globe would survive. All the smaller ones today are under the umbrella of American military hegemony. Even if, say, the US stayed the same and Canada went capitalist, I don't see Canada's...
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
Remember that it was Scotland, not England, which became ~the most advanced nation in Europe~ intellectually. I'm just saying there is nothing deterministically indicating that some other country couldn't rise up intellectually. You guys have a brutal educational system going against you.
qtronman 3 years ago
I know our education system is awful, I really can't find the words to stress how bad it is. But is education in other countries really that much better? I'm not doubting what you're saying here, I just only have knowledge about the American system.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
Also the US is currently by far the country with the greatest influence of Objectivism. IMO, Objectivism is our only hope, anything less could only serve as a temporary bulwark against statism.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago 2
"Also the US is currently by far the country with the greatest influence of Objectivism."
This is true.
qtronman 3 years ago
The way things are going, before too long we're seriously going to have to have some discussions with Objectivists about plans for getting out of here. I don't want to sound crazy but really, things are going downhill so quickly. 10-15 years from now, we might need to take some drastic measures. Set up a town in the middle of nowhere in northern Canada? Assemble a small army and take over some African country? I'm actually not kidding...
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
"Set up a town in the middle of nowhere in northern Canada?"
Hurry up global warming! :-)
qtronman 3 years ago
"Hurry up global warming! :-)"
Haha! I'd like some of that just for Rochester, damn. But when the statists get their way, global warming is supposed to end, right? I hope not, I'm cold.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
"10-15 years from now, we might need to take some drastic measures."
I think we got at least 30 years till it's time to go ~underground~.
qtronman 3 years ago
"I think we got at least 30 years till it's time to go ~underground~."
See that's what I thought until recently, but seeing the reactions Obamalamading-dong (trademark Legendre007) is getting, I'm worried about the next 4-8 years quite honestly.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
"See that's what I thought until recently, but seeing the reactions Obamalamading-dong (trademark Legendre007) is getting, I'm worried about the next 4-8 years quite honestly."
You think he's going to nationalize major industries?
qtronman 3 years ago
I don't know, I hope not. Did you ever read Eric Hoffer's The True Believer? It's an interesting book with lots of observations about makes a place ripe for totalitarianism. The general psychology of Americans is perfect right now for a mass movement, and the "Ominous Parallels" between the US and pre-Hitler Germany seem to be stronger than ever before. The comparison between Hitler and Obama is being made all over, and as far as I can tell it's pretty valid.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
Right now though he has a full Democratic majority in Congress. The Republicans are DEAD, so there will be no opposition to anything he wants to do, IF he has the spine to actually try and do it. He might go center or he might go far left, but either way things will get worse before they get better. You know, I thought socialism was dead, but now I don't know. The Republicans were too damn pathetic to ever fully IDENTIFY it and kill it. This mess is more their fault than anyone's.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
Well, dude, you're right across Lake Ontario. I don't think Canada's going anywhere soon. Unless Obama tries to invade :-).
qtronman 3 years ago
"Well, dude, you're right across Lake Ontario. I don't think Canada's going anywhere soon. Unless Obama tries to invade :-)."
Ha, yes this is true. BUT I'm also contractually obligated for the next 9 1/2 years to the military. I graduate in 1 1/2, then I have a minimum obligation of 4 years active duty, 4 years reserve. My god I hope we make it that long. Realistically I think we will, but the seeds for something else are planted right now...
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
Yeah, I agree. I used to be a Republican. Bought into the whole Revolution of '94 (?) ...Gingrich...the first 100 days blah blah blah.
They failed miserably. During the Republican controlled Congress they even passed a law regulating your toilet! If I don't have the freedom to buy, make, and sell the crapper I want for my private business; if I can't take a dump without Congressional oversight, I argue the U.S. is DE FACTO dead.
RodCornholio 3 years ago
Hahaha. Didn't that same Republican Congress vow to "simplify" the tax code, and then proceed to add 5 million words of "simplification," taking the whole code from 4 million words to 9 million?
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
I don't understand the tax code... "lets lower the standards... dee dee dee"
lol, but yea... maybe the tax code isn't too complex, but the people reading it are too stupid. Lets not mislabel a symptom of the problem, as the problem itself.
collins1188 2 years ago
What I'm worried about now is *covert* socialism. Obama has the ability to say nothing at all more eloquently than any sleazy politician before him. He can rationalize all kinds of nasty things with his convoluted jargon, and he just might turn this country into the USSR without anyone ever uttering the words socialism, nationalization, collectivism, etc., except us Oists of course. I didn't think someone could get away with statism here just through double-talk, but as you say Americans are...
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
I've thought about where an independent community could go to gather strength against such a government. I've concluded that the best bet would be to move back to Alaska and join the Alaska Independence Party, and push for a vote to secede from the rest of the U.S. and restore the constitution.
TokDiYel 3 years ago
It is good though to have the internet for if things do get to that point. Today Objectivists everywhere are networked together in a lot of ways through YouTube, the blogosphere, ARI, etc..
Part of me wants to just get the hell out of here now and let all these damn fools get what's coming to them, "in the neck," as Arthur Jones said.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
It's a good thing to have the internet, yes, but it could prove to be a totalitarian government's most powerful weapon against people such as us who may try to organize. Imagine Google being secretly infiltrated by thought police. They would have access to your friends, your banks accounts, your messages, and every web site you visit. As in the past, the tools of man's mind and his survival will be turned against him...
TokDiYel 3 years ago
It's true, and the people running Google ARE NOT Objectivists; they don't give a damn about you or me.
qtronman 3 years ago
...dumber than ever right now due to this education system. Most people I know literally can not construct a sentence, let alone connect thoughts together in a logical, coherent fashion. They all think by association and are ripe for Obama's verbiage to dance circles through their brains.
The solution? Why, invest in Brandon Cropper of course!
Beethovens7th 3 years ago 2
Right well that is why freedom of speech is the key thing. As long as we still have that, there is hope, but once that goes it's time to skidaddle. That's why I'm saying that really do need to start discussing these kinds of ideas, because when the shit hits the fan we won't be allowed to discuss them anymore. Objectivists are all over the internet and are easy to find.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago