Aureus

Objectivism is inherently pro-choice and the fetus-embryo-zygote has inalienable rights from the moment of conception. The mother, however, has no right to invade, occupy, or feed off the body of another human being. Such an act would be criminal. Since inalienable rights are also equal rights, the fetus, like the mother, has no right to occupy or feed off the body (property) of the mother without her consent and, thus, can rightly be aborted or forcibly ejected from the mother's body. The correct answer to the poll is both choices.

Does anyone honestly believe that the several states, being sovereign and independent, would have voluntarily agreed to ratify the Constitution if they were told that no signatory state could ever secede from the Union for any reason whatsoever, and that any attempt at secession would be met with violent suppression by means of military force? Lincoln sought to evade this very important question by falsely asserting that the several states did not precede the Union. Instead, Lincoln claimed that the Union preceded the states. Thus, to Lincoln, state sovereignty was a fiction since membership in the Union was never free and voluntary but automatic and mandatory from the very start. In Lincoln's mind, a forced and involuntary Union was as much of an impossibility as a free and voluntary Union because the Union came first -- and since the states had not freely chosen to join the Union, the states had no right to secede from the Union. Lincoln's thinking was clearly contorted. For more on this subject, see The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo (Foreward by Walter E. Williams) and A Constitutional History of Secession by John Graham (Foreward by Donald Livingston). "The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chooses to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disapprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right." ~ Alexis de Tocqueville

Aside from its inherent altruistic immorality, communism outlaws free trade, i.e., the pricing mechanism necessary to coordinate the market economy.

Even the Chicagoans, who are veritable egalitarians compared to Objectivists and the Austrians, believe it's time for antitrust to be scrapped.

Firstly, I did not write the word "majority," meaning a numerical preponderance: I wrote the word "many," meaning a large number. Perhaps someone could conduct a poll among Objectivists on the matter. I would be happy to be proven wrong, just as I'm glad this point is being raised and clarified. I do, however, believe that big business and established wealth tend to favor economic interventionism or government protectionism over laissez-faire capitalism. Freedom of association, free trade, and free competition are as much a threat to status quo conservatism as they are to egalitarian socialism.

Let me offer a fresh and valid Objectivist perspective on the subject of fetal rights. Most of you are familiar with Ayn Rand's 1963 essay, "Man's Rights" (and if you're not you should be). The real key to the abortion issue is found in the illuminating section where Ayn Rand identifies the "gimmick" which was (and still is) used to replace the concept of political rights (the right to action) with the pseudo-concept of economic rights (the right to be provided with necessary or basic goods and services at another's expense). Fetal rights are not political rights. The right to be provided with a host is an economic right, i.e., a welfare right.

Sounds like you're recounting the history of the United States at the beginning of the twentieth century. What many Objectivists still do not understand is that "America's persecuted minority, big business," actually led the charge of the progressive movement, a movement which was profoundly conservative. (See Gabriel Kolko's groundbreaking work, "The Triumph of Conservatism".) The laissez-faire philosophy of noninterventionism and free markets is a product of the (classical) liberal tradition. Laissez-faire liberalism is still rejected out of hand and aggressively opposed by the interventionist right, i.e., conservatives and socialists. In a laissez-faire society, the aim of government regulation would be the opposite of its aim today, viz., instead of shielding the established monopoly interests of large corporations from the "destructive" market forces of free competition, government regulation would shield free competition from the destructive monopoly interests of large corporations. The "have’s" do not have any more reason to support the institution of private ownership of the means of production than do the "have-not’s." The notion that, if only capitalism is preserved, the propertied classes could remain forever in possession of their wealth stems from a misunderstanding of the nature of the capitalist economy, in which property is continually being shifted from the less efficient to the more efficient businessman. In a capitalist society one can hold on to one's fortune only if one perpetually acquires it anew by investing it wisely. The rich, who are already in possession of wealth, have no special reason to desire the preservation of a system of unhampered competition open to all; particularly if they did not themselves earn their fortune, but inherited it, they have more to fear than to hope from competition. They do have a special interest in interventionism, which always has a tendency to preserve the existing division of wealth among those in possession of it. ~ Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism

Since the corrupt and misguided rejection of the gold standard by governments and their central banks, the U.S. Government can inflate its currency far beyond levels that would destroy the monetary unit of other countries because of the sheer size and privileged position enjoyed by the U.S. dollar as the world's primary reserve currency. An interesting article appeared yesterday by Texas Congressman Ron Paul on the subject of rising gold prices.

Monetary inflation causes the rate of savings to fall and the prices of goods and services to rise. However, a fall in the savings rate or a rise in commodity prices will not necessarily cause government to engage in legalized counterfeiting. In answer to your question, the country with the lowest aggregate time-preference (consumption/investment ratio) is the country with the lowest natural rate of interest. An interventionist country with a higher time-preference could artificially lower its interest rate by means of engaging in the immoral and deceptive practice of monetary inflation, but once higher prices make their appearance due to more fiat money chasing fewer goods and services, interest rates begin to climb because the purchase of present goods becomes increasingly more attractive than the purchase of future goods in terms of fiat money. The choice of government then becomes one between laissez faire or further interventionism in the form of more monetary inflation, or perhaps even price controls. "Laissez faire, laissez passer does not mean: let the evils last. On the contrary, it means: do not interfere with the operation of the market because such interference must necessarily restrict output and make people poorer." ~ Ludwig von Mises

In order to "stimulate" consumer spending, government forces interest rates to artificially low levels by means of inflating the supply of money and credit. The fact that it took only $0.41 in 1980 to purchase a dollar's worth of goods in 2005 is a big indication that interest rates have been kept too low. The dollar has lost approximately 60% of its purchasing power over the last 25 years, and 5% of its value in just the last year alone. No wonder people aren't saving as they once did.

In an unhampered market, interest rates do not affect time preference (the consumption-saving proportion), they measure it. Changes in the interest rate are not the cause but the effect of changes in time preference. Confusion arises when economic central planners intervene to alter the free market rate of interest in order to "stimulate" economic behavior that serves nationalist-collectivist-statist ends. Perhaps we would do better to consider how our government's artificially low interest rates have affected savings. Here is a graphic example:

If the aggregate time preference (the interest rate) is increasing, then the aggregate proportion of consumption to saving is also increasing. A rising rate of interest doesn't mean that people are becoming more inclined to save: it means that people are becoming more inclined to consume and less inclined to save. It must also be remembered that savings earn interest, i.e., savings not only fund investment, savings are also a form of investment. Therefore, if the aggregate time preference (the interest rate) is decreasing, then the aggregate proportion of consumption to both saving and investment is also decreasing. Another important point to note it that we have been speaking about a free market economy. America does not have a free market economy, much less a free market in money. Economic central planners and powerful political forces manipulate free market interest rates to achieve nationalist-collectivist ends, i.e., "the greatest good for the greatest nation."

In a free and just society, private citizens must voluntarily fund government; yet, surprisingly enough, government has been stealthily funding itself for decades by means of monetary inflation. Since government owns the keys to the printing press, government can print as much money as it wants. When the economy becomes overheated and price inflation begins to rear its ugly head, government invariably raises taxes, not because government needs more money (it already has the printing press), but because government uses taxation as a tool to remove an excessive supply of currency from the economy in order to stem potential hyperinflation. See Fed Chairman Beardsley Ruml's 1946 address: Taxes For Revenue Are Obsolete

The root cause of terrorism is self-righteousness in the sense that a terrorist believes that his ideology justifies the initial use of force. It must also be remembered that government interventionism requires the use of initiatory force, and it is highly probable that those who rightly retaliate against acts of government intervention will be labeled "radical extremists" or "terrorists" by the State.