Some words by Ayn Rand ...

"Any system of ethics is based on and derived, implicitly or
explicitly, from a metaphysics. The ethic derived from the metaphysical
base of Objectivism holds that, since reason is man's basic tool of
survival, rationality is his highest virtue. To use his mind, to
perceive reality and act accordingly, is man's moral imperative. The
standard of value of the Objectivist ethics is: man's life--man's
survival qua man--or that which the nature of a rational being requires
for his proper survival. The Objectivist ethics, in essence, hold that
man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is
his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to
others, or others to himself."

"It is the concept of original sin that negates morality. If man is
guilty by nature, he has no choice about it. If he has no choice, the
issue does not belong in the field of morality. Morality pertains only
to the sphere of man's free will--only to those actions which are open
to his choice. To consider man guilty by nature is a contradiction in
terms."

"Now what does it mean, to act on whim? It means that man acts like
a zombie, without any knowledge of what he deals with, what he wants
to accomplish, or what motivates him. It means that man acts in a
state of temporary insanity. Is this what you call juicy or colorful? I
think the only juice that can come out of such a situation is blood."

"I most emphatically advocate a black-and-white view of the world.
What (do I mean) by the expression 'black and white'? It means good and
evil. Before you can identify...(gray areas) you have to know what is
black and what is white, because gray is a mixture of the two. And when
you establish that one alternative is good and the other is evil, there
is no justification for the choice of a mixture. There is no
justification for choosing any part of what you know to be evil."

"[D]ogma is a set of beliefs accepted on faith; that is, without
rational justification or against rational evidence. A dogma is a
matter of blind faith....Objectivism tells you that you must not accept
any idea or conviction unless you can demonstrate its truth by means of
reason."

"Force, in a free society, may be used only in retaliation...against
those who initiate its use. This is the proper task of government: to
serve as a policeman who protects men from the use of force."

I am an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism, of individual
rights...there are no others...of individual freedom. It is on this
ground that I oppose any doctrine which proposes tha sacrifice of the
individual to the collective."

So long as men can speak and write freely, so long as there is no
censorship, they still have the chance to reform their society....When
censorship is imposed, *that* is the sign that men should go on strike
intellectually, by which I mean, should not cooperate with the social
system in any way whatever."

"Is the power of society limited or unlimited? Individualism
answers: The power of society is limited by the inalienable, individual
rights of man. Society may make only such laws as do not violate these
rights. Collectivism answers: The power of society is unlimited....
Example: Under a system of individualism, a million men cannot pass a
law to kill one man for their own benefit. If they go ahead and kill
him, they are breaking the law...and they are punished....Under the
Soviet system, millions of peasants, or 'kulaks' were exterminated by
law, a law justified by the pretext that this was for the benefit of
the majority, which the Party contended was anti-kulak. Under the Nazi
system, millions of Jews were exterminated by law, a law justified that
this was for the benefit of the majority, which the Nazis contended was
anti-Semitic. The Soviet and Nazi laws were the unavoidable and
consistent result of the principle of collectivism. When applied in
practice, a principle which recognizes no morality and no individual
rights can result in nothing except brutality...Either the power of
society is limited or it is not. It can't be both."

"When we say that we hold individual rights to be *inalienable*, we
mean *just that*. *Inalienable* means that which we may not take away,
suspend, infringe, restrict, or violate--not ever, not at any time, not
for any purpose whatsoever."

"When you see a society that recognizes man's rights in some laws,
but not in others--do not hail it as a 'mixed' system and do not
conclude that a compromise between basic principles, opposed in theory,
can be made to work in practice. Such a society is not working--it is
merely disintegrating. Disintegration takes time. Nothing falls to
pieces immediately--neither a human body or a human society."

The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word "selfishness" is
not merely wrong, it represents a devastating intellectual
"package-deal" which is responsible, more than any other single factor,
for the arrested moral development of mankind. In popular usage, the
word "selfishness" is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a
murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own
ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the
gratification of the mindless whims of the moment. Yet the exact
meaning and dictionary definition of the word "selfishness" is: concern
with one's own interests....Altruism declares that any action taken for
the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one's own
benefit is evil. Thus the *beneficiary* of an action is the only
criterion of moral value--so long as that benefit is for others,
anything goes. Hence the apalling immorality, the chronic injustice,
the grotesque double standards, the insoluable conflicts and
contradictions that have characterized human relationships and human
societies throughout history, under all the variants of the altruist
ethics."

"An irrational society is a society of moral cowards--of men
paralyzed by the loss of moral standards, principles and goals. But
since men have to act, so long as they live, such a society is ready to
be taken over by anyone willing to set its direction. The initiative
can come from only two types of men: either from the man who is willing
to assume the responsibility of asserting rational values--or from the
thug who is not troubled by questions of responsibility. No matter how
hard the struggle, there is only one choice that a rational man can
make in the face of such an alternative."

"If you are seriously interested in fighting for a better world,
begin by identifying the nature of the problem. The battle is
primarily intellectual [and philosophical], not political. Politics is
the last consequence, the practical implementation of the fundamental
ideas that dominate a given nations's culture....If you want to
influence a country's intellectual trend, the first step is to bring
order to your own ideas and integrate them into a consistent case, to
the best of your knowledge and your ability. This does not mean
memorizing and reciting slogans and principles, Objectivist or
otherwise: knowledge necessarily includes the ability to apply abstract
principles to concrete problems, to recognize the principles in
specific issues, to demonstrate them, and to advocate a consistent
course of action. This doesn't require omniscience or omnipotence; it
is the subconscious expectation many would-be crusaders. What is
required is HONESTY--intellectual honesty, which consists of knowing
what one does know, constantly expanding one's knowledge, and NEVER
evading or failing to correct a contradiction....Most particularly, DO
NOT KEEP SILENT shen your own ideas and values are being attacked...If
a dictatorship ever comes to this country, it will be by the default of
those who keep silent. We are still free enough to speak. Do we have
time? No one can tell. But time is on our side--because we have and
indestructable weapon and an invinceable ally...if we learn how to use
them...reason and reality."

ViRedd said:

"Any system of ethics is based on and derived, implicitly or
explicitly, from a metaphysics. The ethic derived from the metaphysical
base of Objectivism holds that, since reason is man's basic tool of
survival, rationality is his highest virtue. To use his mind, to
perceive reality and act accordingly, is man's moral imperative. The
standard of value of the Objectivist ethics is: man's life--man's
survival qua man--or that which the nature of a rational being requires
for his proper survival. The Objectivist ethics, in essence, hold that
man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is
his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to
others, or others to himself."

"It is the concept of original sin that negates morality. If man is
guilty by nature, he has no choice about it. If he has no choice, the
issue does not belong in the field of morality. Morality pertains only
to the sphere of man's free will--only to those actions which are open
to his choice. To consider man guilty by nature is a contradiction in
terms."

"Now what does it mean, to act on whim? It means that man acts like
a zombie, without any knowledge of what he deals with, what he wants
to accomplish, or what motivates him. It means that man acts in a
state of temporary insanity. Is this what you call juicy or colorful? I
think the only juice that can come out of such a situation is blood."

"I most emphatically advocate a black-and-white view of the world.
What (do I mean) by the expression 'black and white'? It means good and
evil. Before you can identify...(gray areas) you have to know what is
black and what is white, because gray is a mixture of the two. And when
you establish that one alternative is good and the other is evil, there
is no justification for the choice of a mixture. There is no
justification for choosing any part of what you know to be evil."

"[D]ogma is a set of beliefs accepted on faith; that is, without
rational justification or against rational evidence. A dogma is a
matter of blind faith....Objectivism tells you that you must not accept
any idea or conviction unless you can demonstrate its truth by means of
reason."

"Force, in a free society, may be used only in retaliation...against
those who initiate its use. This is the proper task of government: to
serve as a policeman who protects men from the use of force."

I am an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism, of individual
rights...there are no others...of individual freedom. It is on this
ground that I oppose any doctrine which proposes tha sacrifice of the
individual to the collective."

So long as men can speak and write freely, so long as there is no
censorship, they still have the chance to reform their society....When
censorship is imposed, *that* is the sign that men should go on strike
intellectually, by which I mean, should not cooperate with the social
system in any way whatever."

"Is the power of society limited or unlimited? Individualism
answers: The power of society is limited by the inalienable, individual
rights of man. Society may make only such laws as do not violate these
rights. Collectivism answers: The power of society is unlimited....
Example: Under a system of individualism, a million men cannot pass a
law to kill one man for their own benefit. If they go ahead and kill
him, they are breaking the law...and they are punished....Under the
Soviet system, millions of peasants, or 'kulaks' were exterminated by
law, a law justified by the pretext that this was for the benefit of
the majority, which the Party contended was anti-kulak. Under the Nazi
system, millions of Jews were exterminated by law, a law justified that
this was for the benefit of the majority, which the Nazis contended was
anti-Semitic. The Soviet and Nazi laws were the unavoidable and
consistent result of the principle of collectivism. When applied in
practice, a principle which recognizes no morality and no individual
rights can result in nothing except brutality...Either the power of
society is limited or it is not. It can't be both."

"When we say that we hold individual rights to be *inalienable*, we
mean *just that*. *Inalienable* means that which we may not take away,
suspend, infringe, restrict, or violate--not ever, not at any time, not
for any purpose whatsoever."

"When you see a society that recognizes man's rights in some laws,
but not in others--do not hail it as a 'mixed' system and do not
conclude that a compromise between basic principles, opposed in theory,
can be made to work in practice. Such a society is not working--it is
merely disintegrating. Disintegration takes time. Nothing falls to
pieces immediately--neither a human body or a human society."

The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word "selfishness" is
not merely wrong, it represents a devastating intellectual
"package-deal" which is responsible, more than any other single factor,
for the arrested moral development of mankind. In popular usage, the
word "selfishness" is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a
murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own
ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the
gratification of the mindless whims of the moment. Yet the exact
meaning and dictionary definition of the word "selfishness" is: concern
with one's own interests....Altruism declares that any action taken for
the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one's own
benefit is evil. Thus the *beneficiary* of an action is the only
criterion of moral value--so long as that benefit is for others,
anything goes. Hence the apalling immorality, the chronic injustice,
the grotesque double standards, the insoluable conflicts and
contradictions that have characterized human relationships and human
societies throughout history, under all the variants of the altruist
ethics."

"An irrational society is a society of moral cowards--of men
paralyzed by the loss of moral standards, principles and goals. But
since men have to act, so long as they live, such a society is ready to
be taken over by anyone willing to set its direction. The initiative
can come from only two types of men: either from the man who is willing
to assume the responsibility of asserting rational values--or from the
thug who is not troubled by questions of responsibility. No matter how
hard the struggle, there is only one choice that a rational man can
make in the face of such an alternative."

"If you are seriously interested in fighting for a better world,
begin by identifying the nature of the problem. The battle is
primarily intellectual [and philosophical], not political. Politics is
the last consequence, the practical implementation of the fundamental
ideas that dominate a given nations's culture....If you want to
influence a country's intellectual trend, the first step is to bring
order to your own ideas and integrate them into a consistent case, to
the best of your knowledge and your ability. This does not mean
memorizing and reciting slogans and principles, Objectivist or
otherwise: knowledge necessarily includes the ability to apply abstract
principles to concrete problems, to recognize the principles in
specific issues, to demonstrate them, and to advocate a consistent
course of action. This doesn't require omniscience or omnipotence; it
is the subconscious expectation many would-be crusaders. What is
required is HONESTY--intellectual honesty, which consists of knowing
what one does know, constantly expanding one's knowledge, and NEVER
evading or failing to correct a contradiction....Most particularly, DO
NOT KEEP SILENT shen your own ideas and values are being attacked...If
a dictatorship ever comes to this country, it will be by the default of
those who keep silent. We are still free enough to speak. Do we have
time? No one can tell. But time is on our side--because we have and
indestructable weapon and an invinceable ally...if we learn how to use
them...reason and reality."

Click to expand...

As usual, excellent find, Vi.

Oh, I bought Hayek's Road to Serfdom, (also got RP's Gold, Peace and Prosperity and Rothbard's What has Government done to Our Money.)

Of course, I'm also reading about the Peloponnesian War, Herodotus, and Artificial and Natural Intelligence, so I don't know how soon I'll get around to the books above, as the one's Im reading are library books which needs be returned at some point.

Thanks TBT ...

I'd loan you my copy of The Road to Serfdom ... but at this point its pretty much unreadable because of all the highlighted areas and the red underlining.

By the way ... I gave a copy of Mark Levin's new book "Liberty and Tyranny" to a relative as a birthday present. In flipping through the book, it looks like something all the libertarian conservatives ... and the very few open minded progressives on the site should read. Its the #1 best seller on the NYT list.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/david/limbaugh032009.php3

Vi

ViRedd said:

Thanks TBT ...

I'd loan you my copy of The Road to Serfdom ... but at this point its pretty much unreadable because of all the highlighted areas and the red underlining.

By the way ... I gave a copy of Mark Levin's new book "Liberty and Tyranny" to a relative as a birthday present. In flipping through the book, it looks like something all the libertarian conservatives ... and the very few open minded progressives on the site should read. Its the #1 best seller on the NYT list.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/david/limbaugh032009.php3

Vi

Click to expand...

I'll have to check it out.

Lol, I wonder what Obama's response would be if he realized that his tax hike on smoking means that people like me are purchasing more books, and now more likely to donate to conservative causes.

Maybe some one should thank the politicians for their narrow-sightedness.

"Force, in a free society, may be used only in retaliation...against
those who initiate its use. This is the proper task of government: to
serve as a policeman who protects men from the use of force."

"When we say that we hold individual rights to be *inalienable*, we
mean *just that*. *Inalienable* means that which we may not take away,
suspend, infringe, restrict, or violate--not ever, not at any time, not
for any purpose whatsoever."

I am an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism, of individual
rights...there are no others...of individual freedom. It is on this
ground that I oppose any doctrine which proposes that sacrifice of the
individual to the collective."


The System you advocate Med would not respect the individual. Would use force and violence to attain its goals. Would not respect personal property. And would ultimatly serve to take everyone down to the lowest possible wealth level, while the people in power would have the best of everything. What would be any diffrent from the way it is now?

I used to think like Med sorta but then I had an awakening. Personal freedom means Libritarianism. You can't have social liberalism without fiscal conservativism it is unworkable. You must respect private property rights starting with your body and moving to your property. Property includes money, therefor Taxation is theft, Or it is slavery. The money is the Governments and they graciously allow us to keep some of it. Either you respect individual rights or you don't. It saddens me so much that so few people grasp the concept of freedom or care to fight for it. They want things, money, government favritism, Once we started down the road of wealth redistribution we ended the American Dream and killed the one real chance at liberty in the world. Now we are property just like everyone else in the world.

uncontrolled capitalism hurts the individual just as much as socialism choose your poison. this country is in the state its in from greed being unchecked. it comes in all forms to assume any system wont be abused is naive. people are generally complacent as long as there needs are met. this ayn rand seems to gloss over or skip entirely what damage capitalism and other social systems can do to the individual if left out of control.

bicycle racer said:

uncontrolled capitalism hurts the individual just as much as socialism choose your poison. this country is in the state its in from greed being unchecked. it comes in all forms to assume any system wont be abused is naive. people are generally complacent as long as there needs are met. this ayn rand seems to gloss over or skip entirely what damage capitalism and other social systems can do to the individual if left out of control.

Click to expand...

At least with a social system all benefit instead of the corrupt few.... with the Govt's help of course...

The System you advocate Med would not respect the individual. Would use force and violence to attain its goals. Would not respect personal property. And would ultimatly serve to take everyone down to the lowest possible wealth level, while the people in power would have the best of everything. What would be any diffrent from the way it is now?

The system I advocate would be based entirely on the rights of the individual to be a person of gratitude and generosity. By allowing those less endowed to also obtain the fruits of their labor instead of enslaving them to the underclass of capitalism. What would be different from now is the mindset that says, I've got mine, fuck you.

I used to think like Med sorta but then I had an awakening. Personal freedom means Libritarianism. You can't have social liberalism without fiscal conservativism it is unworkable. You must respect private property rights starting with your body and moving to your property. Property includes money, therefor Taxation is theft, Or it is slavery.

Your system puts property rights ahead of human rights. Libertarianism is based on the premis that it is the individuals right to be greedy as hell and fuck anyone that thinks they are being greedy. Taxation is the price of liberty. It spreads the wealth. Without taxation, there would be even more separation between the haves and have-nots.

The money is the Governments and they graciously allow us to keep some of it. Either you respect individual rights or you don't. It saddens me so much that so few people grasp the concept of freedom or care to fight for it. They want things, money, government favritism, Once we started down the road of wealth redistribution we ended the American Dream and killed the one real chance at liberty in the world. Now we are property just like everyone else in the world.

I respect individual rights explicitly, but I believe the right to happiness and prosperity should be available to all, not just the upper class. Please explain how we have been going down the road of wealth distribution. The facts are that the richest ten percent got even richer in the last ten years, while the poor got much poorer. The great division of wealth is tantamount to revolutionary status.

yeah i agree i think the GRAY AREA IS BEST. this ayn rand is not the sharpest tool in the shed and seems to have little understanding of the personal responsibility of right and wrong behavior. none of the current systems are perfect and because people choose one over the other only makes things easier for the people who live in the black.

medicineman said:

I suppose you worship at the alter of Ann Rands opinion then? For that is what the article was, her opinion. I prefer my own opinions, thank you very much.

Click to expand...

Not sure if you were addressing me with these comments or not, but in any event, I'd like to respond.

I don't worship at the altar of anyone, Med. I "worship" at the altar of common sense.

And yes, you have your opinions, and as a libertarian thinker, I respect your right to express those opinions ... even when I feel they are wrong.

With that said, how about going through the Ayn Rand quotes I posted and try tearing her "opinions" apart, then show where they differ from your opinions. While you're doing that, try to keep logic in mind ... and emotions out of the equation.

Can you do that Med?

Vi

The system I advocate would be based entirely on the rights of the individual to be a person of gratitude and generosity. By allowing those less endowed to also obtain the fruits of their labor instead of enslaving them to the underclass of capitalism. What would be different from now is the mindset that says, I've got mine, fuck you.

Libertarians also believe that an individual has the right to be a person of gratitude and generosity ... as a matter of choice and not by force. Libertarians also believe that everyone has the right to enjoy the fruit of their labors. Where we differ is, we don't see a class struggle under a capitalist system ... not where there is equal opportunity. What you advocate is equal results, not equal opportunity ... and equal results can only be achieved through government force, and that is not liberty, it is slavery.

Your system puts property rights ahead of human rights. Libertarianism is based on the premis that it is the individuals right to be greedy as hell and fuck anyone that thinks they are being greedy. Taxation is the price of liberty. It spreads the wealth. Without taxation, there would be even more separation between the haves and have-nots.

Property rights ARE human rights, Med. Libertarianism is based not upon "fucking" anyone at all. It's based upon free markets and free minds. Taxation is NOT the price of liberty at all ... the price of liberty is morality. The only way to spread the wealth is either through free enterprise, the moral way, or through government edict. Spreading it through government edict is spreading it through coercion and force, and that is not liberty, that is indentured servitude which is immoral.

I respect individual rights explicitly, but I believe the right to happiness and prosperity should be available to all, not just the upper class. Please explain how we have been going down the road of wealth distribution. The facts are that the richest ten percent got even richer in the last ten years, while the poor got much poorer. The great division of wealth is tantamount to revolutionary status.

Libertarians believe that happiness and prosperity should be available to all as well, Med, however, we believe that a person should provide a service of value to others in order to attain that prosperity and happiness. In other words, a person should earn their prosperity and happiness ... not attain it at the expense of another by force. And if what you say is true, that the poor got poorer, I'd first take a look at government programs that result in government dependency as a cause before I'd be looking at productive people being the cause.

Vi

Come see the violence inherant in the system. Help, help, I'm being repressed!!

Sorry Monty Python moment.

Anyway, I understand the greed aspect of what your saying. But when the Government got in bed with Big Corperations that is where the problem started. Not with free market capitalism. If you are in real competition you can't afford to be greedy. You can only get away with it when your working with your competition or you have government protection i.e. oil companies (imo).

Now I'm not saying just let everyone go ape shit we need some regulations especialy if we keep the Federal Reserve and the Fractional reserve banking system as well as market devices like buying on margin. But things that stop free market competition from starting need to go. Its either that or do what you advicate, socialize everything.

Better Red then with a swastica on my forhead, I guess.

Here is a thought what if we had a graduated income tax on corperations, instead of a flat 15% the bigger they get the harder they have to work?? Probably not very libritarian of me but income taxes are for corperations anyway, constitutionally speaking. This may help with competition yes?

No, not so much Ilkhan. Despite rumors to the contrary Monopolies can not maintain themselves, but can only be maintained by the government.

There are of course companies that consistently adopt newer and better models, but eventually they must stagnate. It is not possible for a company to continue to remain at the forefront of any field for eternity. Eventually they will miss a key technology, idea or process that will allow a competitor, or competitors to steal market share, either in the entire industry or in a specific niche.

There are two examples of this. (that I can mention off the top of my head and others that I can think of.)

The first is Standard Oil, which was a monopoly, but was actually losing market share as other competitors (specifically Texas Oil Co (Texaco)) adopted the vertically integrated model and competed with Standard Oil on price. When the government finally interfered (illicitly and illogically) Standard Oil had lost market share. It would have lost additional market share in production and refining as more oil was produced in the Texas Panhandle and Western States.

The second example is Mozilla Firefox, Netscape and Microsoft Internet Explorer.

Netscape was a first move, but Microsoft produced a better product and was able to leverage its market share on desktops to distribute its better product. If Netscape had had a better product then it wouldn't have mattered that Microsoft had an inside edge, because people would have sought out the better product.

This is illustrated by the success of Mozilla Firefox which has captured a sizable portion of the market share.

Then there's other products like IBM Lotus Symphony (Open Office) which is a freeware version of software similar to Microsoft Office.

(Of course by all logic the government should be stepping in to accuse IBM of dumping their product, but as government has a massive hard-on for anything anti-Microsoft its not surprising they are allowing their own laws to be violated. Proving that it is only with the government's help that a corporation can maintain a monopoly.)


Then there's the fact that in many areas of the economy the government restricts collusion, under-pricing (which eliminates the benefits of being more efficient, because you can't leverage that advantage into bigger market share, because the government is actively protecting less efficient competitors, ultimately discouraging true competition.), over-pricing (ensuring that it is possible to use price and shortages to differentiate your product from competitors.)

Then there are wage laws, and other laws that interfere with true competition. The United States has not been a true capitalist society since FDR.

As far as what is responsible for the current mess. That's an easy answer, Freddie and Fannie Mae, both of which are government corporations, and both of which were such major players in the mortgage industry that they were able to coerce debt-rating firms like Moodys and Standard and Poor to give Investment Grade Ratings to junk mortgages.

In short, it was the GSEs, and by extension, government that screwed the pooch.

More to the point is that the key factor in creating this situation was government through its passage of CRA under Jimmy Carter, and its strengthening under Clinton.