charles fisher

Well, this is basic stuff. I would suggest that you read all of Ayn Rand's works before engaging in a "debate" with an idiot like this. Be advised, you cannot "win" an argument with someone whose mind is made up. His statement that capitalism outlaws the use of force is false, so is yours. Capitalism is a system of economics, not government. A rational government based upon objectivist principles does not allow the use of force by its individual citizens to solve disputes, but gives that power to a duly elected government. The countries he mentions are brutal dictatorships; they bear no resemblance to free societies in which men may work for their own interest. If he thinks otherwise, let him move to Cuba and see how he makes out. Again, you are both technically wrong about socialism. It does not work because of decision or implementation; it does not work because it is fundamentally anti man and cannot possibly succeed if there is one man left who wishes to work for his own benefit rather than that of others. Socialism has failed every time it was implemented, with that implementation always at gunpoint. No rational man would willingly enter into a system of government which draws a blank check against all that he will ever produce. His most idiotic statement is this: The only people who have individual rights are the few people who own private property, and make money off of the millions of other people, controlling them socially, economically, and politically. Those few are the only people who have rights and make sure that they keep that privilege while everyone else suffers from poverty when they are the ones that make the money. All men have individual rights, only other men can try to take them away. Those who produce and succeed in his little world are to be condemned and punished, while those who did nothing walk away with the results of other men's labor. Private property is the result of work, nothing else. Those who cannot or will not work will own nothing and have nobody to blame other than themselves. This goes back to the "backs of the poor" argument which claims that successful people made their money by stealing it from those who have nothing to steal. No moocher ever built a skyscaper or hired another man. Vile, envious rats like this are to be dismissed. Let them do what they will, which is nothing of value.

I have to disagree based upon personal knowledge. My wife is Brazilian, and I can say with certainty that the country is largely populated by uneducated, nonproductive people whose only talent seems to be reproduction. The streets are flooded with begging homeless children and drug gangs who willingly machine gun the police whenever they see them. My wife's town turned from a paradise to a drug infested dump, from which everybody fled. The government does nothing. Brazilian senators and congressmen are routinely jailed for corruption, only to pay their way out of the charges. Goods are twice what they cost here based on incomes that average 3 dollars per day. Tourists are routinely kidnapped or robbed at gunpoint on Ipanema and Copacabana beaches, and tourism is off a tremendous amount. They have ethanol.....big deal. Most sellers have been prosecuted for upping the percentage from the allowed 20 to over 80 just to make money. There is no money, other than in the Swiss bank accounts of the people who rule. The exchange rate has been cut in half so that Brazil can get more dollars to fund this corruption. Go ahead, take a vacation there. Bring a bullet proof vest.

This woman is a fool. She compares religious fundamentalism to Marxism, which is Communism, which proscribes religion. No two philosophies could be farther apart. The people who usually get "angry at the system" are the victims of the system, the system being socialism, in which one group of people (the productive) are forced by government to provide the means of existence for another group, (the nonproductive) a group for whom they bear no responsibility and whose condition they did not cause. Ayn Rand's desire for a perfect system depended upon basic freedom, in which men who produced were allowed to benefit from that production, and moochers were allowed to suffer the consequences of their inactivity. Rand saw that the USA was the best chance for all men, with a government rooted in the basic belief that a man's life belonged to himself and no other. Liberals, communists, and socialists believe that the best chance for man is to attach himself to another man like an economic parasite, the punishment for refusal being imprisonment. Welcome to America, I hope you're happy with what you've allowed your country to become.

Welcome to the real world of ideas, John. Ayn Rand called this "the hatred of the good for being good." There are people out there, Ted Kennedy for instance, who look into a mirror and see nothing of any value. They intensely resent having anyone hold up in front of them a philosophy solidly grounded in reality, because their own is not. It is like holding a mirror in front of a vampire; they cannot stand what they see. If everyone thinks the same thing, there will be no comparison and their ideas will not be revealed as anti man. This is what they strive for. The group commonly called liberals (socialists) is most guilty of this intolerant, belligerent attitude. They use personal attacks and smear tactics because that is all they have, and they know that others as stupid as they are will believe them. In a rational argument based upon reason and solid principles, they lose every time and they know it. However, you are dealing with people who do not use reason or logic, they live in a utopian fantasyland in which everybody has everything but nobody has to produce. You cannot win an argument with them because they do not recognize the concept of defeat where their ideas are concerned. Don't waste your time with these people. Live your own life according to the best within you.

Ayn Rand's stance on public schooling is quite clear, she was adamantly opposed to it. The argument that your education benefits me assumes two false facts; that I benefit from education I have not received, and that I benefit by paying for your education more than you would if you paid for it. A school system that uses government force to have individuals pay for the education of others is inherently unfair. The fact that I would choose not to have children is now immaterial, as I must pay for the education of children I did not have. In a "society" ( no such animal) of free men trading value for value, those who choose not to educate themselves will have nothing to trade and will survive according to their own decisions. I have seen this mistake repeated, including the welfare system. The more you "give," the more recipients will materialize. They will immediately show their gratitude by producing more recipients. Remember, a sacrifice requires a recipient as well as a victim. There is an endless supply of willing recipients.