CapitalistFred

The Phoenocians were clearly the greatest of the ancient civilizations. They invented the alphabet, were the greatest traders of the ancient world, invented transparent glass, they built the largest ships of the era, and more or less invented navigation (discovering the usefulmess of teh North Star) in order to make more money from trading. Pythagoras and Mochios of Sidon (discoverer of the atom) were noted Phoenicians. Carthage, another great civilization, was a colony of Phoenicia. These guys were the greatest businessmen of antiquity, and were more or less capitalists nearly 2000 years prior to the industrial revolution. If the test is simple military prowess, no one is even close to Ghengis Khan and his Mongols, but if the test is a capitalistic ethos many centuries before anyone else even came close - then their is only one possible candidate. The collectivist Greeks arent even close.

A degree opens doors, and is even esential for some careers. Having said that, for many many careers a degree is simply not important. I ran out of money and had to quit college, bounced around for a few years, started a business - made a lot of money, lost a lot of money, shut that business down and went broke, started anoother business, and am making a damn good living now with a small chain of retail stores. It sounds trute, but find something that you truly enjoy doing and work your ass off at it. If you love what you are doing, you are far more likely to make a lot of money.

Ahhhh "The ends justify the means." It's been a while since I have heard that old chestnut. Clearly your assertion that "we wouldn't have roads" without eminent domain is spurious. The fact that roads existed (prior to the invention of a "right" for the collective to seize property from the individual) undoes your argument.

The truth is that in discussions or philosophy, politics, economics, religion, and other high passion topics, people of ALL stripes and belief systems tend to resort to ad hominem when they are outmatched or are running out of logical arguments. This is not an indictment of the rationality of any particular philosophy, just an unfortunate tendency of certain individuals. I have had the same experience when dealing with collectivists and fundamentalist Christians and Muslims. In actual fact, it seems to me that people who dislike objectivism often resort to ad hominem attacks on Ayn Rand herself, as if only a perfect messenger can bring a message of value.

Succinctly stated.

Ascribing any importance to melanin levels in the skin is a sign of the lowest form of tribalism. The number of multi-racial couples and families is a meaningless factoid. Tribalism is the lowest form of collectivism, and racism is just one of many flavors of tribalism.

Most of what I have read on this topic in the past 10 years or so indicates that happiness and a sunny disposition are strongly influenced by genetics. Some people, myself included, are more naturally optimistic and others are born more pessimistic. So THAT component of happiness is genetic. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201005/happiness-ultimately-its-genetic http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8494966/Happiness-gene-discovered.html Beyond that, I have always agreed with Rand that happiness is a sort of barometer of how one is progressing towards achieving values. "Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values." So, while some of us are more predisposed towards optimism and happiness, one can increase ones happiness and joy through achievement of values, which requires recognizing reality and creating value.

There is, It seems to me, some confusion in this thread on the meaning of the word "consent". Consent is a legal term, and as a legal term has a specific meaning which, by definition, can not apply to children. A child cannot legally consent to certain types of transactions including sexual activity with an adult, and contracts. Nor can a child legally drink alcohol or operate a motor vehicle in most cases. In the legal definition, a child cannot give consent for those thigs. A child can, however, give assent, agree, or consent to any range of activities not specifically proscribed. My 3 year old, for example, consented to finish her broccoli at supper last night in order to get ice cream. Children can and do give consent (which is only another word for agreement) on many many many issues, which clearly would include "consenting" to engage in productive activities in order to recieve food, shelter, and clothing if that is needed. We are somewhat spoiled in the west, and have the luxury of having created enough wealth that there is normally no need for children to engage in productive work beyond schooling and a few chores, this doesnt change basic morality. By this spurious child slavery argument, even schooling would be slavery, as the poor child cannot "consent" to attend school nor to do homework. Children, as human beings, are morally obliged to do what is needed in order to support life - even in wealthy societies they are required to feed themselves when they are mature enough to do so (feeding oneself is work), to wipe their own butts, brush their own teeth, etc.

The argument that all child labor is slavery falls flat on 2 fronts: Firstly, taken to the extreme, that argument would mean that any work done by any child is slavery, and that therefore every child who is told to wash disches or make a bed is in fact a slave, clearly this is not true. Secondly, at many points in western history, and still today in many places, children routinely perish from lack of basic neccesities. To prohibit a child from working for sustenance on the grounds that work = slavery, and that therefore somehow a slow death by starvation is preferable is absurd. Children are not morally incapable of giving legal consent, they are merely legally incapable of giving consent until the age of 18 for certain activities. Children can and do give consent for many transactions, a 10 year old spending his allowance money at the candy store is legally able to trade money for items of value, and it is not consdered theft, even though he is below the age of legal consent for contracts and certain adult activities. Clearly the "age of consent" laws only apply to particular types of activities, and these will vary by nation and era.

Gary Johnson is running as a libertarian presidential candidate now. He and Paul were far and away my favorites, and both have been victims of a soft campaign to ignore them in the media. I would vote for a bowl or soggy rice crispies over Obama, even Perry and Bachman are better than that socialist, but Paul or Gary Johnson would be my preference.

Persians havent attacked anyone in several thousand years, and Iran is not a threat to the US. Attacking another sovereign nation because of the weaponry they possess is hypocritical. The US has exactly as much right (to attack another country because they have nukes) as other nations have to attack the US for having nukes. The very idea is laughable.

Saddam was a tyrant, and oppressed his own people, so we had all the moral justification to forcibly remove him from power. That does not, however, mean that it was a good idea. For it to have been a good idea, there would have to be some rational, selfish motive for the USA to spend lives and treasure fighting that war, and I can think of none.

I play Grepolis under the name No Cigar, if there are other Grepolis players here.

Point taken, I grabbed the first photo that came to mind. It works on two levels, since I (clearly) love money and I also admire Ben Franklin.

Absolutely true. And it is also true that anything is worth what it will bring in a free market. Though the US labor market is not completely free, it is at least approximately free, except at the extreme low range where a government imposed minimum wage distorts the market significantly. All goods and services are worth what the market will bear. That is all that matters.

Raised Mormon. In my early 20s, I finally couldn't keep holding beliefs that were incompatible with logic and reason, so I announced to my family that I would no longer be following the tenets that I had been raised with. At the risk of being dismissed out of hand, I am not an athiest. After a lot of soul searching and study. I consider myself to be a Deist, the same as most of our Founding Fathers. I know that atheism is most common and accepted among Objectivists, but for me, Deism is a belief system that works.

Any reports on this one yet? I may want to read this.

I'm in Wilson, but have business interests in Raleigh, Fayetteville, Rocky Mount, Greenville, New Bern, and Goldsboro. Meeting up with other Objectivists would be of value to me.

Hello. I'm new here - stumbled onto this forum quite by accident, and decided that it might be a productive use of my time to interact with fellow Objectivists. My family have been businessmen back as far as anyone can trace my ancestry, so I was brought up with implicit capitalistic values. I have always loved money, and always knew that I would someday make lots of it. Atlas Shrugged was recommended to me by a friend when I was 14, and I read the entire book in 2 days, eschewing sleep and reading for an entire weekend. Over the six few months, I read everything that Rand had written, first the fiction and then the nonfiction. I had always been an capitalist, but I didnt have the words to express WHY capitalism was morally right. After reading Rand, I had the words to express what I had always known, and I proudly called myself an Objectivist from that time. That was over 30 years ago. I am now a husband and father of three, and the Founder and CEO of a chain of retail stores in North Carolina. The clarity of knowing that what I do is morally correct has, I believe, enabled me to make myself more successful that I would otherwise have been. Looking forward to interacting with other Objectivists here. Fred

The government granting unto itself a monopoly on the use of force has led to the politians being in a position to forcibly take our constutional rights. Competition normally leads to improvements in goods and services, why shouldn't competition between various justice enforcement and defense agencies lead to improved safety and enforcement? I cannot think of any reason that the politicians should have the sole monopoly on force. It seems to me that government monopoly on the use of force has a dismal record. How many nations have managed to keep freedom once they have achieved it? In nation after nation we see the government using it's monopoly on the use of force to subjugate the citizenry and to violate the rghts of the people. Maybe it's time to try another way.