abott1776

I saw this on Listverse:
 
http://listverse.com/2015/06/28/10-potential-alternatives-to-the-conventional-capitalist-system/
 
Objectivism is number 2. It is one of the fairer characterizations of Objectivism I've seen mentioned on this site.
 
I guess this isn't exactly news, but I thought it was worth sharing.

I saw this on Listverse:
 
http://listverse.com/2015/06/28/10-potential-alternatives-to-the-conventional-capitalist-system/
 
Objectivism is number 2. It is one of the fairer characterizations of Objectivism I've seen mentioned on this site.
 
I guess this isn't exactly news, but I thought it was worth sharing.

Interesting topic. From what I know about history in general, not a detailed analysis of each nations economic history, the British Empire changed from a mercantile system to a more free-market, free-trade economy (not systematically but generally). The mercantile policies before and during the American Revolution (or as I like to call it The Second English Civil War) was what driven the American Revolutionaries to rebel. They saw it, and rightly so, as hindering their prosperity. Mercantile policies viewed wealth as basically static, if one nation gained, another lost as opposed to the free-market idea of you know "let's grow the pie, not bicker over what slice everybody gets". The Americans intuitively saw what Adam Smith later made an official theory. After the American Revolution the Liberals gained power for most of the nineteenth century, changing the way the Empire viewed trade and economics. The revolution was figuratively a slap in the face to wake them up, that their policies weren't working, they just pissed a whole lot of people off. Even in England, smuggling was viewed by a lot of people as a just robinhoodesque action, read Edward Cline's Sparrowhawk series, it will give you a very good representation of the opposing views of economics in the Anglo-American sphere at that time. In America after the revolution, there were two opposing sides, the Federalists and the Republican. The Fed's wanted that American System, big national banks, monetarily support industry (two examples that come to mind, steamboats and railroads were subsidized disastrously), the Rep wanted to basically leave everyone alone, but they gave us that distrust for national banks, and they sought to restrict by closing banks from interstate finance.
 
Overall after the war the Anglo-American sphere as a whole grew increasingly more free culminating in the late nineteenth century, with America I think having an edge over the British in terms of culture (individualism, entrepreneurship, drive to strive better). There were specific delimited things the American government(s) did such as subsidizing this or that business, nothing like the all-encompassing attitude today that business is inherently corrupt, that it needs to be constantly regulated, that people needed to be guided in what they do, massive government redistribution programs.

Interesting topic. From what I know about history in general, not a detailed analysis of each nations economic history, the British Empire changed from a mercantile system to a more free-market, free-trade economy (not systematically but generally). The mercantile policies before and during the American Revolution (or as I like to call it The Second English Civil War) was what driven the American Revolutionaries to rebel. They saw it, and rightly so, as hindering their prosperity. Mercantile policies viewed wealth as basically static, if one nation gained, another lost as opposed to the free-market idea of you know "let's grow the pie, not bicker over what slice everybody gets". The Americans intuitively saw what Adam Smith later made an official theory. After the American Revolution the Liberals gained power for most of the nineteenth century, changing the way the Empire viewed trade and economics. The revolution was figuratively a slap in the face to wake them up, that their policies weren't working, they just pissed a whole lot of people off. Even in England, smuggling was viewed by a lot of people as a just robinhoodesque action, read Edward Cline's Sparrowhawk series, it will give you a very good representation of the opposing views of economics in the Anglo-American sphere at that time. In America after the revolution, there were two opposing sides, the Federalists and the Republican. The Fed's wanted that American System, big national banks, monetarily support industry (two examples that come to mind, steamboats and railroads were subsidized disastrously), the Rep wanted to basically leave everyone alone, but they gave us that distrust for national banks, and they sought to restrict by closing banks from interstate finance.
 
Overall after the war the Anglo-American sphere as a whole grew increasingly more free culminating in the late nineteenth century, with America I think having an edge over the British in terms of culture (individualism, entrepreneurship, drive to strive better). There were specific delimited things the American government(s) did such as subsidizing this or that business, nothing like the all-encompassing attitude today that business is inherently corrupt, that it needs to be constantly regulated, that people needed to be guided in what they do, massive government redistribution programs.

On Yahoo news I found this article:
 
tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/jerry-seinfeld-s-blunt-take-on-diversity-in-comedy---who-cares--195219911.html
 
In it he says about people complaining that his comedy lacks diversity:
 
"People think it's the census or something? Does this [have to] represent the actual pie chart of America? Who cares? Funny is the world I live in. If you're funny, I'm interested. If you're not funny, I'm not interested. And I have no interest in race or gender or anything like that."
 
Go Jerry!, Go!

JASKN,
 
Thanks for everything. I will try to chew those links.
 
Alex

It is subtle but I can think of no better movie that even touches the political philosophy, culture, and even implicit ethics behind the American Revolution. They only explicitly talk about it in a few verbal skirmishes between the colonials and the British soldiers, and in one scene amongst colonials, but when they do it is pretty poignant.
 
The first scene, when Hawkeye speaks up to the British officer on horseback, basically says that it is not in the colonials interests to fight the French, and are not subjects of anyone.
 
The scene where Hawkeye tries to inform the colonel at the fort that the colonials homes are being attacked, clearly is a foreshadowing, and summation, of the relationship between the colonials and the motherland. The colonials simply want to protect their lives, property, and way of life, as opposed to the motherlands designs on empirehood and all that demands (fighting war after war, stratification of society, loyalty as opposed to reasoned decisions). Hawkeye says to the lying Major that "someday you and I are going to have a serious disagreement", foreshadowing American Revolution anybody?
 
When the colonials are discussing amongst themselves what to do about their homes being attacked and being stopped by the colonel, one man talks about how because English law is no longer being applied since the British soldiers use it at their discretion, that to live under their designs is to live under tyranny. This is clearly applying the idea of Objective law, mostly implicitly.
 
The movie as a whole demonstrates the culture of the Americans, they use reason and argumentation to make decisions as seen with their many skirmishes with the British, and talking amongst themselves. Therefore, they implicitly think that reason is practical and a tool of their survival. The British notice this, and is shown in the scene where the Major notices that they have to negotiate terms of service for the militias (the ability to leave and defend their homes). The Americans are valuers, in the scene when they decide to go back and defend their homes, some don't, like Hawkeye who clearly values Madeleine Stowe's character. They use reason to make their best judgement in trying to attain or keep their values. The Americans are clearly children of the Age of Reason.
 
Today it is sooooooo different, people could never hold a conversation as serious as the one between the colonials about political philosophy, the theory that they are applying is really integrated into their lives. Today, if people even get to talking about political philosophy let alone politics, it is a series of misunderstand, random punch lines.
 
The scene with the colonel and the colonials, as well as the colonials amongst themselves, can be found in this video on youtube:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol2zOQXmQLs

On Yahoo news I found this article:
 
tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/jerry-seinfeld-s-blunt-take-on-diversity-in-comedy---who-cares--195219911.html
 
In it he says about people complaining that his comedy lacks diversity:
 
"People think it's the census or something? Does this [have to] represent the actual pie chart of America? Who cares? Funny is the world I live in. If you're funny, I'm interested. If you're not funny, I'm not interested. And I have no interest in race or gender or anything like that."
 
Go Jerry!, Go!

On Yahoo news I found this article:
 
tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/jerry-seinfeld-s-blunt-take-on-diversity-in-comedy---who-cares--195219911.html
 
In it he says about people complaining that his comedy lacks diversity:
 
"People think it's the census or something? Does this [have to] represent the actual pie chart of America? Who cares? Funny is the world I live in. If you're funny, I'm interested. If you're not funny, I'm not interested. And I have no interest in race or gender or anything like that."
 
Go Jerry!, Go!

I don't think it is the greatest of victories. It doesn't seem to be born out of principle. The judge said the law was "arbitrary and capricious" not that it violated individual rights.