Customer Discussions > Objectivism forum

ATTN: Liberals/Democrats

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 64 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 11:31:31 AM PDT
I mean each individual looking out for their own needs. The thought of thinking about the future either frightens them or more often than not it bores them. They don't feel like doing it and they certainly don't want to have to set aside resources for it which will cut into their current comfort and fun. A liberal friend of mine and I were having a discussion on this subject once and after dancing around it a while I finally realised what he is after. I said to him that he basically wants all of the benefits of being both a child and an adult while discarding the drawbacks of both. He wants to be able to drink, smoke, live by himself and do what he wants when he wants. He does not want to have to plan for or be responsible for any aspect of his life. He wants to be fed, clothed, sheltered and cared for no matter what he does or what situation he finds himself in. He looked at me for a second as if this should have been apparent to me from the beginning of the discussion and said yes, that is exactly what he wants, deserves and expects. You have to know him, he is a lot more intellectually honest than most people and makes no bones about how he feels life should be and what he should be entitled to. He also lives paycheck to paycheck and would continue to do so if he made 20 times what he makes now. While his stated claim is unusual, his opinion is not. It is just usually disquised as altruism and a compassion for our fellow man. It is always my experience that, to the person, these people always spend everything they make, don't save anything and live at the very limit of their means at best, and beyond their means more often than not. It is no surprise that they feel this way because they have guaranteed that they will not be able to take care of themselves when they get old and develope health issues. Not surprisingly, all of the people I know that are responsible and plan for their future are against most of these things. Once again, people look out for their own interests. One group doesn't want the fruits of their sacrifice, planning and saving stolen from them and the other group doesn't want to live under a bridge when they get old. My parents worked hard and lived below there immediate means. My dad supported 5 people on one paycheck, and was careful with his money. He made sure that he set money aside for the future. He set aside a nice little bit of money for me and my 2 brothers for college. He paid off the house. When my brothers and I were in highschool my mom went back to both work and school at the same time (she was an LPN before she got married) to get her RN lisence. They bought a second house with the extra income and rent a 3rd house in the Outer Banks and live there most of the year. They pay for their cars in cash now and are set. They did all of this by working hard, driving cars well past the payoff dates and doing car and house maintenance themselves when possible. We never had cable tv, air conditioning, a push button phone or many other luxuries that others had (as kids, we got our first atari when the Super Nintendo was coming out, you could buy atari games for 25 cents at toy stores), however we never had times where we struggled because our lifestyle was not affected by lulls in the economy. We had a lot of good times and I don't feel like I had any less of a childhood than anyone I grew up with, but we could have had a lot more had my parents chosen to live like my friend discussed above. Why should he get the same outcome at the end of life as my parents? His day to day life is limited only by the size of his next paycheck, he has done nothing to deserve security, and I will not condone stealing from my parents security to make up for the lack of his. You see, both sides are looking for fairness, we just have different ideas of what fairness is. One sides idea of fairness is "I have grown a garden, I now get to eat all of these delicious vegetables". The other sides idea of fairness is "A garden has been grown, since we all need to eat we must divide these vegetables up equally among everybody".

I am sorry your mother got taken, but it is her responsibility to look into what she is doing with her life savings. She is not the only one to get scammed out of massive amounts of money though. We all get the same treatment from the federal government. Bernie Maydoff should not be in trouble for fraud, he should be in trouble for copywrite infringement. He did the exact same thing that the federal government does with the Ponzi Scheme we all have come to know as Social Security. They both take money from one investor to pay off the investor before them all the while skimming a large precentage off the top for themselves. Neither one was investing anything or had the intention of benefitting the investors. The only difference between the two is that when Bernie ran out of money and couldn't keep up the scam anymore he got arrested. When the governments scam caves in (and it will in the very near future) we are all out of luck. The government has no actual responsibility to pay you anything. It was designed to take care of your last remaining months to year of life after you stopped becoming a taxpayer, not support you for your 20 to 30 year retirement in Boca Raton, so of course it cannot sustain itself. You were never really meant to get back more than a few percent of the money you put into it. There is another difference between Bernie and Uncle Sam. Bernie has to trick you into giving him your money, Uncle Sam will throw you in jail if you don't cough it up. At least with social security you get a taste of your money back, assuming you don't kick the bucket before you reach retirement age (if you are really quiet you can hear Sammy crossing his fingers, Oh - dare he dream), with welfare and other programs they actually take money out of your check to pay people to not have a future or any ambition, and to pass the lack of both on to future generations.

It is funny that you would cite Health insurance as the one example of capitalism that may help society when in fact it is the one example (distorted by government intervention, but a private corporate industry none the less) of capitalism that contributes to the health care problem. It doesn't do it alone of course, the government pulls a lot of those strings, but it is the socialist mentality of today's consumer when it comes to health care that causes health insurance to drive prices sky high and makes even the most basic healthcare unaffordable to most. People with benefits have the mentality that treatment is free and use it for everything. They go to the emergency room for the sniffles. That is one of the reasons treatment is so expensive, it can easily be inflated because the one getting the service doesn't care what it costs. Can you imagine how expensive car insurance would be if it covered oil changes, tire rotations, alignments and the like (oil changes would also be $100 a pop instead of $30). We insist that everything be covered so everything is expensive. last year I stepped on a nail and had to go to the hospital for a tetanus shot. I was there for an hour, 30 minutes of which I was filling out forms and sitting in the waiting area, 10 minutes sitting on a table by myself, 10 minutes of the nurse scrubbing my foot, asking me questions and filling out another form and a whopping 5 minutes of the doctor looking at my foot, giving me the shot and telling me to keep it clean. 5 minutes later I was out the door. I am not complaining about the service or quality of care. That was over $800 for what should have been a $50 to $60 dollar visit. We want every drug and test known to man for the most trivial of ailments. The insurance companies will only pay a percentage along with the government making hospitals treat everyone even if they can't pay or are here illegally. This makes the prices so artificially astronomical that nobody but the rich could afford most treatment if they had to pay cash. Insurance should cover only catastrophic illness, not asprin and tissues. Need proof? Lasik eye surgery was very expensive, when it first came out. The cost of it goes down steadily every year and is now easily affordable to most everyone. The cost goes down and the safety and quality goes up Cosmetic surgery costs are also way cheaper and better than when they were years ago and the costs go down yearly. Once again, cost down, quality up. These are both medical procedures, why do they not follw the same trends or rules as other medical procedures? Two reasons, the government doesn't force them to give it away to some and insurance doesn't cover either of these (with the exception of a very small amount of cosmetic surgery). We also look at healthcare as if it is not a business but some kind of right, that we should all get it and get the best no matter what. I don't have a right to drive the same quality car or live in the same quality house that Bill Gates does, why do I have a right to the same level of health care. Hospitals and other health care industries are no different than car companies and convenience stores, if they are not making money they are not going to be open long and you are no more entitled to their care than you are a free car or big gulp. Since it is necessary for life people think the same rules don't apply. I would suggest that a car is more neseccary to my survival than health care. I will probably be just fine for decades with out seeing a doctor (hopefully anyway) but if I don't have a car I can not get to work. Without work i can't pay my rent or buy food. I will probably freeze or starve to death way before I get cancer or heart disease. The government should give every American a car. My human rights are being violated if I am not provided with a car. It is in society's best interest to provide me with a car!

People do sometimes have an interest in looking out for other people, but it is other individuals to be determined by the person lending the help, not society at large hanging from his shoulders. The reason there are so many people that can't take care of themselves is because we have allowed so many to become dependent on the government. The question is, how broke do we as a nation have to become before people realize that we can no longer keep this up. When was the last time the government spent less than it took in in a year? Forget less, broke even? There is nothing wrong with a nation borrowing money every now and then during economic slumps, but that should not happen very often. Spending should be cut first and the money should be paid back as soon as possible, it should not be a yearly budget policy. If you made $30,000 a year and spent $50,000 a year how long do you think you could keep that up? Why is a nation any different? You are not helping your mother get better care, you are condemning us all to bad care.

Where is my car?

Posted on Mar 24, 2011 3:17:53 AM PDT
K. Doyle says:
I think your most interesting comment was this: "because most of us just can't be bothered to look out for ourselves."

It's not a matter of "can't be bothered," you have to ask, what do you mean when you say "ourselves?" Are you meaning each to their own, or referring to "us" as a "group" who "don't bother" to take care of each other. The plain fact is, as a group, we don't take care of each other because it's not seen as in an individual's best interest. Whether it IS in an individual's best interest is another question, the perception is in any event, that taking care of the next guy not only is "not my problem," it also "is not in my interest," and for good measure, "it's his own fault," probably. Of course, these perceptions are often false, not everyone is capable of "looking out for themselves." And if you are talking about "each to their own," you have to realize that a lot of people are simply not capable of looking out for themselves, for no fault of their own.

The thing is, individuals AND society DO have an interest in looking out for each other-- in fact, that is what the military is really about, is it not? But military operations with external entities is not the only thing that indivduals cannot take on by themselves. Taking care of the poor, the sick, the elderly, is another. My 86 year old mother a few years ago got completely fleeced by a sweet-talking con man, a pure "capitalist" of the "caveat emptor" school of business. Does the free market insure that my trusting old mom has a place to live in her old age? She's at the point now that she can't take care of herself, short term memory is mostly gone and her vision is poor, and is totally dependent on SS & medicare (managed by me, because she can't do it), and probably soon to be-- medicaid. If it wasn't for me, she'd have no one to help. Even with me, I can't afford to pay her way without risking what limited resources I have to try to keep myself out of that same situation when I get to be her age. If I didn't exist, would the "free market" school say that it's simply OK to throw her out on the street and let her fend for herself? Is it in the rest of societies best interests to do so? Or would the "free market" be able to make sure she never got to this state, or take care of her if she does (if so, how?)?

The problem is, "enemies" foreign and domestic, rather conveniently leaves out another source of "enemies," and that is-- failing health, unscrupulous, deceitful, resource abusing, employee mistreating or polluting businesses, etc. Those are common "enemies" as well, that individuals cannot necessarily on their own protect themselves against. Further, certain economies of scale suggest that it is in our best interest as a whole to work together for certain ends, such as either providing or overseeing common utilities, such as roads, electric power, communications services, etc., things that as we have seen historically, when private corporations take them over, have little compunction to not exert monopolistic control over them. We know from health insurance companies, that if you provide insurance for a group instead of individuals, the ability to average risk over a population keeps those in most need of services from being least able to afford them. And there may be systems even more efficient than group-insurance-based ones for health care.

But for the capitalistic Polyanna, a "true" free market will cure everything, just as all Scotsmen like haggis. Like it cured the problem of child labor, gave us an 8 hour work day and 40 hour work week, safe food and drugs and safe working conditions. And they've been keeping the old and sick from camping out on your front lawn as well. Yeah boy, that free market really works wonders.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 23, 2011 1:19:55 PM PDT
Governmet not only should run our military, it is one of the few things they are constitutionally allowed to do. There is very little the federal government should be doing yet there is little they don't do. People look out for their own best interests, as do businesses (because businesses are no more than a group of people). Government is no different. It is in their best interest to constantly expand the scope of government. It is our job to make sure they never over reach. Instead we expect them to give us everything we "need" and take care of us because most of us just can't be bothered to look out for ourselves. This has become so second nature to us that we look to them for everything. One of the few expenses that the general public does complain about is military spending. Want to talk about controlling our borders, sorry we don't have the money or the ability for that. They can't watch a line in the dirt but we think they can control something as complex as an economy. We turn to them to fix everything when time and time again it is their tinkering that causes the problems. They demand that banks give loans to people that can't afford them and suprise, suprise, people don't pay them back. That would be bad enough, except the government sets up Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac to buy up all of those bad loans to free up the banks to give out more bad loans. That probably won't cause any problems. Medicare and Medicaid are unsustainable and crumbling yet they tell us that they should provide us all with health care. They can't afford to take care of a small % of the population, how can they afford to take care of the entire population? Social security is going bankrupt because they cannot grasp the simple concept of taking money, holding onto it, and then give it back to me when I retire. They spend it faster than they take it from us. The postal service is going bankrupt because they cannot grasp the even simpler concept of moving a package from point A to point B at cost. They don't need to make any money, just break even, mission impossible to Government. Of course Fed-Ex, UPS, DSL and a miriad of other private companies do this exact same task better, faster and cheaper and still manage to turn a profit. They should not be able to compete with an entity that doesn't need to make a profit but it is no mystery as to how they not only compete with the government, but win. History is littered with governmet policies and programs that not only don't work, they usually cause the exact opposite of their designed purpose. The government does run one agency well. Not only well, but with swiss watch precision. The IRS. Forget to pay them a penny and they decend upon you. They can't deliver a letter properly but they know that Joe Smith shorted them $6.35. If they can do that i have to wonder about the legitimacy of their "ineptitude". The best example of this is that we have the example of most other nations which are in much further states of decline than we are. You see what happens in France from all the government regulations and protections. Those people have such a sense of entitlement that if you expect them to actually do a decent job they burn half of Paris down in protest. Some, like Greece are in their final throwes from all of the entitlements. Yet we race headlong down the path they have forged. We are apparently smarter than them. We can make this work. Canada and Britain are moving their health care systems toward favoring privatization and free markets. Even Cuba is abandoning some of its failed policies in favor of free market based ones. Yet here we are modeling our systems after theirs. Sorry, this is a bit rambling but the point is that they have a history of not being able to do any of these things. I don't blame them for promising these things because most of us demand them. They spend more than they take in every year and every year we complain that they aren't giving us enough. We want them to provide us with everything, protect us from every percieved injustice and make everything "fair". They need to protect us from enemies forein and domestic, make sure States are not violating our constitutional rights and stay out of the rest of it. We need government for the few things it was origionally designed to do. We are supposed to be the boss and we are begging to be dependants. Don't throw the baby out, just put it in it's playpen.

Posted on Mar 16, 2011 1:53:27 PM PDT
K. Doyle says:
Capitalism is not a utopia, and neither is government. The same is true about business interests. One could argue that the reason you haven't been abused on the job is BECAUSE there are government controls-- and the recent replay of Triangle Shirtwaist in Bangladesh is at least one datapoint that abuses can still happen.

You're not willing to trust government, but seem to be willing to trust business-- I'm not crazy about trusting either, but think both have an important role-- do you think we should trust government to run a military or national security? Note: not whether we DO, or CAN, but whether we SHOULD. If so, then maybe you should consider how to go about making it better and more trustworthy, rather than saying it's broke so we should just do away with it. If not, then how do you suppose a national military and national security should work? If the gov can be trustable at those things, I suggest it can also be trustable with certain societal oversights, where there are real needs. Again, I'm not saying that it IS, but that it CAN be, and that is something worth working towards. I'm not in favor of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2011 7:07:41 AM PDT
Capitalism is not a perfect system, just the most fair. You will find abuses in any system but the biggest and most frequent abuses happen under centrally planned systems. If you can have a bad businessman you can have a bad politician. In fact that profession seems to usually draw the worst kind of person. Someone who couldn't make it in the private sector but can't wait to tell the private sector how to operate, and the private citizen while they are at it. The politician has force backing him up, the businessman needs to buy a politician to get that advantage. Laws preventing bosses from locking employees in the building is not market regulation. I have no problem with laws prohibiting kidnapping. I would also say that abuses are the exception. You act like almost every company in America is chaining people to their desks and beating the work out of them. I have never worked anywhere (and I have worked at McDonalds), or known anyone else that worked anywhere where they were being abused. When it comes to work I have noticed that there are 2 types of people in any workplace. One type does their job without much complaint and makes the best of the day understanding that they are being fairly compensated for their time. The other type (and their is no shortage of them) spend their day trying to skate around any work that they can and treat every expectation from their employer as a terrible injustice. They always feel that the company is trying to take advantage of them and they start off EVERY day with the phrase "I don't feel like being here today" If you want to talk about workplace abuse, it comes from these people. They make the good workers miserable with their constant complaining and the good workers have to constantly pick up their slack and correct their mistakes. You may not always like your job or want to be there but that is not abuse and you are free to leave any time you want. Pretty much everyone I know gets regular raises, bonuses, company picnics, employee discounts, vacation time, sick time, personal time, medical / dental / eye benefits, short term disability insurance, life insurance, 401K options, anniversary gifts and all kinds of other little prizes and perks. By the way, my company did not give anyone raises last year because they needed to cut costs in this wonderful economy we have going right now but I don't view that as abusive, I view it as a good thing because it allowed me to keep my job. Also while all of us regular employees have gone a year without a raise all of management has gone 2 years without a raise for the same reason. Management also had their bonus percentage cut as well for the last 2 years while our bonus percentages have not been changed. All of these things provided by greedy money grubbing Robber Barons. I know it stinks that you have to give 40+ hours of your life every week to some faceless company just so you can have food, a house, heat, running water, a car, vacations, cable tv, computer and internet, cell phone, dvd's, video games and all of the other neccessities that allow you to scrape through life, but how else are you going to get it? If you are waiting for utopia I suggest you pack a lunch.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 15, 2011 3:52:09 PM PDT
K. Doyle says:
I getcha-- capitalism all good, everything else all bad. Oh, and the all-wonderful "individual" has as much power as any corporation in any exchange. Monopolies and cartels can't exist because customers simply won't allow it. Get real, Pollyanna.

Here's the main problem in a nutshell: many people are dependent on their jobs, and when a company or group of companies choose to exert unfair control over a market of basic necessities, customers may not have the option to "shop elsewhere or do without." When there are fewer jobs than people who need them, those who have the jobs are in a position to abuse. And many job-owners have a long history of these abuses. The reason we have those evil regulations such as child-labor laws, OSHA, environmental protection laws, anti-trust laws, banking laws, interstate commerce laws and the like, is because those with the jobs and the products have repeatedly demonstrated by their actions that they not only are willing to mistreat, take advantage or abuse, but that they can even get away with it unless something bigger than the employees or customers can exert more power over them than the lowly individual can, due mostly to that individual dependence on jobs or basic necessities. People can't just quit their jobs when they're being abused if they need to eat and less abusive jobs are not available. Read about abuses like the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire (and note that just about one year shy of its 100th anniversary, there was a repeat of almost exactly the same disaster just a few months ago in Bangladesh).

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 15, 2011 1:04:32 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 15, 2011 2:16:52 PM PDT
Wow, that is a sad world view. It also assumes that everyone is inherently evil. Everyone is inherently selfish but selfishness is not evil. When someone is looking out for their own self interest that does not mean they are trying to screw everyone else. In fact, it is not in their best interest to treat others badly. You can claim that I am regurgitating Randian philosophy but tell me that you and everyone else do not apply this philosophy in their daily life. Would you repeatedly do business with someone who cons and swindles you? Would you stay in a romantic relationship with someone who continually cheats on you? Would you remain friends with someone who steals from you or beats you up or talks badly about you to others. You probably would not, so why would you act that way yourself? Looking out for yourself means making decisions that benefit you. It is not evil to refuse to buy something that holds no value for you. It is not evil to refuse to hire some one that is lazy just the same as it is not evil to refuse to accept employment from someone who will not properly compensate you. Every time you ask for a raise you are being selfish and looking out for #1. Is asking for a raise evil? Are you attempting to screw over your employer? When you form either a plutonic or romantic relationship with someone you are being selfish and looking out for #1. You enjoy their company or love them. You are getting something out of that relationship and if they repeatedly mistreat you, take advantage of you or abuse you then you will terminate that relationship. Are you being evil by enjoying their company and getting something that you value from that relationship? If you do terminate that relationship due to their mistreatment that is also a selfish act. You are denying them your company simply because you don't like the way you are being treated. Selfish but not evil. If a company provides you with a fair product or service at a fair price then you are being very selfish in continuing to do business with them. If they sell you junk then you are being selfish in not doing business with them. Also selfish but not evil. You are not "out to get" the other party in any of these senario's but you are looking out for good ol' #1. You tend to treat people the same way they treat you so the good people deal with each other and the bad people go away. Every time you make a judgement about whether or not you will deal with someone you are both discriminating and being selfish. Both of these are words that by their defenitions are not bad and that we all justifiably are and do. They have been given negative meanings by people who need to be fraudulent in order to get their way. Before someone goes crazy, racism and discrimination are not the same thing. When you are a racist you are discriminating against people (incorrectly) but that does not mean that discrimination is always racism. Having to explain this is like the sticker on the lawn mower telling people not to put their hand in the blade but sadly it needs to be explained to far too many people out there. Choosing a friend or spouse is discriminating, choosing a place of employment is discriminating, picking coke over pepsi is discriminating.....This is the equality that we all have, the ability to choose who we deal with and associate with. Introduce government intervention and regulation and we switch from working hard to buy a big screen tv to waiting for your neighbor to go on vacation so you can go steal his. Government intervention is the ONLY thing that keeps good people from rooting out and getting rid of unscrupulous people. It also forces honest people to stoop to the same underhanded tactics so that they can remain competative. If you do not believe in good and evil then there is not really much to discuss because you don't see a problem with stealing your neighbors flat screen (which is evil just in case you were wondering). If you do believe in good and evil but just think that it is subjective then who is to say that it is wrong for you to steal your neighbors tv, so there is also not much to discuss.

In the end, all you need to realize is that life is not a zero sum game. Your benefit does not result in someone else's loss (unless you are actually stealing from them). Unfortunately, every form of economic ideology other than capitalism seems to base itself off of the faulty "zero sum game" premise. Since there has never been a pure form of capitalism this sort of thing creeps in via "well meaning" regulations and policies and messes everything up. Ironically, the errors that this causes are then used as faulty examples of how free markets don't work. Then the very things that caused the problems in the first place are held up as the solutions. Madness. Just to be clear, real communism has never been realised either. Communism is a 100% socialist state. Anyone that says that socialism is different than communism is merely trying to keep scrutiny off of their flawed theories and ideology. What do you think U.S.S.R stood for (hint: the word communist starts with a C).

Posted on Mar 12, 2011 10:13:33 AM PST
R. bailey says:
well i am reading atlas shrugged now. but the characters she presents are retarded. her favorites are fleshed out and beautiful while the"evil stupid liberals" are as deep as paper. its really a weak argument for a philosophy when you cant even describe the motivation of your "opposition" . I am sorry i dont believe in "good vs evil".to me its just "what you do and what you dont do." i should not have let myself fall so easily into the name game. ok i am not a liberal in the sense that i want to make you pay more taxes than everyone else so the poor are better off. BUT

#1 me
#2 everyone else

if we are talking philosophy than we are talking in extremes. now if everyone in the world has the me first attitude, only 1 person will be first and 5,999,999,999 people will fail at life. i dont believe in one god. i believe that we are all equal in the spiritual sense. so it is in my best interests to make everyone else believe that it is their best interest to put everyone else first. now if everyone in the world has that attitude 5,999,999,999 people win at life and 1 person fails. going back to my list, if i was a gambling man i would rather take my chances with the second philosopy as my chances of winning at life are much greater. aka i am still first.

obviously the world does not work this way. i have no actual idea but i would guess its probably somewhere around half and half. with people of the first philosophy gaming the people of the second philosophy buy lying about it so they can get ahead. this is my world view, i base my decisions off of it. so for me, i fall in the second half because as i explained above i believe it is better off for me in the long run. how do u know im not lying and im just trying to fool people into letting me take advantage of them? you dont, but if you truly believe these things than you would also fall into the second category. being in the second category you realize the only way is by starting with your self. if you cheat and fall into the the first than you cheat yourself. where as if you go through life as an animal, full speed forward looking out for number one only, i believe you have not thought it through enough and probably have not thought of life on a philosophical level.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2011 9:48:16 AM PST
All collectivist ideas are about getting something for nothing at someone else's expense. And what you say about the neo-cons is true, however please realize that objectivists are not republicans. We are anti-force! You're still stuck on the right vs. left paradigm that was designed to devide the masses into to opposing camps, each fighting for political favor all the while the State grows in power until you can't stop it. Wake up! Left or Right, we lose. Freedom from force, we win.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2011 9:44:32 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 11, 2011 9:49:23 AM PST
Yeah, a cult (collectivist mentality) of individuals (independent mentality)... How does that even make any sense?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2011 9:32:00 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 11, 2011 9:34:13 AM PST
Man is born free. He owns his life. Freedom means the ability to live that life to your best ability (free to act) without violating the rights of others to do the same. An individual is the only one with the right to distroy his own life. If he choses to do so, it's his choice. Let it be. However, no man or group of men can get together and take (even if by vote) the property or freedom away from any individual. If this is allowed you end up with mob-rule, like what we have today. How is that going? Tribes, gangs, groups, collectives... all fighting for the loot. All seeking special favors from government at the expense of someone else. Who wins in that game? They say we must sacrifice for the good of the whole. Who exactly are we sacrificing for and what are we sacrificing? And why is it right for anyone to have to sacrifice if he OWNS HIS LIFE? And do their (the people calling for sacrifice) programs actually make things better? For example, is welfare (or any handouts) allowing anyone to rise up and escape the oppression? Or does it only lead to more proverty? You'll notice that if you reward bad behavior, you'll only get more of it. Our system penalizes the productive among us, and rewards the unproductive and you wonder why the system is collasping.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2011 9:23:22 AM PST
Free market ideas aren't dogmatic. They are backed by reason / logic and tons of empirical evidence (and common sense). What flaws are there in true capitalism? Capitalism is the economic system of freedom, no force. All trade is voluntary. Any other system or variation involves the use of force. Who should have the legal monopoly on force and how do you prevent abuse?

Posted on Mar 11, 2011 9:17:54 AM PST
K. Doyle says:
Collectivism doesn't work? Neither does anarchy. Perhaps what it is that REALLY doesn't work is EXTREMISM-- you know, the overriding faith in a single dogma, such as collectivism, anarchy, free markets, individualism, etc. They're pretty compelling though, as they all have the same advantage in that they eliminate the need to actually THINK. All you have to do is regurgitate the flaws in the competing -isms and pretend yours hasn't any.

Posted on Mar 11, 2011 8:39:24 AM PST
Stop evading. Stop rationalizing the irrational. Accept nothing but reason.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2011 8:38:34 AM PST
Learn economics and the difference between economic power and political power. Learn the difference between freedom and force. The earned versus the unearned. Good versus Evil. Reason versus faith. You have faith (a belief without evidence) in government without any way to justify their schemes. If you believe they should be using their legalized monopoly on the use of force to correct certain wrongs in our society you better figure out exactly who caused those wrongs in the first place before you go searching for a solution, especially one being offered by politicians. Their powers are dangerous dont' you see. They use political power as a club against all competitors to enrich themselves and the connected. It's unearned wealth...or loot. There's no need for lobbiest if there's nothing to lobby for.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2011 8:37:12 AM PST
The "liberal" ideas that you've adapted have been offered to you for a reason. Certain groups of men stand to gain a lot of power when those ideas spread. Ideas have consequenses. It's the oldest trick in the book, besides religion. Study history and the techniques the rulers have always used to rule, and to oppress the mind. Kill the mind, make it powerless, and you control the masses. Kill the soul and fill it with nonesense, and you control them. Read Atlas Shrugged. It's more than just about politics or trains. It's about life and the proper way for humans to live as humans.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2011 8:32:35 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 11, 2011 8:33:00 AM PST
And the fact that many individuals decide to use the product that Amazon produces doesn't make is a "collectivist" thing!!! Each individual decides to use Amazon or not. There's choice. In your collectivist society, people no longer have choices. They are not free from force. Someone decides who gets what, who produces what, etc, etc. And that system doesn't work because who controls the controllers? And if you someone could control the controllers, who controls them? You see, we don't need controllers!!! We need freedom from force. Set man free from men!!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2011 8:28:47 AM PST
What's the common good? Who decides? Who decides what's fair and what isnt? Who decides when someone has too much money, even if they EARNED it and forced no one? Show me an example of when any collectivist society was prosperous and successful? What does "every man for himself" even mean to you? Do you think that in a free society (one where the initiation of force is outlawed by everyone, including government) everyone servives by just grabbing what they can in spite of the consequences? How long will those that try that last in a free society where individual (property) rights are protected? when force is outlawed people work together as traders. People produce and offer value for value. No force. It's really not too complicated. It's only when political force is introduced into the otherwise free market when things go bad, and they go really bad when the most evil among us end up with all the legalized power.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2011 8:15:13 AM PST
R. bailey says:
all i have do do is read the first sentence. is a good example of collectivism. this commie website sure is ruining lives. its called people WORKING TOGETHER for the common good. everyman for himself dosent work. peroid. unless you are the man on top. and im not a betting man nor do i have a god complex soo ill stick with my sissy liberal ways.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2011 7:08:26 AM PST
Communist anyone? Haven't you learned that collectivism doesn't work? There's every example from around the world throughout history to make this fact obvious to the those willing to actually think and reason. Learn economics and the difference between economic power and political power. Learn the difference between freedom and force. The earned versus the unearned. Good versus Evil. Reason versus faith. You have faith (a belief without evidence) in government without any way to justify their schemes. If you believe they should be using their legalized monopoly on the use of force to correct certain wrongs in our society you better figure out exactly who caused those wrongs in the first place before you go searching for a solution, especially one being offered by politicians. Their powers are dangerous dont' you see. They use political power as a club against all competitors to enrich themselves and the connected. It's unearned wealth...or loot. There's no need for lobbiest if there's nothing to lobby for.

Posted on Mar 10, 2011 5:53:55 PM PST
K. Doyle says:
Social Darwinism anyone?

"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana

Posted on Mar 10, 2011 3:08:25 PM PST
Yes! The problem is that liberals, and even most of today's conservatives, can't even imagine what a truly free society would look like or how one functions (and how wonderful it would be). Their washed out brains are stuck on stupid and they refuse to see what's glaringly obvious to many of us. The things they want to achieve through government force can only be achieved through freedom from government force. They say they just want a good government... I say there's no such thing unless its powers are restricted to protecting individual rights instead of violating them like they do now, and have throughout mankind's history.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2011 1:23:17 PM PST
Bela says:
I agree 100%! I am 47 and have been working since I was 12 or so! My dad
work his butt off at a grain elevator for 6 kids and we weren't even middle
class. I learned early on life is tough and you have to get off your butt and
do it for yourself. I was injured on a job after 10 years and now suffer with
a bad back but I didn't sue or complain I just quit and got another job! I
have now been at the same job 18 years and run my own department but
many people less qualified and do less because of politics moved ahead
of me but that's life! I am not happy about it but do I want the goverment
telling business and me what to do, eat, drive, say, think blahblabh! Now
I've paid into my SS for years but now I won't get it? but they want to cut
continue to give money to people who don't work and liberal programs like
acorn and npr and planned parenthood? NO WAY! The Union president just
said he's for socialism and doesn't care about the workers! on tape! Look
it up all you LIBS! I bet all these poor people sitting on their butts have big
screen tvs and computers and games and new cars! I don't! I just bought my
own laptop after saving for it! I don't have a big screen tv. don't need it but
if I want it I don't need the goverment giving me one that someone else paid
for who works! If you LIBS like the social agenda then moved to France or those other countries that the USA defended and defends! Obama and his
socialist union friends are all hypocrites making tons of money on the backs
of poor people while the real workers and poor and needy still suffer! Jackson
and Sharpton are too big mouths who have done nothing for the black people.
MLK wouldn't have even been assoicated with these two con men! I just told
some friends at work who call me right winger even though I'm also a artist
and musician who believes in total freedom of speech that they should stop
buying guns which they do, driving gas guzzling cars which they do, stop
buying high tech gadgets, eating meat if they are such big liberals but again
most liberals are hypocrites like Obama. If he's relected you can kiss this
country goodbye! and you libs will find out what socialism really is about!

Posted on Mar 2, 2011 12:20:01 PM PST
When the government is now, and has been for a long time, in the business of granting economic favors to collective groups within our society, who do you think is going to win in that scenario? We The People, or the elites with political pull? What would happen if political power was no longer for sale and the all corporations were subject to competition? All those seeking the unearned would have to compete, and that's the last thing they want. What if the free market and the people ran our education system instead of the government propaganda machine? Media companies need competition and not government protection for protection in return. We need competition within the food industry so we have food with nutrients in it!!! We need competition with medicine so we can have available drugs that actually cure and not simply mask symptoms and often cause death. You can't tweak our system and make it work. It is leading us towards destruction as there is no other way when you "mix" the good with evil. Evil always wins. The good has nothing to gain from evil. NO force and free trade = good. Force = bad. Evil only grows once allows to enter and we lack the balls to cut it's head off by getting the government out of our economy and social lives! The only proper role of government is to protect individual rights and remove those that initiate force from society. If we deal with one another without force by law, you will have peace, harmony,and properity. Very little charity would even be needed, and there would be lots of prosperity to pay for it. A prosperous society is a charitable one. If freedom is the rule of the land, evil people will have no power and you'd see human progress like never before. It wouldn't be perfect, but as close as humanly possible. All other social systems fail because they involve the use of force which is the tool of the evil among us. Eliminate legalized force, eliminate evil. What the hell do you think the Constitution was written for? To set man free from men!! That's what a civilized society is. A free one. A civilized society is not one composed of gangs fighting for the loot, like what we have now. Hence all the rasicm, hatred, fighting, resentment, entitlement mentalities, laziness, depression, poverty, unemployment, war, violence, etc, etc. All this clears up with FREEDOM!!~

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 2, 2011 12:01:27 PM PST
1. What makes you think that you (or anyone else, for that matter) have the right to allow someone to starve? (750,000 seniors face hunger every year.) Who causing the starvation? Who's destroying the economy? We don't won't people to starve, we want a free society without force allowed where there is competition, free trade to the mutual benefit of both parties involved.. Learn about economics and you'll learn that a free market is the only system that is moral, just, and efficient and leadst to progress and prosperity. Every government law or regulation is force granting economic benefit to one party over another, and it started with big business men who were protecting themselves from competition using political pull. Government destroys competition and you end up with what we have now. Government using it's legal monopoly on force to grant economic favors. How's that working out? Who wins in that scenario? Learn the difference between economic power and political power.

2. What makes you think you have the right to let someone sleep in the streets? (22% of the homeless are mentally ill and unable to fend for themselves.) see above

3. What makes you think you have the right to condemn thousands of people a year to death because the richest country in the world is *unwilling* to finance a safety net for it's own citizens? (As much as 29% of the population of the U.S. is uninsured, of whom only 1/5 are thought to be able to afford health insurance.) See above... There's a mal-distribution of wealth because government has been granting economic favors since the beginning and it only gets worse. Now the corporations with government protection run everything with the banks at the top. End the protective regulations and competition will swallow them up and we'd have better, safer, less expensive products and the big corps would disappear. Learn economics. We want businessmen running the our economy because they are traders! They can't force you to buy their products. It's only when political power is for sale that things turn ugly. In a free market, the businessmen has to build goodwill from customers / society or he goes broke. All monopolies are government created. Learn economics.

4. What makes you think that you have the right to use OUR country as a testing ground for your failed economic theories? (Alan Greenspan, anyone?) What's you point about Greenspan? He sold us out!! He was working from the looters. His original ideas were the right ones, and he opperated against them once he became a puppet. Learn the facts. Since you know that his policies in practice failed, and they were the opposite of what he original believed (free markets) it stands to reason that the bad policies don't work, and the good ones that he abandoned do. Hence the progress of America in the beginning after centuries of pain and suffering for all humans execpt the ruling class / the looters.

5. What makes you think you have the right to make demands on a majority that far outnumbers you? Individual rights are the only rights that exists. No group can vote away the rights or property away from any one person. Shame on you.

6. What makes you think that you are wanted in this country? If Randians think they provide so much value to the rest of us, why not prove it? Go ahead and shrug, Atlas. Please. Be careful what you ask for.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Objectivism forum (4 discussions)

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Fight the Ravenous Beast of Socialism 23 Oct 5, 2012
New to Objectivisim 4 Dec 9, 2011
ATTN: Liberals/Democrats 63 Mar 29, 2011
Is there room for patriotism in objectivism? 4 Mar 3, 2011

This discussion

Discussion in:  Objectivism forum
Participants:  28
Total posts:  64
Initial post:  Feb 11, 2008
Latest post:  Mar 29, 2011

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 8 customers

Search Customer Discussions