moralist

Considering the source, your comment can be taken as a compliment because to you Capitalism is only a "socio-political-economic system"... while to me it is a moral system. And that's a curious quality Capitalism possess. It never fails. People can only fail Capitalism by failing to live up to its ethical standards of behavior. If it is really as you say, then neither are the Capitalists with whom I do business. But at least we all have the matching moral values which make doing business possible as each helps the other to prosper.

This I've read. I've never heard him say that. Can you find where he says that reducing government taxation increases economic productivity? Krugman believes the common liberal fallacy that the government creates wealth. The government does not create wealth. Only Capitalists can create wealth. The government can only spend what it takes from those who create wealth. There is a brilliant professor, Dr. Pam Green, who teaches economics at a local college in my area. She said: It is impossible to have both... so which government do you want? Almost everyone else has already voted for a government that gives them things.

(edit) Oh, you mean within government. Yes, the financial wellbeing of public union employees is dependent upon government spending, and that can only be at the expense of the private sector.

It's a liberal who believes they are at the center of the political spectrum.

Yes. That is the practical real world result, and explains why I'm a behaviorist and not a dogmatist. Heck, if Islam produced Capitalists I'd be just as compatable doing business with them because Capitalism embodies a moral code of behavior within it. This thread is going in a lot of different directions. So if those raising other tangental issues wish to start a thread on homosexuality, and post their comments in the existing abortion thread, I'll be happy to respond to them on topic.

It was not meant to be literal, but was just a humorous comment about Kate's abiding faith in big government. Krugman, whom she quoted claims that the economy would improve if the government spent even more money. No Capitalist I know believes that nonsense.

In business I deal with many successful American Capitalists, all of whom got that way by following the same moral code. Upholding the trust of others who are worthy of your trust is a fundamental moral principle upon which Capitalism rests. Right is right regardless of what one thinks or feels about it.

That appears to be reason and reality only to the intellect molded by liberal government subsidized education. Islamists are not the only jihadis with medrasas. The United States is chock full of them. They're called Universities.

Without context, 2,000 year old words can be perceived to be whatever you want. But when the reasonable context of those words is considered by a logical mind the truth of the words becomes clear. "I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." Notice that the right cheek is specifically referenced. Most everyone is right handed, so this is not a physical assault at all (because a right hand assault hits a left cheek), but is a backhanded slap... what we would commonly know today as an insult. This advice is all about how to respond to a personal insult by not returning it and escalating into violence. This wise 2,000 year old advice applies even today, don't you think? It is common practice to first create a religious characature and then to use that fabrication to make a moral principle appear to be invalid... or even to use one fabrication to jump to the faulty conclusion that all moral principles are invalid. There is milennia of wise moral advice in religious writings for anyone to freely choose to follow if they wish. And regardless of their own personal choice, the simple truth is that no one is exempt from the consequences of their own actions. So in real world personal face to face personal interactions, when a person behaves as if they deserve decent treatment by not escalating a personal insult, it ends with them. And that sets the moral tone of the personal interaction.

She is right. Christianity precludes my conforming to Objectivism. However, Christianity does make me totally harmonious with the end products of her ideas: Capitalists

If a religious person possessed as much faith in God as you have faith in government, they'd truly be a saint.

That sounds like a fine idea, aleph. I'm ready to read it again (4th time) even though it disrupts my sleep patterns when I can't put it down. Greg

One synonym for metaphor is symbol. For me, Galt's Gulch is more than just a mythical place in a novel, it is also a symbol for a way of living. In Galt's Gulch certain protocols were observed, and I really like that idea so I make it a reality in my own life. I fully understand that you totally disagree with this approach, and am ok with your expressions of it.

They are like terrorists to Islam... just without the violence and murder.

...and they even assume huge student loan debts to get hoodwinked! Talk about weaving your own hangman's noose. Nevertheless, each adult assumes personal responsibility for the consequences of believing lies... and the government subsidized education system is chock full of tenured liars. Absolutely. And real life provides the empirical proof through causality. I agree with you about not acting against others. Standing safely aside when others get what they deserve as the consequences of their own actions is not taking action against them. It is for your own personal protection from becoming collatoral damage. Galt's Gulch was a metaphor for that... a place where moral protocols are observed provided safety from becoming collatoral damage when a corrupt system collapses.

That's true... even Google Earth sees where almost everyone lives.

... and yet in that same Old Testament, there is no record of anyone actually having been stoned to death for adultery.

How true... and you could search every church on the face of the Earth, and never find complete unanimity of beliefs. This is because everyone's own personal life experience is different from others.

It is for me... and what I do does nothing to interfere with others' choice to service debt. What they do is their business, not mine.

Indeed. That's what I was getting at. If thoughts are "certainly caused by brain function", are they physical? If they are, can you hold a thought in your hand? If thoughts are certainly caused by brain action, and the brain is certainly physical... then how can something physical create something which is non physical? Note the vagueness? I'm certainly not faulting it, because it is a perfectly honest statement. Thoughts are non physical, this is why there are no "solid ideas" as to their cause. This gives rise to an even more fascinating question... What is in control of those unconscious brain processes? Not at all. What you quoted actually made the point that thoughts are non physical. This is why science is having trouble getting a handle on them as to exactly what they are. My view is that thoughts cause brain activity.

Nor mine either... Actions always have consequences. It's a popular fantasy that the actions of the government can somehow magically defy causality.

I agree. For me, the tranquility of economic freedom is a quality of life issue. Life is too short to live it under self inflicted stress.

How does it get on your mind? What is a thought?

Man, Reverend Ike was a genuine entertainer! One of his favorite sayings was: "Why wait for pie in the sky by and by when you die?... when you can have it right now with ice cream on top." While he is likely to be far from the best of examples... nevertheless, the principles of moral goodness and prosperity should be linked together for one leads to the other.

This is why I consider Ayn Rand as having given good advice to keep a safe distance when people are getting exactly what they deserve, so that the system doesn't come crashing down around your ears.