Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

AtlasGotHisHeadBlownOff

Regulars
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About AtlasGotHisHeadBlownOff

  • Rank
    Novice

Previous Fields

  • Country
    UnitedStatesMinorOutlyingIslands
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Utah
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. Nice try at a cop out, you should have stopped at "those statistics do seem convincing". Try reading those graphs and comparing it to what Sowell said, then you would realize that the two have nothing do with each other. Ah nevermind, since you were too lazy to do it the first time, I did that for you too. Sowell says, the income disparity isn't true because it is a comparison of "household incomes" -- meanwhile offering no actual evidence to the contrary except lip service. But if you read the first graph at that link you would see it is comparing actual hourly wages and overall com
  2. Yeah we've already figured this out. Its called America. You're definition of "state" is not the accepted definition. I'm not sure you're entitled to redefine our language as you see fit. The state is the representative of a collection of individuals. (When you start a war with a state, do you kill some small group of politicians or do you attack the armed citizenry?) And the state has already claimed "all" property, so there is no property left on this planet for this thing you call "self". Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the earth is all out of that natural resource
  3. If you're going by who had the most negative effect on the American economy there is no worse than the guy who should have remained an actor : Ronald Reagan. Before him, everyone was trending up, now you don't trend up unless you have a politician bought and paid for in your back pocket. Here's the evidence : http://imgur.com/a/U4FR4#0
  4. Why would you privatize it to begin with? Doesn't seem like a very smart idea to sell the citizens' property to a single citizen so that we pay that one citizen to use it. That makes no sense. Why do you want to arbitrarily redistribute the wealth of citizens' to a single individual?
  5. [Mod note: Merged post from another topic. -- JASKN] The problem with this glorious idea of the "freedom" of capitalism is that free markets are impossible without the state (I've heard many an Objectivist quick to point out they aren't anarchist.) Without mechanisms of the state (courts, laws, etc.) to ensure that contracts are enforced and real property ownership is recorded in a central, commonly agreed-upon repository, "free" market transactions of even the most basic kind would never occur. And because the state is necessary to create and maintain the framework for a free market
  6. ...and that is all that was proven. Partial capitalism being more efficient does not at all prove or even suggest that "true capitalism" as you call it, would be. And in fact I believe given a real test you would find true capitalism to be just as bad as true collectivism.
×
×
  • Create New...