Ayn Rand

[Faminedynasty]

fascism disguised as individualism if you ask me.

 

[Darkdale]

Does anyone read her books?

Yes, I have read everything she has written.

What does everyone think of her theories on Objectivism?

I think that Objectivism is foundation for modern morality, economics and philosophy, but that it lacks a fundamental understanding of the individual with regard to their family and community. Because Rand objects to National Collectivism, she just ignores deeply important relationships between family members. I suppose my differences with her here are religious in nature, but I think there is a certain quality missing from any philosophy that ignores the importance of the family

My Dad thinks she's the greatest philosopher ever... He keeps giving me her books

Your dad is a great and brilliant man. Listen to him. But keep an open mind. If you understand Rand, you'll understand that she views human beings as having unlimited potential to progress and evolve, and that means that we as rational beings must evolve our philosophies with the changing of the times. Not at the fundamental level, but certainly at the surface. Ayn Rand didn't anticipate the next 1,000 years. She anticipated the next 100. Things change, concepts require new language as the economic, political and social contexts change, shift and evolve.

I've started reading her Novel "Philosophy, Who Needs It" and i'm REALLY enjoying it. I have about 3 more of her books, and I hope that reading these books will give me a better outlook, more objective (haha), than the one i have now...

What did you get out of Ayn Rand?

Rand saved me from myself. I used to be a bitter, angry, frightened, helpless socialist. I hated everything, all the time and didn't understand why. I let my anger and insecurities shape my politics (hence the liberalism and socialism). But I turned things around. Devoted myself to the pursuit of goals and the accomplishments of my dreams.

But remember, don't encourage subjectivists and egalitarians to be like you. Objectivists have an advantage. We are willing to work and earn everything we want, which means we actually get what we want. The more people that begin to think this way, the more competition you'll have in life. The more people that question their existence, question their worth, who think money is the root of all evil, who think that selfishness is evil, the less people you have to compete with and the easier it will be for you to fulfill your dreams.

Check out the Ayn Rand Institute and learn as much about her as you can. She was a great and beautiful individual and she has motivated generations of conservative, libertarian thought. Ayn Rand was a serious and profound philosopher that saved the world from Kant, Marx and Plato.
The Ayn Rand Institute

 

[Faminedynasty]

"The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others." -Ayn Rand
Bahahahahahah! Is that historically accurate? Oh, wait, she's saying...that um...if we were just more capitalistic...then...that's how it'd be. Ok. Credible.

 

[robtex]

There is a qoute from Ayn Rand on the net that I really like:

"Faith is the commitment of one's consciousness to beliefs for which one has no sensory evidence or rational proof. A mystic is a man who treats his feelings as tools of cognition. Faith is the equation of feeling with knowledge."

http://www.wonderfulatheistsofcfl.org/Quotes.htm

 

[Darkdale]

"The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others." -Ayn Rand
Bahahahahahah! Is that historically accurate? Oh, wait, she's saying...that um...if we were just more capitalistic...then...that's how it'd be. Ok. Credible.

Yes. That is historically accurate. However, you need more than just economic liberty to build a great civilization. You need resources and productive individuals. Of course, from what I can tell, there has never been a laissez-faire form of capitalism. Remember, it is not more capitalism that we need, it is less government. Capitalism is simply the natural state of an economy in the presence of law and the absence of mercantilism. It is always the greed of those who choose not to produce that gives the government its' power to regulate an economy.

 

[Yerda]

It is always the greed of those who choose not to produce that gives the government its' power to regulate an economy.

Yes, they're called capitalists.

 

[Darkdale]

Yes, they're called capitalists.

No. They are called liberals. The Capitalists are the producers. The Capitalists are the ones who don't need a government to tell them the value of their labor or the value of their goods. The capitalists are the ones that don't need a government to tell them what morality is, or what to value and love in life. Capitalists are capable of doing all that on their own. Liberals are people that cannot succeed in a free system, so they require government. They can't earn what they want on their own, so they use the force and violence of government to get their way. The Capitalists are not the greedy ones. There is no greater greed, or cruel cynicism, than socialism. The Capitalists are the moral ones, as evidenced by the fact that they aren't trying to use government to force their values on anyone else. Socialists and Theocrats, Facsists and Communists, all want to use government to force their values on the rest of the world. Capitalists want to force their values on no one. All we ask is for the freedom to produce and to consume as we wish. Capitalists just want to be free to pursue their values, while Socialists want to force their values on everyone else. There is a moral difference between the two.

Here is what liberals fail to understand about economics. The American Economic System has become a way for politicians to force their values on the rest of the American People. Let's begin with the Republicans as an example. Cigarettes and Alcohol are highly taxed, while there are no taxes on religion. Republicans value religion and they dislike Cigarettes and Alcohol. So they try to force their values on us through taxes. The tax code is designed to push the economy to its' limit, to have only as much regulation as the market can handle. Government has become an economic condition, but government itself is a burden on the economy. The larger it grows, the more taxes it requires. Because government produces far less than what it consumes, it is constantly wasting capital and thus hurting the economy. The economy depends on production and businesses are what does the producing. The more you regulate businesses and the more you tax them, the less they can produce and the less they can sell. The less they produce, the less capital they create and the less jobs they can provide. This is why tax cuts create jobs.

The economy is the people and the consequence of their values (what they want and what they need). Because we have unlimited wants and many needs, there will always be a market for production. The more that can be produced, the more jobs there will be and the more money the people will have to buy what they want and what they need. Restriction and Taxes hurt this process.

 

[Darkdale]

Darkdale that's an overbearingly idealistic, biased and reductionist view - Take the Rand filters off your vision and read some decent books on political philosophy.

Actually, it is not idealistic. In fact, it is quite natural unlike the artificial (idealistic) structures of mercantile and socialist economies, which depend on government and force to operate. I am biased. It is a bias toward rationality and freedom, and the expectation that we are best off when we are free to produce and trade without fear of violence and force (hence the need for the rule of law). It is not reductionism in any sense of the word.

You simply have no argument against it, so you are forced to spat nonsense and offer no economic rationale for your own beliefs; all you can do is tell me what your values are and then demand that I obey them. But I don't care about you or your values and won't obey you. I ask, simply for the right to live according to my own values, where you and I are both free to produce and consume without violence, without force and without fraud. But your greed is far-reaching isn't it? Your anger makes it impossible to tolerate liberty. Your greed for the goods of others overwhelms your natural inclinations toward freedom. I think that is very, very sad.... and terrible. Isn't there a part of you that knows you are free, that you are meant to be free, that no one can own your mind, your labor? Isn't there some part of you that knows that force and violence are wrong? That you don't have a right to use the guns of government to steal what you could not produce on your own?

But please, at least attempt to demonstrate an understanding of the science of economics. Irrational statements don't impress me.

I am always amazed how little people understand about economics. They look at it like it was planned by some supermind, as if it was ordered according to some particular will or value. The reality is that the Economy is the sum result of the values and efforts of Mankind. With the exception of restricted markets, taxes and government, the economy is predicated upon mutual benefit, yet it took the world 2,000 years to understand that the economy reflects spontaneous human action. 2,000 years of failing to understand economics as a science, until the arrival of Adam Smith and The Wealth of Nations. But the idealists fail to understand the fundamentals of human nature and therefore cannot accept the result of free, human economic action. Because the idealists refuse to accept human beings for what they are, they fail to understand the values and choices that are made. Only once we accept that human beings are, by nature, selfish, and that there is nothing that can be done to change that fact, we will never understand spontaneous human action.

So the idealists, the ones who pretend that mankind is something other than what it is, are incapable of comprehending human choice; and thus incapable of understanding economics.

 

[Darkdale]

Darkdale you're doing it again. You assume the reason I'm not trying to engage you in debate over your views is because I conform to some typecast. Have you thought that maybe entering into discussion with someone that has firmly preconceived notions of what I think and what I should think isn't my idea of a good time?

Preconceived? You are correct that I didn't expect you, given your first post, to be able to make an argument. However, until you attempt to (instead of typecasting me as a mere reflection of Ayn Rand; which I am not) make an argument, I won't know if you are capable of it or not. I suspect that you know that you cannot debate me on economics, so you would rather deflect and merely attack Ayn Rand, because you feel that she is an easier target than the actual content of the argument.

All you can say is that I am brainwashed.

For example, this is a thread on Ayn Rand. Thus the substance that I am defending here is Objectivism, and the foundations of Objectivist thought. What you have not bothered to discover is that there are many other philosophers of note (Nietzsche, Hume, Aristotle, Smith, Locke) that differ from Rand on various points of theory, but with whom I agree on related fundamental assumptions. Thus, in all those areas where I part with Rand and agree with Hume, your idiotic statement that I have been brainwashed by Randist thought becomes laughable. But you have not inquired into content or substance, so you could not know that. You simply typecast and project.

The only difference between us (because I clearly typecasted you the moment you began posting) is that I offered to demonstrate content and you have not. All you have demonstrated is an unwillingness to make an argument. Do you understand economics? Do you understand Objectivist thought? Do you understand epistemology? I don't know if you do or not. You have yet to demonstrate either knowledge or ignorance.

So that must mean that your intent was simply to attack me and Ayn Rand. If all that you can say is that I am brainwashed, then maybe that is the only thought you have on the matter of which you are confidant, yet you can't demonstrate that it is true (which it clearly isn't).

So the only point that you have made, has been wrong. Where would you like to go from there?

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

So the only point that you have made, has been wrong. Where would you like to go from there?

Dark Dale you are right. I attacked Objectivism and you personally (for which my posts were deleted) in a knee-jerk reaction while failing to put anything forward that could open up a meaningful dialogue between us. Sincerely my friend, I am sorry. Nothing good could've come from that.

Lets go back and hopefully we can begin to explore some important issues together in more detail. You said, " I think that Objectivism is foundation for modern morality". What is the Objectivist ethical position you support?

 

[Darkdale]

Dark Dale you are right. I attacked Objectivism and you personally (for which my posts were deleted) in a knee-jerk reaction while failing to put anything forward that could open up a meaningful dialogue between us. Sincerely my friend, I am sorry. Nothing good could've come from that.

Lets go back and hopefully we can begin to explore some important issues together in more detail. You said, " I think that Objectivism is foundation for modern morality". What is the Objectivist ethical position you support?

In that case, I have gone and removed references I've made with regard to you personally.

The Objectivist Ethics that I support is based on mutual benefit or individual benefit vs. force. I believe that the ethical relationship between individuals is based on the free trade and sharing of goods. Now, as a heathen I add a lot of extra premises to my views on ethics, but those virtues are my own... I choose them... I do not require or expect others to have them. However, I do expect others to refrain from using force to get what they want.

I don't care what your virtues are, or what your values are, so long as you treat me without using force. Maybe you believe that love is the greatest of all virtues, and so you seek to love people. Maybe I believe that courage is the greatest of all virtues, so I go out to face and conquer my fears. So long as neither of us uses force against the other, we can live in peace. And whenever you have something I want, instead of using force to get it, I will trade with you.

But Objectivist Ethics does not tell you what your values or virtues are, only that you are free. My virtues and values do not come from Ayn Rand's Objectivism, they come from the old Heathen Religion. What Objectivism states, is that I should not, as a heathen, force my values and virtues onto you (whatever religion and values may be). And that freedom and tolerance is what makes Ayn Rand's Ethical Philosophy the best foundation for modern morality.

 

[Yerda]

No. They are called liberals. The Capitalists are the producers. The Capitalists are the ones who don't need a government to tell them the value of their labor or the value of their goods. The capitalists are the ones that don't need a government to tell them what morality is, or what to value and love in life. Capitalists are capable of doing all that on their own. Liberals are people that cannot succeed in a free system, so they require government. They can't earn what they want on their own, so they use the force and violence of government to get their way. The Capitalists are not the greedy ones. There is no greater greed, or cruel cynicism, than socialism. The Capitalists are the moral ones, as evidenced by the fact that they aren't trying to use government to force their values on anyone else. Socialists and Theocrats, Facsists and Communists, all want to use government to force their values on the rest of the world. Capitalists want to force their values on no one. All we ask is for the freedom to produce and to consume as we wish. Capitalists just want to be free to pursue their values, while Socialists want to force their values on everyone else. There is a moral difference between the two.

Here is what liberals fail to understand about economics. The American Economic System has become a way for politicians to force their values on the rest of the American People. Let's begin with the Republicans as an example. Cigarettes and Alcohol are highly taxed, while there are no taxes on religion. Republicans value religion and they dislike Cigarettes and Alcohol. So they try to force their values on us through taxes. The tax code is designed to push the economy to its' limit, to have only as much regulation as the market can handle. Government has become an economic condition, but government itself is a burden on the economy. The larger it grows, the more taxes it requires. Because government produces far less than what it consumes, it is constantly wasting capital and thus hurting the economy. The economy depends on production and businesses are what does the producing. The more you regulate businesses and the more you tax them, the less they can produce and the less they can sell. The less they produce, the less capital they create and the less jobs they can provide. This is why tax cuts create jobs.

The economy is the people and the consequence of their values (what they want and what they need). Because we have unlimited wants and many needs, there will always be a market for production. The more that can be produced, the more jobs there will be and the more money the people will have to buy what they want and what they need. Restriction and Taxes hurt this process.

Liberal and socialist are not synonyms. I'm sure you know that Darkdale. Using the terms interchangably is a grave error.

Capitalists are undoutedly greedy and I can't possibly understand how you can have overlooked their vested interests in promoting their own morality. I suspect you're simply being wilfully ignorant on that front.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

What Objectivism states, is that I should not, as a heathen, force my values and virtues onto you (whatever religion and values may be). And that freedom and tolerance is what makes Ayn Rand's Ethical Philosophy the best foundation for modern morality.

That seems very reasonable to me. But that's just me. There is no guarantee that one individual's values and virtues will not clash with those of others. I think we can only be free to do as we wish without being compelled to do otherwise within certain boundaries. If something desired is outside of those boundaries some form of force is required to gain it or we simply have to do without. Now, I'm sure that what you mean by force is something quite specific - not something as unspecific as Nietzsche's 'will to power'. In order to establish what is inappropriate force at least a certain amount of values and virtues have to be shared. Where they are not, isn't conflict inevitable?

 

[Darkdale]

Liberal and socialist are not synonyms. I'm sure you know that Darkdale. Using the terms interchangably is a grave error.

Capitalists are undoutedly greedy and I can't possibly understand how you can have overlooked their vested interests in promoting their own morality. I suspect you're simply being wilfully ignorant on that front.

Liberal and Socialist are very much the same thing, just based in different political atmospheres. Both believe in Mercantilism. Both believe that rights are derived from needs, instead of liberty. Both are corruptive to individual liberty. Both recognize groups, not individuals (which is why their economic policies are so corrupt).

The only difference between liberals and socialists is that I don't find liberals to being knowingly dangerous. They don't seem to know what they are doing. They are "just following their hearts" or "doing what feels right". Socialists seem more educated. They understand what the outcome of their ideas will be and they don't care. It's what they want.

Everyone is greedy. Capitalists are simply the only ones honest enough to admit this. However, capitalists are the ones who do the most good for the most people (given the presence of free markets and the protection of private property).

Because needs and wants create demand, capitalists (who otherwise wouldn't care about the needs or wants of anyone else) are compelled to meet the needs and wants of others by virtue of the price system. Let's say I own hundreds of acres outside of a University. I don't care about those students or if they have a place to live. I don't care that they might "need" my land. But then I start to think about it. Well, maybe I'll make my property available to them for a price.

Then, everyone benefits. The students, the school, the individual who gave up something of their own to people they didn't even know. Capitalism creates the most wealth for the most people, not because it is moral, but because it most accurately reflects reality.

Most people are cowards. They can't be honest with even themselves. Most of the time, they hate themselves for this. The logical conclusion to self-hate is altruism and it is the most evil of all ethics. Kant is the most evil of all philosophers.

That seems very reasonable to me. But that's just me. There is no guarantee that one individual's values and virtues will not clash with those of others. I think we can only be free to do as we wish without being compelled to do otherwise within certain boundaries. If something desired is outside of those boundaries some form of force is required to gain it or we simply have to do without. Now, I'm sure that what you mean by force is something quite specific - not something as unspecific as Nietzsche's 'will to power'. In order to establish what is inappropriate force at least a certain amount of values and virtues have to be shared. Where they are not, isn't conflict inevitable?

There is only one kind of force I am talking about, and that is violence/fraud. There will always be conflict in capitalism. We call it competition. Competition is what creates all the wealth in the world, because of a reality economics call scarcity. Because nothing is unlimited and because people always want and need more and more things, people must compete for goods. To compete, you must produce goods. If you don't produce, how can you consume? That's what capitalism is all about. Producing as much as you consume. This is why Capitalists hate government, they consume more than they produce... and what they do produce is often of poor quality. And, the money they used to produce was not produced by their own effort, but by the effort of others.

For everything the government builds, for every job the government gives, that's tens and hundreds of jobs and things that will never exist. The larger the government grows, the harder the citizens have to work to pay for it and the less money they have for health care, retirement and leisure.

Capitalism is the only system the seeks to produce MORE than it consumes for the purpose of investment. Investment allows us to continue to move forward, while we move along. Socialism destroys investment, because it eats up capital with government. Now, Democracy and Socialism have become close friends and it is hard to tell where Socialism and Capitalism meet in countries like Canada and the United States.

A politicians job is to take money from people that produce and give it to people that don't, or from one group of producers to another. That's how they get votes. But it is always bad.

For example, take the Tariffs on Sugar in America. We pay four times the market price for sugar. So we save some jobs in the Sugar Workers Industry. BUT almost every candy company moved out of the United States to Canada and Mexico where they paid the fair market price for sugar. We lost more jobs than we saved. Socialists only look at the immediate effects of their economic policies, and never at the terrible secondary effects.

Take the policy about children having to have their own child safety seat on airplanes. It's meant to save lives right? Well it didn't. Because people have to buy an extra ticket for a child, more people with young children started driving and more children were killed in car accidents. Unintended consequences... they did what they thought was moral and more people died. That is almost always the case with liberals and socialists. Because they are unwilling to do things the hard way, the try to offer simple solutions (taxes, tariffs and regulations) that help a specific group of people, and as a result, many more groups of people are hurt.

Take the Woodpecker for instance. A particular breed of Woodpecker was placed on the endangered species list in the Southeast United States. Because citizens didn't want the government using their property as a preserve, people cut down all the trees that these Woodpeckers nested in and they started disappearing FASTER than before. Unintended consequences of Socialism are devastating.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Ok, so it refers in particular to threats to free trade. I wonder how trade would be possible without government though. For instance, there have to be certain institutions in place in order to ensure even the limited trade we already have is free from violence. How could they be maintained without taxes to pay for them?

I assume there should be no welfare state according to your line of thinking too?

 

[Darkdale]

Ok, so it refers in particular to threats to free trade. I wonder how trade would be possible without government though. For instance, there have to be certain institutions in place in order to ensure even the limited trade we already have is free from violence. How could they be maintained without taxes to pay for them?

I assume there should be no welfare state according to your line of thinking too?

The idea is not to get rid of all government and all tax; it's not even to get rid of all restrictions. Essentially, a capitalist government would spend money on that which the individual citizens could do for themselves, but yet need nevertheless: Roads, Bridges, Military etc.

However, because every time we build a bridge, jobs are created, there are a lot of votes in bridge building. So governments tend to build roads and bridges everywhere (even places were there aren't any people)... wasting capital and having nothing to show for it. Just look at the Tennessee Valley Authority to notice what a horrible failure government is at producing more than it consumes. (remember, don't look at the effect the TVA had on Tennessee. Look at the secondary effects it had everywhere else)

That is all we are talking about here. No idealism, or "How I wish it was". I'm not talking normatively here. I'm saying that for government to do anything beneficial it must produce as much as it consumes and therefore cannot tax the people more than what is produced (plus whatever investments are made for future production). It's irresponsible.

Capitalists are only against government spending that wastes capital and fails to invest in the maximum alternative opportunities. In other words, the government should never spend $1 billion on a road in Montana, where no one lives, when that money could go to, say, something more necessary like education, defense or taxcuts (which both create jobs & real wealth).

Alternative Opportunities are impossible to define objectively. It is impossible to "prove" that education is more important than a road, or defense more important than a government study on the uses of wood. What we need is common sense. But government doesn't have common sense and therefore must be limited as much as humanly possible.

I absolutely do not believe in Welfare of any kind. It has destroyed every community that depends on it. Entitlements are the worst, most immoral, economically idiotic thing our government has ever done us. The secondary effects are horrific. You will notice, that the more Welfare we have, the more inflation we'll have... and what little bits of cash the individuals are given by the government will be worth less the little they had before the hand out, because prices will keep going up. So the government will need more Welfare...which will push prices up, and on and on.

Eventually the government will have to step in and stop prices from rising. Then you'll see massive layoffs all over the country. Then the government will have to stop businesses from laying people off... and then you will see the collapse of the Western World.

Laizze Faire is the responsible and moral standard for government involvement. Outside of that standard should be the most necessary services. That without which money would be lost. In other words, for whatever roles the government gets involved in, we must demand that they produce more than they consume (or at least equal too), otherwise we are being screwed.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Darkdale your argument that governments can waste capital on ventures that operate at a huge loss made a lot of sense. Oddly, there is an argument against privatisation that says something similar but puts a positive spin on it. Anyway, what really struck me was what you said about the welfare state.

I absolutely do not believe in Welfare of any kind. It has destroyed every community that depends on it. Entitlements are the worst, most immoral, economically idiotic thing our government has ever done us. The secondary effects are horrific. You will notice, that the more Welfare we have, the more inflation we'll have... and what little bits of cash the individuals are given by the government will be worth less the little they had before the hand out, because prices will keep going up. So the government will need more Welfare...which will push prices up, and on and on.

Eventually the government will have to step in and stop prices from rising. Then you'll see massive layoffs all over the country. Then the government will have to stop businesses from laying people off... and then you will see the collapse of the Western World.

Surely its only individuals who depend on it because they are unable to do otherwise. The community as a whole does not, only elements of it.

I'm used to hearing critics point to morally reprehensible people living on benefit who have done nothing to take the responsibility to improve their situation as evidence of the failure of welfare. I'm also used to hearing supporters point to people who needed some form of welfare to maintain themselves through a difficult period then went on to become very 'productive'. There is also the whole issue of whether its morally acceptable to allow people to struggle with disease, poverty and old age without financial support when our society can afford it.

What you're saying is different, that there is a direct correlation between inflation and welfare in a feedback loop that will be the ruination of the Western World. Isn't inflation a highly complex problem; all sorts of factors involved that require careful balance? I just can't see that what your saying can be true. Where is the evidence?

 

[Yerda]

Both believe in Mercantilism. Both believe that rights are derived from needs, instead of liberty. Both are corruptive to individual liberty.
Both recognize groups, not individuals (which is why their economic policies are so corrupt).

Tell me the difference between a libertarian socialist and a state socialist and I'm positive you'll spot the inaccuracies you've made here.

The only difference between liberals and socialists is that I don't find liberals to being knowingly dangerous. They don't seem to know what they are doing. They are "just following their hearts" or "doing what feels right". Socialists seem more educated. They understand what the outcome of their ideas will be and they don't care. It's what they want.

Good god.

Capitalists are simply the only ones honest enough to admit this. However, capitalists are the ones who do the most good for the most people (given the presence of free markets and the protection of private property).

Yes free markets and private property, apart from condemning millions to starvation and brutally explioting everyone else, just dandy. I sometimes think you're pulling my leg DD.

...."Capitalists do the most good for most people".... :areyoucra

War, starvation, climate change, loss of biodiversity, poverty, social dissolution......

Let's say I own hundreds of acres outside of a University. I don't care about those students or if they have a place to live. I don't care that they might "need" my land. But then I start to think about it. Well, maybe I'll make my property available to them for a price.

Then, everyone benefits. The students, the school, the individual who gave up something of their own to people they didn't even know.

Let's say that unless you personally use hundreds of acres outside of a university you have no right to claim it as 'yours'.

Capitalism creates the most wealth for the most people, not because it is moral, but because it most accurately reflects reality.

In what way?

Darkdale, do you believe that markets should be free or humans should be free? For instance, should water services be privatised and cut off from the poor in South Africa? Should we restrict trade if it clearly impedes people? Should we rip up all the trees because there is a demand?

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Take the Woodpecker for instance. A particular breed of Woodpecker was placed on the endangered species list in the Southeast United States. Because citizens didn't want the government using their property as a preserve, people cut down all the trees that these Woodpeckers nested in and they started disappearing FASTER than before. Unintended consequences of Socialism are devastating.

And the stupidity of the sort of people who will chop down a perfectly good tree to stop a bird that they've never had a problem with before from nesting there, just because that bird is now listed as endangered, knows no political affiliations. That's not an example of the unintended consequences of Socialism as much as it is living proof that some people are cretins of the worst kind.

 

[Darkdale]

OK, I'll have to start slowly. You have feelings about the economy and you wish reality to reflect those feelings and I have to show you how it does not.

Tell me the difference between a libertarian socialist and a state socialist and I'm positive you'll spot the inaccuracies you've made here.

Libertarian socialists don't exist. They are simply anarchists. They don't have economic politics. They oppose both the State and all institutions of capital. They are worse off than the Socialists, it is sad to say, and show an even more absent understanding of science, specifically economics, and psychology. No, we will focus on real Socialism, "state socialism"... not on the witty pranks of the modern MTV generations.... all angst and repetition.

Yes free markets and private property, apart from condemning millions to starvation and brutally explioting everyone else, just dandy. I sometimes think you're pulling my leg DD.

Again, you have literally no understanding of how Economics works. You really need to read books.

People do not starve because of free markets. People are starving BEFORE FREE MARKETS EXISTED. The result of the free market is that now, not everyone is living at the subsistence level, or worse. So now, you have the haves and the have nots, not because capitalism created poverty, but because capitalism helped some people escape poverty. Capitalism doesn't create poverty, it inherits it.

Capitalism doesn't exploit anyone. It empowers people all over the world. Socialism is exploitive. Sometimes, I think you are pulling my leg buddy. You've really got to read up on your history here. There was poverty long before there was capitalism... and everyone that wasn't in the Aristocracies of the world were poor. Capitalism changed all that... it freed the peoples of the world and gave them wealth... everyone caring for each other through the service of their own self-interest. It is the most wonderful form of liberty and the most beautiful kind of human action. You've simply swallowed too many liberal bitter pills to keep an open mind and to recognize the facts.

...."Capitalists do the most good for most people".... :areyoucra

War, starvation, climate change, loss of biodiversity, poverty, social dissolution......

Please Jaiket, read a book. Read lots of books! Wars have existed long before capitalism. Starvation existed long before capitalism, and is now much less of a problem. Climate Change existed long (millions of years even) before capitalism, species have been disappearing for 50 millions years, before humans discovered fire... poverty has always been around, but the poor in capitalist countries are much better off than the poor everywhere else, and people are more unified and diverse than ever before in human history.

My friend, you are out of your mind if you think that Capitalism is the problem.

Let's say that unless you personally use hundreds of acres outside of a university you have no right to claim it as 'yours'.

Of course I do. I buy it. I purchase ownership peacefully from a nice old couple that wants to move to Florida to start little orchards of oranges. By taking over their land, I have helped them fulfill their dream of growing oranges, and I have also helped create more oranges in the world... thus increasing supply and lowing the price per glass for you. I don't know you and I don't know them, but because I wanted to buy this land, I've helped all these people. Not to mention the people who dreamed of growing oranges. By selling their land to me (a person who likes to say, travel the world; I need money for that), 200 students can now live that much closer to campus... the school can house more students and now can enroll more students. Now the school is bringing in more tuition and has more money for research and lo-and behold... they find the cure for cancer. Capitalism is the greatest miracle in human history.

Darkdale, do you believe that markets should be free or humans should be free? For instance, should water services be privatised and cut off from the poor in South Africa? Should we restrict trade if it clearly impedes people? Should we rip up all the trees because there is a demand?

You can't have free people without free markets. Have you read books on 18th century French economics?

You have at least heard of the story of the Berry Bikes right? (just google it).

Anyway, Free markets are what makes the people free. Everyone is producing for each other. Think of it this way... the Morality of Capitalism is this (this comes from an economics professor of mine): You Cannot Serve Your Own Greed, Until You've Served the Needs of Others.

That is capitalism in a nut shell. I serve my boss, who serves his company, who protects people against the loss of their property. I work in a system that helps people protect themselves against fires and floods and other disasters. Because I work to protect them, I can afford to pay my rent and my bills. Because these companies serve my energy needs, they can go on to serve themselves. But they have to serve me first, or they don't have any profit.

And the stupidity of the sort of people who will chop down a perfectly good tree to stop a bird that they've never had a problem with before from nesting there, just because that bird is now listed as endangered, knows no political affiliations. That's not an example of the unintended consequences of Socialism as much as it is living proof that some people are cretins of the worst kind.

:biglaugh: No, no, no... you have it all wrong. You are judging people's values. Economcs takes "value" as a given. You are saying that people that don't want to lose control over their land to government control because a woodpecker might perfer their tree are a bunch of selfish ********. Those are your values... you want to control them... dominate them... force them to live as you want them to. Because of your desire to own them... they cut down trees to keep your kind off their property. You can't stop them, so all you can do is hate them..... to sit simmering with rage. lol... meanwhile the Woodpecker is thinking, "Yo! What about me?". (Socialists don't care about you Woody, they care about showing that they care).