DougW

OK, I guess the lesson for me here is not to use extremes as a way of proving or disproving a point.... Obviously 100 people couldn't control all the wealth in the world, I was just trying to see if 'Even then...' it would be considered rational not to give a large portion of it away... (Although I recommend Roger Zelazny's 'Lord of Light' as a good example of what might happen if we continue to allow power to accumulate to fewer and fewer people...) But that said, I completely disagree with the follow-up points. So 'my world' where 100 people control all the wealth in the world is 'impossible'... so is the world postulated by Rand, where the rich pay fair value for labor, and take only their fair share of the wealth created by production. In our world, people with wealth, and wealth-derived power act irrationally every day, in the 'Golden Era' that Rand is always waxing poetically about they sent workers into coal mines without ventilation, knowing they would develop life-threatening illnesses...they allowed copper to saturate the water table in the towns where miners lived, they forced slaughterhouse workers to endure sub-human conditions, working such long hours that they would often lose fingers or even hands to the cutting mechanisms.... more recently they lie about the health of the company, knowingly taking money from workers paychecks and 'investing' it for the workers retirement, knowing that it is worthless... In the world I live in (and you too...) there are plenty of people working their butts off, playing their role in production, but when those at the top of the companies do the math, they somehow calculate that their handshakes and golf outings are worth 50, 100, even 1000 times what the efforts of those who put in long days on a noisy assembly line are worth. And please don't give me some story about how irreplaceable these guys are...I've worked along side them, most of them aren't that bright, some of them are downright stupid, but the one trait they all had was their willingness to take whatever is on the table for themselves, whether they deserve it or not! Also, where did the idea come from that production is unlimited? Markets are saturated, lomg-term deals are in place with many suppliers of raw materials, those with inherited wealth and the power that goes with it do work hard at one thing, and that's making sure that the opportunities for competition are limited. There is no virtually minable land left in the US that isn't already owned or has the mineral rights leased. The search for oil has moved offshore where the cost of becoming a player is in the billions, so old Jed with his shotgun isn't gonna strike oil while shootin at some food... Our economy has become 'service-oriented' where again a cap exists on how muh can be provided, limited by both the size and wealth of the population that we wish to service. And the whole taxation thing.... what about roads, sewers, schools...they should be private? I'd love to see what would happen when the guy who 'owns' the roads in your town decided he wanted to buy two or three more mansions, and upped the toll to use the roads by 100% one day... And all private education...perfect...well just price it so that the lower class can't quite afford it, less competetion for our kids to face in the workplace, plus the bonus of a cheap, hungry labor force... And we couldn't have enough police from Rand's 'voluntary' tax, so we'd need lots of 'private' police forces, I'm thinking Pinkerton's or maybe even Blackwater sounds like a good solution for that.... And finally, I never said that inherited money 'sits'..only that it is 'irrational' to think that a world where the wealth of the economy is distributed so unevenly will be a fun place for anyone to live. Keeping a vast, hungry, uneducated mass of people is the absolute surest way to bring about terrorism, revolution, war. If you'd like to live in a society where people with guns and bombs aren't constantly knocking on your door, you would probably be better with a philosophy that says: A) those born with wealth aren't 'better' or 'more deserving' than those born poor. As much as you'd like to believe otherwise, 80 hours of your work each week is very, very, very unlikely to be worth 1000 times the 40 hours of production put in by the average worker. C) It makes absolutely no sense to claim that giving money for food and education to strangers who are starving and uneducated would actually cause them harm, rob them of pride, teach them sloth, etc., but also to claim that giving huge amounts of money to your children wouldn't harm them one bit, no sir! and finally D) While it's fun to play the 'look I just moved up 2 spots on the Fortune list, watch out Gates...' game, once you have covered your necessities for like 1000 lifetimes, it's difficult to come up with a rational reason why you should continue building personal wealth. (and no, 'Because I can...' is not a rational reason) Capitalism is certainly the very best system ever devised for a fair, free economy. But it isn't without it's problems, and one is that it allows a cyclical build-up of economic power that in turn allows those with capital to reduce the choices of those without capital to "play our way or starve", and nobody wants to starve....

Eiuol, that's cool, I don't think our viewpoints are that far off... the concept of destroying "any hope of living in a place where anyone is rational" is really what I mean when I say 'increasing the levl of rationality in the world"... to me it isn't so important to couch it in Objectivist-speak, but I understand your desire to be more accurate within the objectivist system. I know Rand sometimes spoke about how it's wrong to judge the Objectivist philosophy by using 'extreme' examples, but it's hard not to sometimes. The question I was trying to ask (and maybe not doing a good job of wording it..) was "is there no point at which keeping wealth for your self becomes irrational?"....if you take that to an extreme, I can't see how a world would be 'rational' if 100 people control all of the wealth on the planet (of course that's a crazy scenario....). In my mind, desperate people will do 'irrational' things to survive, they literally can't think too far ahead, if they do they'll probably eb dead before they get there... increasing education among the 'savage' (I hate that word!) populations in the world would do so much to 'create rationality'....population growth would almost certainly go down... production would increase....aggressive wars aimed at acquiring resources for pure survival would be reduced.... Anyway. continued thanks for the opinions.....

Quo, Thanks! The quote from Francisco is enlightening, and I think gets to the bottom of where the differences in our thinking lies. I agree perfectly with him. Giving the money to one person creates one parasite. My objection has been that all along everyone seemed to be saying that it doesn't create any parasites... and he is also right, the second act creates 50 (or 100 or whatever) parasites. Where we split in thinking is what the likely outcome of the two processes would be. I can't see how parasite 1 (the heir) would be any more or less likely to use reason to raise himself out of the irrationality of being a parasite based on whether he is given $1 million dollars as his inheritance or $350 million. (in fact, I would bet that there are statistics if one looked hard enough that would show that the inheritors of $1 million do better in terms of avoiding alcoholoism, mental illness, suicide, drug abuse, etc. than the $350 million set...). Anyway, in the second example, in my mind we would be elevating the 50, or 100 from 'savages' to 'parasites'. Even if you don't believe that is a step up the rational ladder, I would also postulate that an 'educated' parasite has a far, far greater chance of becoming rational than an uneducated savage. Anyway, I'm not obessed with other people's property, it happens to be the subject of this argument (I could hardly argue about religion in this forum...). What I am completely, insanely obsessed about, is never ever accepting anything that doesn't make sense to me. I really am sorry that the thing not making sense is something you feel so strongly about...and I don't mean that sarcastically or anything.... I completely realize that I am overly obsessed with needing to see logic in everything... So, after I read Rand's books, I imagined a world following Rand's theories, but I could not imagine how it could exist without the judgement of the marketplace being an integral part. By that I mean the individuals that make up the marketplace would look at each person or company that they trade with and would weigh whether they think that person/corporation is adding to the rationality of the world, or lowering it, and would only trade with those who they felt were acting rationally. And to follow that up, if I were the individual doing the calculating, I would say that a person who gathers resources to the level of a Bill Gates or Warren Buffet is lowering the rationality of the world. I would, on the other hand, say that the actions of Paul Newman were increasing the rationality of the world. I know we will never agree on that, but that is what I believe. That also is the motivation behind my 'surprise' at my partners actions when we sold the company. I thought I knew him to be a rational person. Now, as a partner, I knew all of the workings of our company. I knew exactly what his contribution and my contribution to the growth, stability and success of the organization were. I also knew what the contribution of each employee was. I know exactly how much 'risk' each of us took (in fact the business was started with capital I contributed, and which was repaid over time prior to the sale). So, in my mind, the bonuses to the staff weren't gifts, they were payment for services they had rendered, which while not expressly written into their contracts, were in return for the 'risk' they took working for a startup, for the extra hours they put in when things weren't going well, for the lack of 'ownership' benefits that other workers enjoy (i.e. stock grants, etc.) because we were a small enough company that we couldn't split ownership and still effectively make decisions. In fact, when we hired people, we expressly played up the idea that as a small company, they were 'getting in on the ground floor' and that in the future there would be a chance to 'buy into' the company's success once we got large enough. Instead, we sold to a larger company, that had no obligation to those employees. Anyway, in my mind, my partner's first choice seemed like a betrayal of people who we were friends with, valued, and had shared a dream with. The fact that after a half-hour of discussion he agreed with me made me feel better, but what I was saying earlier is that we can't ignore that there is an inherent greed in all of us that we have to be aware of, and make sure it isn't coloring our decisions about what is rational. As for what I do with my money, I doubt you'll think it wise. I believe in rationality at the transactional level, but with a twist.... I enter every single transaction I am involved in by calculating what I believe the value is to both parties, then I make an offer that is slightly to the benefit of the other person. If they accept it, I go forward. If they don't I usually walk away completely, I never negotiate (probably because I know how crazy I would get in that process...). But, the benefit I receive is that the people I do business with like doing business with me because I never undervalue their contribution. The 'loss' I take from making my initial offer 'more than fair' is, in my mind compensated for by these future relationships, as well as by the time I save not dickering with people. To me, it seems like a rational system, but I know for a fact, I haven't extracted the most I could from these transactions.

Quo, I'm really sorry that I am posting again, after I said I wouldn't, but it seemed like your response was addressed to me to elicit a response. I understand the logic you are using, but I disagree with it. How can a man direct his own actions rationally if he does not ask 'what is rational?' If I were to ever (lol) be faced with the dilemma of having a few billion dollars and need to decide what to do with it, how could I possibly make a rational decision, if all through my life whenever I asked what kind of spending is rational or irrational I was told 'hush, now, that's none of your business.' Also, in the same book, Rand later followed up with the statement 'Judge, and prepare to be judged' as the rational way to live. I believe that Rand would say that you can (and even should) discuss, have opinions, and share those opinions about anything that anyone is doing. It is only if you either refuse to use your mind, to think, to be conscious OR if you act that you can be irrational. So, by that logic, my saying that I believe the acts of certain people with regard to their property is irrational should be fine. If I advocate making laws to prohibit their use of their property (I haven't and wouldn't), if I act to harm them or restrict them in any way (I haven't and wouldn't) then I would be irrational. And later you say that 'I' went subjective. But in reality, for the point in question, my position is Objective and yours is Subjective! My one error is not putting the word 'rational' in my argument, as in: '...has enough money for a person to rationally care for himself, his family, their family, etc.' Now in an 'Objective' system, that amount is and must be the same everywhere, for everyone. It is purely 'Subjective' to say that the amount differs from person to person. Those are base definitions of objective and subjective, ( Objective = same answer from multiple reporters; Subjective = varies by the person or situation). Lastly, you make the statement: "We assert that a man's property is his own. Period. Of no one's concern but his own. Period." Who is 'we' in this statement. Again, not to say I've read every word Rand ever wrote, but that statement was nowhere. What IS there is something that starts out the same, but ends differently "We assert that a man's property is his own, to dispose of as he wishes." If there is a quote by Rand that follows that up with this being 'no one's concern', I'll buy the book and read it and stand corrected, but I don't believe it exists.

OK....

Jennifer, I admit I'm not an expert. I did not make assertions. I keep asking questions. I bought 'Virtue of Selfishness' and read it after the first couple of posts, noting that in it Rand herself says that all of her philosophy is contained in Atlas Shrugged, which I have read twice. I will get and read more on Objectivism as I can. I believe I understand what I am reading. The main thing I have problems with, and am asking questions about, is that there seems to be a 'sacred' aspect to immense wealth. In my mind (and only in mine, I make no claims on anyone else), amassing huge amounts of money is no different from amassing political power or economic power. You have every right to do so if you want, but having power of any type does not absolve one from examination and judgement, nor does it abdicate one's responsibility to 'rationality'. I don't believe I have read anything an any of Rand's work that says differently. Yet, whan I ask if it is rational for a billionaire to choose keeping his wealth vs. using it to help others (spefically to help educate those born in abject poverty), in light of the fact that the billionaires life would not be significantly adversely affected, vs. the benefit of living in a world made more rational by educating these people, I am told that I am not allowed to ask this question. It is wrong. I have no right, etc. I had been hoping someone would instead use logic. In a few cases some people did do that, but I felt the logic was flawed (i.e. the billionaire spending the money on himself creates jobs, stimulates the economy, etc. but I pointed out that building the schools and buying the books, teaching, etc. also stimulates the economy, that in fact the economy is stimulated by how much is spent, not by who is is spent 'for'). But mostly I got responses that claimed I was pro-communist (I'm not), that I was saying there should be laws forcing people to give away their money (no, I'm not), or that I'm advocating giving the money to anyone who asks regardless of whether they can work or not (no, I'm not). I'm very worried that we will never get to a rational world if we aren't willing to point out irrationality wherever we see it. If we think there is a rational world in which one person's contribution to production is worth 10,000 times as musc as another man's, when both men work hard, and both work full-time, that really scares me. While I don't have any hard data to prove that belief is wrong, I would ask for an example of a major corporation that went belly-up soon after the death of it's president CEO. I am saying that it is my belief that the primary way that businessmen get to be billionaires is by making irrational claims to the profits of production in virtually every transaction they make. Whenever there is work to be done and profit to be split, they assess their contribution to be much higher than it actually is. I said this earlier in the thread also, I rarely have found CEOs to be the smartes person in the room at meetings, but they are always the most ruthless... Anyway, we differ about the best means to get to the same ends...a rational world. It's a very long thread, so I don't blame anyone for not reading it all, but I think that if you do, you woudn't say I was irrational, or making unsubstantiated claims. You'd probably say I was ADD, that I switched topics too much, maybe got too emotional...but I think you'd also see that people kept assigning beliefs to me I never stated (and don't have)....

On the grow up comment, I apologize. As I mentioned earlier, your 'amen' response seemed a bit dismissive... I overreacted. Second examples ARE using logic and conjecture. It's not a proof, because the exact circumstances you are trying to prove don't exist. Third, I didn't use Ad Hominem. Ad Hominem would be something like "how could one ewxpect a 'biker' to have a rational argument...and I never said anything like that. I specifically said that in this thread you didn't use any logic in your arguments. That is not ad hominem. Also, the fact that you have posted a lot doesn't indicate anything about whether you are right or wrong. If it does. I'll just keep posting until I'm right all the time... I'm sorry if you don't want to engage on this...I would think that if you really wanted Objectivism to become widespread, you'd understand that you'll need to convince a lot of people who start off with wrong opinions. If you simply dismiss them because they ask for proof, or because they aren't convince by your first argument, how can you ever spread your philosophy widely enough to actually bring rationality to the world?

D'kian, I agree completely. I don't want any legislation about what people should or shouldn't do with their money. Admittedly I like the idea that Melinda Gates convinced Bill to give away a vast bulk of his wealth at his death. In fact she did so by convincing him that saddling his children with 80 B of unearned capital would probably ruin their lives, removing any understanding of the pride of self-accompliushment. Don't know your feelings on this but I'm hoping you don't think it is a mistake. As for the comparison of Communism to America, again, I'm completely not getting why you would say that! I never ever advocated communism. In fact, let's take a minute and compare what I have been saying using your example: In which country is there more voluntary 'giving' by wealthy individuals to the less fortunate, the former USSR or America? And how has the ecomony in that country fared with regard to the other? Clearly the answer is that there was NO voluntary giving by wealthy individuals in the former USSR. There was a huge corrupt system of government officials controlling the distribution of all wealth. In the United States, there is significant voluntary giving, and the US has a better economy. So my suggestion using your example proves my point, that voluntary giving leads to increased rationality, and better economic outcome. That's where we have differed all along. I am saying that working the system to try and elevate yourself to 'king-like' status economically is irrational. For many reasons, from the probability that your contribution almost certainly doesn't merit that compensation, to the probability that the world will be less rational if the resources are so concentrated among the wealthy that millions upon millions have no food shelter chloting, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, no education which could be used to elevate themselves.

I already understand about living as a human, not an animal. There is a particular logical flow I have a problem with: 1) A=A 2) Man must live as man 3) To live as a man, you must be rational, focused, conscious. You must live for your own self-interest. 4) Self-interest does not mean by 'whim' or 'desire'. It is only because self-interest creates a more rational world that we can conclude that there is no conflict of interest among rational men. (i.e. rational is rational not 'rational only for me' or 'rational only for you') 5) We must constantly judge and be prepared to be judged. If we find irrationality we must defeat it. 6) Having any concern with how an individiual acts with regard to his property is irrational (I don't get how that fits) 7) It could be rational to do something sometimes but not others (don't get that either) 6 and 7 are representations of what I have been told here. Number 6 is proof of how I am wrong to even question what a person does with their property. But that simply can't be true all the time. If a neighbor sets fire to his woodlands, I would certainly have a right to be concerned about the effect on my property. Likewise, if a neighbor continually overvalues his contribution to the economy, and removes much more than what his efforts indicate he should get, I should be concerned. In a completely rational world, rational buyers would simply not trade with this person, rational workers would not work for him. But we don't live in a completely rational world, and I don't think that if we believe he is being irrational we should just 'not be concerned'. Likewise I just don't get how giving something to a stranger who has not earned the compensation (whether that is an education or food or money) would result in that person becoming lazy, irrational, etc., but giving money to your heirs when you die won't make them lazy or irrational, etc. I get that you can do whatever you want, but it seems to me that either it would be harmful to both (and what would you want to harm your loved ones??) or it wouldn't be harmful to either (and the argument about harm when giving to strangers is not really true, but it sells better to the public...) Anyway... Again, I'm not trying to make anyone mad....as you said it's frustrating, and I was feeling like I was being dismissed...

If I have escalated the level of rhetoric I apologize. Biker's 'amen' quote above certainly seemed dismissive/demeaning to me, almost like a statement one would make after the person being spoken of had left the room.... That post came first. I responded to that one, and he followed with two additional responses, the second accusing me of making unproven assertions, which I never did. I never made ANY assertions! I asked questions. In every post I ask, "how can it be that...." or "how do we reconcile...." and after every post I get back an answer that says "you want this" or "you have a problem with that". If I'm not asking a question, then I'm starting the sentence with 'It seems to me..." I'm asking for a logical response. I just want someone to show me where I'm wrong...I'm not saying I can't be wrong...just asking to be shown logically, not with statements like "Handing out money irrationally will lead to..." when I never ever said to hand out money irrationally! No one has ever addressed any of the logic....ever... just give me one post where someone says: "Well Doug, it's like this, when you give money to a stranger, even if only to educate them, we have done studies that indicate....., while our studies show that if the same person gives the same amount of money, or even more to a direct heir, the result is very different...." And to your point. I clearly quoted a long piece of Rand text which answers your question. Did you miss that? here it is again: "But man's responsibility goes still further: a process of thought that is not automatic nor "instinctive" nor involuntary - nor infallible. Man has to initiate it, to sustain it and to bear responsibility for its results. He has to discover how to tell what is true or false an how to correct his own errors; he has to discover how to validate his concepts, his conclusions, his knowledge; he has to discover the rules of thought, the laws of logic, to direct his thinking." But in direct opposition to that concept I am told I shouldn't be questioning. I have no 'right' to question what people do with their property (I agree I have to right to tell them what to do, but why don't we all have the right to question everything? Rand's model asserts that if a businessman is acting irrationally, the marketplace of rational men will choose not to do business with him...how the heck can that happen if we aren't allowed to question what he does? How do we determine whether he is rational? I wish I had Virtue with me I remember another quote of Rand's where she takes apart "Judge Not, Lest Ye be Judged', and turned it around, saying the rational way to live is 'Judge, and prepare to be judged? How do you reconcile your final paragraph with that? I never said I knew how to steward their fortunes. Never said I had a plan for giving that was loophole free. Never said about 90% of what you have claimed I said. I've asked questions that no one ever answered...including why it would not be an irrational choice to keep wealth beyond 10,000 lifetimes worth of resources... When I can't get an answer to something, it is not that unreasonable of me to assume that you have no answer. If I am wrong, please tell me what the reason is? Now I am getting a response (not from you, the next post) that indicates I am going about the asking incorrectly. But no indication of what the right method would be. Is it that there can be no debate? You either agree with what we say or get out? Is Rand's philosophy to be a dead-end, never changing, never being modified to remove errors, never adapting to a chaniging world? I hope not. As I have said repeatedly throughout this post, I agree with a huge amount of what she said, but can see flaws or loopholes in the totality of her philosophy. Is troll worse than beatnik poet by the way?

In the world today, power is excercised in many different ways. I think that power can be broken down into three categories, though I'm completely open to adding more types to the list, or removing one of the three or even combining them, as long as there is a logical argument for doing so. The three types, as implied in the title of the thread are: Military Power Economic Power Political Power I list them in no particular order. The question/subject of the debate is: Are there any differences inherent in these types of power? Is one 'good', another 'bad'. Does one lead to abuse faster or more certainly than another. Does one need to be checked, or regulated against, more than another, and if so, why?

Unfortunately, as with most of Rand's philosophy, the idea of a 'self-regulating' business world is every bit as much of a fantasy as the fantasy communist society envisioned by Marx in which all men worked hard for the state as a matter of pride. Rand's phiolosophy conveniently leaves out many truths about men (both as individuals and in groups) simply because they don't fit her model. Such as: 1) Power corrupts. That means all kinds of power, whether military, economic, political or even personal power in a relationship. 2) When power is handed down from generation to generation, there is no guarantee that it will be used wisely by the heirs. Again, that applies to economic power as well as political. One of the things that makes the model of government here in the US so good is that power changes hands very rapidly. Capital, which is the power of capitalism, changes hands more slowly, and Rand wants to slow that transfer down even further building a model of economic feudalism. 3) Rand claims that all men must act in their own self-interest, and then claims that 'self-interest' doen't mean whatever 'whim or desire' they may have, yet when you talk to current objectivists, they claim that people can do 'whatever they want' with their money. (of course they 'can', but that doesn't follow Rand's model...) 4) Rand constantly states throughout her works that she understands that the current world is not 'rational' and not ready for all aspects of her system....but again, the followers one finds in these forums think that ALL of Rand's philosophy should be applied today. 5) and to me the big one....Whenever you ascribe to a philosophy that, coincidentally, gives a huge advantage to you and others in similar situations to yourself, you should be doubly skeptical of the reasoning used in the philosophy....double-check and triple-check the logic behind the philosophy, because it is so easy to slide into acceptance of a flawed system when the benefits to you and your kind are so readily apparent...

Dude, grow up! So you don't agree with me...guess what, I don't agree with you either. As I said, I presented logical arguments...again, you misstate my words as you did in EVERY ONE of your posts! I never said I ACTUALLY demonstrated anything, because, duh, It would be kinda hard to build a model of the world that has been populated by millions of people for the several thousand years we've had civilization....and guess what, Rand ALSO didn't ACTUALLY demonstrate anything...unless you are so far gone you think AS was a true story. When debating philosophy like this, all one can do is use logic and conjecture...of course, you've never debated philosophy, just spouted your beliefs, misstated what others have said and contibuted nothing.... unless I'm missing some logical statement in your most recent post....lemme re-read it.... nope!

What???? Where the heck is that philosophy in Rand's work? Was Galt 'not worrying too much about what others were thinking' when he decided to shut down the world??? Throughout her works Rand consistently claims it is the responsibility of the rational to question the system and try to change it to be more rational. I hope her ideas haven't been hijacked by people who now interpret it as "please question or try to change things that don't have any negative impact on me or my life". She talks all the time about being constantly 'conscious'. The interpretation that 'these questions have already been answered, so stop questioning and just believe it...' is the EXACT type of philosophical dead end that Rand hated! Her words: "But man's responsibility goes still further: a process of thought that is not automatic nor "instinctive" nor involuntary - nor infallible. Man has to initiate it, to sustain it and to bear responsibility for its results. He has to discover how to tell what is true or false an how to correct his own errors; he has to discover how to validate his concepts, his conclusions, his knowledge; he has to discover the rules of thought, the laws of logic, to direct his thinking." She didn't say: "Luckily for you, I have already done this, and here is the final answer, so no need to ever think hard again!!" Throughout this thread I have tried to present logical arguments about where objectivist philosophy breaks down, where it seems contradictory. Yet in the responses, no one ever really addresses the logic or the specifics of the argument. Instead they bring up another point that doesn't even correlate as some kind of proof, or they re-state my position, substituting the completely irrational position of the very farthest fringes, and then disproving THAT position...which I never even put forward! Yeesh. It's pretty sad when a philosophy that is supposed to be based upon rational thinking, that specifically rejects the kind of arguments that attack the other side without presenting a single iota of logical argument, are defended by using exactly that kind of argument. But I guess I'm just worrying to much about the other guys....... To those people who participated in the thread who did argue logically and did not distort my position, thanks, it was informative.

Quo, Nope....I would never advocate that anyone 'had to' give anything to anyone. never. BUT if they claim they have done the calculations and that they would rather live in the world that results from keeping more than 100 million than the world where they keep only what they need and then use a lot of the remainder helping others to achieve rationality, I question their calculation. Entitlements is a completely different thing than charity. Anyoine who thinks they are entitled to anything is clueless, As I said I agree with Rand on many issues. Too much government involvement? That I have mixed feelings about...it's the frying pan or the fire....Corrupt government officials making so many bad decisions they can't be counted; or put ourselves at the mercy of greedy corporations that think of the 'good old days' as back when workers got black lung and mortgaged their lives to the company stores and didn't complain about it... that's a no-win. I just don't want either of those sides putting on wings and pretending to be angels... anyone with significant power, be it military, economic or political, must be constantly scrutinized... In my opinion, the reason poverty has increased recently (and I say recently because i don't believe that poverty has increased in the long term, is because our society goes through cycles where the powerful gather more and more power, always going to far, getting too greedy and the the masses take back power, often violently, sometimes through political exercose (i.e. voting socialist, etc.) and right now we are in a cycle where the powerful are again going to far. Soon there will be a shift back the other way. However, there is one corollary that seems to work all the time....poverty goes down as education goes up...I think thats pretty much universal. Educating people would almost certainly benefit all economies, but whatever, thats not an argument that we can solve here.... Also, I never said that anyone can't do anything for themselves. What I said was that the likelihood that a poor, starving, uneducated child born in the third world will become a rational member of society without help is low. The likelihood that many of them will in fact, without the help of rational persons, be turned against rationality, and will ultimately becomes soldiers for the iurrational, is very high. I said exactly this: The rationale behind not giving (intelligently) when you already have enough for several thousand lifetimes is flawed logic. You are harming your own cause. I am not saying your cause is unworthy. Who wouldn't want a rational world? I do too! But you will be less likely to get it if you allow the world to produce vast armies of irrational, uneducated people who believe YOU are responsible for their plight. And that's where we've been heading for a while. Also, you are taking one point where you are right and using it to try to prove a different argument. Your point is: "when the government begins handing out money to people who simply won't work, poverty increases." Yup. Absolutely I agree. Would never argue that. Never advocated that. However. Show me statistics that say...'the better public school education is available, the higher poverty levels are.." I don't think that'll happen...or "increased education among the dispossed members of the third world always produces more poverty". I highly doubt it. So, what I'm hearing (and I know you're not saying it, but I'm hearing it) is "finding the right places to give which would produce a rational result would be hard....why bother. Especially when spending on myself feels so good, and especially when I can justify my hoarding through the statistics available showing what happened when others have given irresponsibly!" So, here is the one and only thing I advocate. That everyone says what they are really doing. If you don't want to give because you want to keep your stuff...fine...say so... If you think you need 200 million dollars for some reason, say so. But if you are claiming that you keeping the money or spending it on yourself is better for the economy, I think you need to re-examine your math. Money put nto an economy doesn't know whether it is spent for personal gain or not. It generates the same result on the economy either way. Your argument must rest on the psychological impact on the receiver. It must be that you are saying that giving money to people makes them lazy, only struggle will make them work harder and raise themselves out of their current poverty. BUT, if that is so, how can anyone possibly reconcile inheritance with that thinking??? Giving money to a stranger would make them lazy and prevent them from succeeding, but giving unearned money to my children won't have that effect..." I just don't get it. Where's the Socratic logic there? And yes, it's your choice. It's everyone's own personal choice. I just think it's a bad choice. I think people calculate very badly and choose what magazine covers tell them they should choose, or vapid talk-show hoists, or philosophical books that have an agenda, or sometimes they choose what is in their immediate best interest because they don't thin very far ahead, or because they do think ahead, and have calulated that it will be one or two generations down the road that will pay the price for their decisions, so who cares. And no, I have no idea how to fix all the problems in the world (Oprah??? Please....). The world is a chaos system. The math on fixing it is beyond what we can calculate. That is one of the reasons why I worry about Objectivism. It claims to have done the final calculation, which I don't even think is possible. And then it shows some minor calculations as proof, and I think their logic is flawed, even on the minor calculations! One place where I do agree, though, is that it is every citizens duty to call into question the proclamations of any system they believe will result in the destruction of reason.