moralist

In my view, there is no difference. Someone whose reasonable actions conform to a moral code is the functional definition of a Capitalist. No one could ever succeed in business in the long run without being both reasonable and ethical. This is because Capitalism contains within it a specific moral code of behavior.

That's your own free choice to be a victim of the government, or to use public roads as a money making asset. I have no control over, nor responsibility for what you do, because you're the one who gets the consequences of your actions, and not me. I instead of being bitter over government lemons, I rather make and sell lemonade at a profit. Choosing is a basic function of living, to assess one thing as being better than another. And if you haven't noticed, you are engaging in exactly the same process. We each pay similar government gasoline taxes for public roads, and whether that is a curse or a blessing all depends on how you respond to it.

I totally agree. It's a fair deal for one of the few legitimately beneficial functions the government actually performs. You pay gas taxes proportional to your use of the roads, so you pay for your proportional share of building and maintaining them. Using them to make money turns them into a business asset. The taxes I pay are just another business expense included in the price of goods and services sold. As far as I'm concerned, they're a blessing. If people want to be bitter about extorted taxes, there are plenty of other things get be upset about if that's their goal... but taking it out on roads just doesn't make any sense.

Thank you. You're exactly right, Dante. I don't meet the ideological purity of the doctrine of Objectivism. I simply became a Capitalist from reading Atlas Shrugged.

It is so. (ok, your turn... ) (thesaurus.com) Main Entry: metaphor [met-uh-fawr, -fer] Show Spelled Part of Speech: noun Definition: figure of speech, implied comparison Synonyms: allegory, analogy, emblem, hope, image, metonymy, personification, similitude, symbol, trope

Am too. (ok, your turn... ) I'm quite happy enjoying the results of following Ayn Rand's sound advice. Being a pragmatist, when I read Atlas Shrugged I came away with something completely different than you did... a practical ethical productive Capitalist business model that works like a charm. Hank, Dagny, Franscisco, John, Ragnar, and even Eddie all demonstrated valuable business principles. And as much as their actual business practices, I also utilize their mood. AS inspired me to aspire to the quality of character Ayn Rand expressed through them by becoming a no nonsense resolute trustworthy man of my word. And what I discovered is that particular quality is highly regarded in the business world. Acting on Ayn Rand's ideas made it possible to establish business relationships with other Capitalists that I'll honor until I'm dead. Business in the real world is just as much of a heroic adventure as it was portrayed by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged. And so, Nicky, there is no need to be concerned about what I do, or how I live, or whether or not I conform to orthodoxy. For the good news is that how I freely choose to express Ayn Rand's ideas in my own life does absolutely nothing to interfere with your own free choice of how you express her ideas in your own life.

I'm an end product of following Ayn Rand's ideas, and I'm a Capitalist. Others who have done the same enjoy the same rewards. Regardless of how wonderful her ideas are, they are totally useless if they are not realized by our actions. I agree. Christianity as defined by today's liberals is a religion for failures who produce nothing.

Then it's totally up to me to withold my sanction so as not to become it's victim by using public roads to make money. Your own direct personal experience of getting the government you deserve is wholly dependent on how you are living your life. While two people can be citizens of exactly the same nation's government... one is a helpless victim of the state... while another is an independent productive Capitalist. That choice is solely your own.

Indeed.

(pssst... there's something called the internet )

You'd be likely to rethink that statement if you had ever actually attended a gun show. I went to one a couple of weeks ago. Arrived 2 1/2 hours early and there were easily a thousand people in front of me, many with wheeled carts and moving dollies. The line for the ammunition booth was 2 hours long. Five semi truck trailers full of ammunition were there trying to keep up with the demand. There were always at least 30 people waiting at the weapon title transfer table, the transfer agents were completely swamped. Honestly, I've never seen anything like this in all my life.

Resorting to profanity is a futile effort to elicit an emotional reaction. So I'll simply let you two know that I know what you are up to.

What's complicated about government taking money from who Ayn Rand called producers to give to who she called moochers? That's what it does by employing millions of bureaucratic transfer of wealth public union employees, also known as looters.

Sorry, but beginning with a flawed assumption leads to a flawed conclusion. I don't watch television and haven't for over a decade. However, the nature of your response has clearly indicated on which side of the ledger you operate. So thank you for your candid answer to the question asked.

Ok, I understand now. Then this begs another intriguing question: What about love?

It's simple common sense that more public sector government spending only takes more money away from the private sector. You sound like you're on the side of the public sector. Are you?

I think you missed this: Is not freedom a larger cause for which to fight? And is not Capitalism a vital expression of that freedom? Clearly Ayn Rand regarded those indivualists as allies and not enemies. The invalid word is only. In America, you cannot fully enjoy its freedoms without first working to secure your own economic freedom. And there is no other way than through Capitalism. But Capitalism demands a moral code of behavior for it to be of any value to you. If you do not first live a life deserving of freedom... you will never live to enjoy freedom.

OK, I just wanted to be certain that you are unwilling to supply actual quotations to confirm your paraphrasing.

That is an impossibility. However, people possess the ability to do that to themselves through the consequences set into motion by their own actions.

That is because she had the maturity to realize that every ideology is a tool which serves a larger purpose than itself... in this instance, Capitalism.

Lowest rungs? 47% of the "lowest rungs" already either pay no Federal taxes or are given money by the government. Could you please supply some of his actual words in contextual quotes? That would be a great help.

That's actually not a bad idea. Sorry... I don't have much to say about Tolstoy other than he wrote a book adored by leftists all over the world. Failure as a farmer. Gambled his money away. Chronically depressed. Family problems. Weird religious beliefs. The guy was a mess, so what he said has no credibility as far as I'm concerned.

Yes. In fact even your empty hand itself is giving off energy in the form of body heat. It is so, and that makes energy physical. Isn't heat a form of energy? When I burn wood in the stove, it would be impossible to mistake the results for anything else. If you would like to make a real case for the nonphysical... you would have much better odds if you chose to address thought as your issue. Oh, and before it slips away unnoticed... I love that saying. In God we trust... but always count your change.

Good point. This thread was about Objectivism and Christianity coexisting in America.

Since you are choosing to make homosexuality a topic here rather than in a more appropriate thread, I have no problem responding directly here. More specifically I said that in my opinion, homosexuality is a consequence of child molestation. All actions have consequences, and every consequence has an action which caused it.