Devils_Advocate

"It's because they're STUPID! That's why anyone does anything!! Because they're STUPID!!!" -Homer Simpson

No. Need is not a standard of value. When need becomes the standard of value, you give permission for the needy to rape the successful, and turn need into the most important part of life. When the successful and those who achieve are turned into those who need, and when need makes right, the race dies off from starvation.

Just use the most blatant, bare, naked arguments that expose the evil of it. For example, if I had to write a paper supporting communism (god forbid), I would use expressions like "It is well known that man is a degenerate creature, who must be forced against his will to serve others. If it requires his death, so be it, the death of an individual - especially an independent, creative one - is in the public good." However, if you decided to not hand it in and fail the class, I would completely support you on it. I probably would do the same.

Besides giving to a friend who might be a few bucks short at lunch, I usually drop a total average of $20-$30 to the salvation army pots during Christmas. Other then that, though, I don't have any official ties to any charity organizations.

India is far from a free market. According to the World Heritage report, it's freedom percentage was 54.2, placing it at 115/157. It's not as bad as it could be, but it certainly isn't a true free market. And either way, the argument is about morality, not efficiency (although, we could probably win that argument too, if you're an Economist).

It's good debate practice. The guy responded with some rhetoric about the Industrial Revolution, I fired back, and he hasn't responded yet. Which means he probably won't. It's all right though, I did what I wanted to do - be able to explain capitalism, hone my debate skills, and try to convince a man that theft is wrong.

So, who, in your opinion, was the greatest industrialist the world has ever seen? I've always admired both John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie (despite the religion of the first and the politics of the second). They both ran excellent companies, from what I know. But neither of them was exactly Hank Rearden. Who would you name the Captain of the Captains of Industry?

I am going to see it because I hate Michael Moore so much, but I'm not jumping out of my skin. I'll probably see it on a weekend when I've got nothing better to do.

And the abortion issue. She's too strong on it. I can live with a pro life candidate. I'll have to grit my teeth, but I can live with it if they aren't too strong. But when you're that intense about the issue, it's incredibly difficult for me to see past it. Like what you said about Reagan and Clinton. I considered voting write in candidate Reagan's corpse. He was far from perfect, but he was a hell of a lot better then anyone else since, and better then most before him (Jefferson and some of the other founding fathers/presidents are the exceptions). Plus, it's a great opportunity for gridlock. A corpse can't sign legislation...

Just about every morning at 7:40 I go to my school's library and read the first page of the Wall Street Journal. If there's anything interesting, I'll continue reading it. Then, from about 3:30 - 4:00, I'll alternate between Headline News Channel, CNN (believe it or not), and FOX. At 7:00, if I have time (which I usually don't), I'll watch Glenn Beck. I actually think Glenn Beck is pretty good (at least comparatively). Then again, every couple of weeks he'll say something that makes it so I can't watch him for days on end.

Sounds A LOT like the discussion I had. She kept saying that it's part (note the part) of our nature to come together as a collective. When I asked her "Then what is man's fundamental nature that leads him to that?" she evaded the question. I sent the Youtube socialist the essay, and this is what he responded: I LOVE my response:

Glad to hear I could help. Most of my friends are similar. I have a friend who has a great Sense of Life - one of the most vibrant people I've ever met - but she has made a lot of epistemological errors. Her epistemology does, luckily, work up into her political views. So If I can just convince her that man is not a collective animal who needs a higher power to worship, I can convince her of individualism. The funny thing is that she may be very well organized and systematic in her views, and may spout them, but she doesn't live them. And like I said earlier, her sense of life is VERY against her epistemological ideas. It's sad, though, to see what the public schools do to people.

I don't expect to convert him, by any means whatsoever. He claims that the Bushes are products of capitalism! But I figure, I might as well try. Why not?

There is a youtube user who is pretty much the Chairman of the Youtube Communist Party, with whom I am trying to explain what Capitalism really is. I PMed him, asking him if he understood what it is. Here's his response: Scary, how people perceive the system of Liberty. I wanted to awnser with this, but also didn't want to screw up. Can you critique my reply before I send it off?

I've been saying it for months. Storm clouds are here, they've gone past just 'gathering'. They're here, they're just waiting to send the rain crashing down and flooding us. I'm waiting, every day, for the world to collapse. It's at such a perilous state, it would only take a small thing to send it over the edge. I've actually explored (in my novel) how a small collectivist state in the Balkans could lead to world statism and stagnation.

Very good points. As long as it isn't at a loss to the individual or isn't "done out of the conviction that all information should be free as a matter of principle", I can support free information. Thanks for that.

He makes me have pride in the name "Thadius" (even it it's spelled differently). Brilliant. I wonder what Ms. Rand would have said to that, considering she lived through that revolution. The whole situation faintly reminds me of a reverse "Equalization of opportunity bill". Remember in AS, when a bill to help out newer businesses at the expense of older, more productive ones was reluctantly passed with a grim sense of duty? It seems like this was voted down reluctantly with a grim sense of duty.

Gives "Capitalist War Machine" a whole new meaning.

I came up with an idea for this, and just couldn't resist putting it down. The government hires a contractor who, every... April 15th, let's say, sends out a form to the citizens of the country. Adorned in black, gold, and white (the colors of capitalism), the sheet will say "Do you value your property? Do you value your life? Do you value your Safety, and liberty? Please consider sending a donation from your income of $X.YZ to congress to help finance their protection of our great society!" or something like that. Included would be a little form which you can fill out that will let you send some money to the government. Every rich Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart who wants their skyscraper protected from the Mob would undoubtedly send at least a few dollars. I would: I'd hire a pretty young secretary to find out how many policemen it would take to protect my skyscraper from a small mob of, say, 500-1000 people. Then have her calculate how much they would all be paid. Then add in a couple hundred extra for the army, and ship it off in the mail. Then we'd go out to dinner.

The Objectivist view on public libraries is that they are wrong. The government forces money from people and uses it to pay for it, yes, which is VERY wrong. But there's more to it then just that - information and knowledge and art are not free, yet anyone can just come in and get it. Knowledge and Education are not free, and should not be made so. They must be earned. It is desirable to have such places for research and learning, but such vast quantities of information shouldn't just be shelled out for free. Yes, private libraries such as the hypothetical one you described can and do exist, as far as I'm aware. If we ever do achieve a laissez faire state, when the government is auctioning off the public libraries, I'm going to buy myself one and work it just like that. It's very viable.

I still listen to a lot of conservative radio and watch some conservative TV programs (Glenn Beck and the like). I agree with a lot of what they say about free markets (even if they don't actually completely understand it), and it's more pro-objectivist then most other news sources. Of course, as with every famous person in the world that isn't objectivist, there are plenty of times I just can't stomach it and stop watching/listening for weeks on end. I have a very complicated relationship with conservative media.

First - I'm not very well versed in economics, and I was wondering if anyone who was willing could explain to me exactly how currency would work in a complete laissez faire state. I know that private banks or mints would issue money, and that they would issue gold backed currency, because people aren't just going to accept any banks piece of paper. But how would private currencies work in other countries? And exactly how does a gold standard work - I know that each dollar equals an amount of gold, but in terms of trade and currency exchange, how does gold currency follow the law of supply and demand and how would that law change when applied to private currency. And I've read that gold standard meant lower incomes and higher unemployment back when it was used. Why is that? And what if lots of people begin to accept paper money from some bank - how does it work out then? If anyone could explain how a laissez faire currency would work, or recommend any resources on the subject, that would be great. Second - just a quick question - are the WTO and the G8 capitalist organizations? I don't think they are, because they're politicians meeting and negotiating with other peoples rights, but I don't pretend to have enough understanding of their dynamics to be sure. Any opinions on it's political label?

It's true.

I can see it now: "Well, you have all the requirements, you seem perfect for the job. But - we can't take you." "What?!? Why?" "You majored in Marxist Economics, and we don't trust your kind 'round here." "I'm not a Marxist, though!" "Well, I'm looking at the transcript, and - frankly, I think your a Marxist." "I am not!" "Then why was your major Marxist Economics?" "Know thy enemy." "Well, there's a difference between knowing them and sleeping with them." ***** "I'd like to apply for a visa." "I'm sorry, but your transcript shows you majored in Marxism." "So...I can't go to America?" "No, they don't trust your kind 'round there." "But Obama just got elected!" "Chairman Obama is not a Marxist. He's a Trotskyist. There is a difference. When you want to go to America, get a major in Trotskyism."

That has got to be one of the most brilliant replies I've ever read.