stevesmith1547

Lets have a look at that very limited amount of property: All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it. The truth is, quite plainly, that youre the one pretending. anything beyond a temporary home, a bow, his clothing and other little Acquisitions is the property of the public and anyone who doesnt agree to that should go live among savages because he is not fit for civil society.

^thats a very cowardly surrender. Its a shame you cant answer a relevant political question instead. Even more cowardly that a randian wishes my voice was silenced.

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it. == anything beyond a temporary home, a bow, his clothing and other little Acquisitions belongs to the public and anyone who doesnt agree to that should go live among savages because he is not fit for civil society. ^that is a perfectly honest and correct paraphrase. Its a shame you dont have the moral fibre to answer my question

he never meant to suggest what he blatantly stated huh? Yeah, I thought I'd find the same anti-intellectual dishonesty here as one finds among the teabaggers

"Again: that Franklin quote, while not exactly well put, isn't advocacy for socialism. " how would you term a philosophy that states that anything beyond a temporary home, a bow, his clothing and other little Acquisitions belongs to the public and anyone who doesnt agree to that should go live among savages because he is not fit for civil society? Because, lets be honest here, if Obama should say such a thing today, the accusations of communism would never end "But nowhere does Franklin suggest that property is the public's to redistribute," Huh???

my issue is the teabagger types I regularly see proclaiming their semi-religious love for Rand, Reagan, Founding Fathers (sacrilegious to ever criticize any of these) not to mention other equally and utterly incompatible ideals, such as libertarianism, which rand couldnt stand either, blustering nationalism, which she couldnt stand either and so on. The rampant ignorance and incompatible reality of these double standards is what confounds me. But perhaps the teabagging nonsense is not as prominent at this site? "This has been adressed. Just because you admire someone, doens't mean you admire their entirety. " ^this has been addressed. You cannot possibly reconcile Rands very basic, fundamental ethic concerning wealth in society with franklins complete opposite. He is a communist, to her. This is not just a minor difference. This is a cornerstone of her entire philosophy, of everything she devoted her life to. At the very least, franklins views should prompt americans to thoroughly revise the current dialogue in US politics concerning the evils of socialism and their simultaneous love of franklin

what kind of disingenous nonsense is this? rand and franklin dont have minor differences here, they have fundamental diametrically opposed ethics. Rand clearly states that the ethics bejamin franklin proclaims are uncontested communism, this is perfectly clear. This is not a minor difference on one singular issue. You cannot possibly simultaneously support two such fundamentally different opposing ethics without being guilty of hypocritical and inconsistent double standards. What franklin says there is way beyond anything obama has ever said. This is is as impossible and incompatible as supporting Limbaugh and Mahers views at the same time - worse than that, even, So, who you gonna choose: rand or the First American?

Hi. I have a couple of problems sorting out massive conflicting ethics of a group of people that are usually revered by the same people. Can anyone explain these brief examples of what I mean? Thank you. If a man proposes to redistribute wealth, he means explicitly and necessarily that the wealth is his to distribute. If he proposes it in the name of the government, then the wealth belongs to the government; if in the name of society, then it belongs to society. No one, to my knowledge, did or could define a difference between that proposal and the basic principle of communism. - Ayn Rand All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it. - B Franklin I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan. I urge you not to work for or advocate his nomination, and not to vote for him. My reasons are as follows: Mr. Reagan is not a champion of capitalism, but a conservative in the worst sense of that word – i.e., an advocate of a mixed economy with government controls slanted in favor of business rather than labor (which, philosophically, is as untenable a position as one could choose – see Fred Kinnan in Atlas Shrugged, pp. 541-2). This description applies in various degrees to most Republican politicians, but most of them preserve some respect for the rights of the individual. Mr. Reagan does not: he opposes the right to abortion. (Ayn Rand Letter IV.2, 1975) What do I think of President Reagan? The best answer to give would be: But I don’t think of him – and the more I see, the less I think. I did not vote for him (or for anyone else) and events seem to justify me. The appalling disgrace of his administration is his connection with the so-called “Moral Majority” and sundry other TV religionists, who are struggling – apparently with his approval – to take us back to the Middle Ages, via the unconstitutional union of religion and politics. (“Sanction of the Victims,” 1981; in The Voice of Reason)