Mensch

Alright, you may save any person on earth if you wish to, but you have to use your own funds and/or find people who are willing -- without force -- to do so. Not by law and regulations forced by the majority onto the minority. There is a place for charity, but force can never be used to support it. You have to look at the other side though. Who is the person that will have to give up a higher value to get a lower value in this? Make a sacrifice in other words. It is? How would you finance saving people that can not do it by themselves? Give us a solution how you would go about it.

Welcome I just signed in here a few days ago myself. It is nice to meet so many rational people in one spot.

James Bryce (1838-1922) Simonides c.556-468 B.C. Socrates 469-399 B.C. Aristotle 384-322 B.C. Mencius 372- 289 B.C. Terence 190-159 B.C. John Locke 1632-1704

Does it matter to you at all what kind of human being? We are not all alike, or do you think that we are? There are many humans that are totally worthless beings, they only live as parasites on the back of the productive. Why would any person think to support those kinds of people? I am not talking about people that have had bad things happen to them through no fault of their own, but there again one has to make a distinction. Most rational people prepare for bad times, they do not spend their last dime every week waiting for the paycheck to arrive only to spend it all again. Your answer is probably that those people never had a chance in life. Really? Learning is open to all of us, you do not need a school to learn, libraries are everywhere, including computers. Time is the same for all of us, so there are a few hours to learn in the day for any person. You do not have to make babies when you can not afford them, especially if you do so instead of learning a skill that is salable. You say the big evil corporations do not support the little guy, they get richer and richer and take all of the chances away from the little guy. A little guy can not even get emergency care in the hospital and dies because the rich and evil guy is not willing to share. Only government regulations will even out the playing field. Why not force the rich with the gun that the government holds in your name? It would not hurt them a bit but would save a life. That is the situation we have today in most "civilized" countries. And do not forget that the producers have sanctioned to be slaves to the masses as well (see the collapse of the car industry). That is collectivism, each of the individuals subscribing to altruism, for the good of all, to save all in the emergency room no matter what… And that is what you call "inherent moral value", for that is what your question implies. For the Objectivist the highest moral value is rational selfishness. Here is one of the many ways healthcare for a person could be provided in a rational Laissez-Faire nation: producer A of a widget becomes successful, he has many employees. He values his employees, they help him to expand and gain bigger profits. He pays them well, he acknowledges their contribution to his success. Now there is another guy, producer B, who produces a similar product. He wants to grow and find employees that are as good or better than the employees his competitor has. So he offers an incentive for the employees of Producer A to join him by offering healthcare. He now can cherry-pick the best people in the field. Producer A has lost a lot of good people and wants to get them back, so he offers healthcare and some other perks also. By doing so he attracts back some of his old employees and new people as well. In the end all of the employers in the position to do so would provide healthcare. You ask why this is not done today. Well, all moneys that might be used for healthcare for employees are sucked out of the corporations by taxes and other fees that are compulsory.

Moral how? You are talking about taking from another person to get the unearned? That is not rational self interest, that is what we have now in the current system.

Right, that is what boycotts are for, they work quite nicely as a deterrent as well, not just after the fact

I made my point. But if you have a business man who is not rational it should be his right to employ whomever he wishes to employ. Colorblind or not, it is his business.

A rational business person does not look at skin color as a qualifier for a job. What is important are the qualifications of the potential employee. Besides, why would a person have a right to a job? The business is not owned by him. The laws today are stepping on the rights of business people by forcing them to accept under-qualified people.

What a joy it is to listen to her. I love how you can see the thinking in her eyes.

Nauseating it is indeed. What upsets me most about this situation is the immediate condemnation of laissez-faire capitalism by the ignorant masses and the power hungry politicians. It gives more fuel to the collectivists to take over corporations and nationalize them to "save" the poor workers who through their irrational demands contributed to the collapse of their own cow. The biggest shame is that business leaders today all sleep in the same bed with bureaucrats and policy makers. What a quagmire, but oh so predictable.

I am just reading Chainfire, have started reading the books in July. The books are fine, but not really great IMO. A bit heavy handed and also repetitive to an extent. I like reading them. I like that the Objectivist philosophy is shining through. Over the years I have learned that if I like a book, I do not expect the same from the movie. Sometimes they succeed, often they do not

Fabulous post Capitalism Forever. Thank you I think the great corruption of the American way has been fostered mostly by our good professors and teachers in the institutions of learning, indoctrinating young minds with the collectivist drivel that of course led to the result we have before us. Elections of presidents are a reflection of the ideologies of the majority, a majority that has been dumbed down so much that no rational argument could make it clear to these sheeple and change their minds (what minds indeed). To elevate the level of minds to a state of actual thinking, the schools are of prime importance. I think the ARI is doing a fantastic job doing just that with their book and essay programs. Talking to and engaging young people is our only hope.

If I owned the business I would give this "potential" customer a chance to shelter from the rain and not coerce him into buying anything at that point. As a retail outlet you have to expect that customers come in just to browse without buying. This guy who sought shelter might have found some things interesting in the store for his future purchases. So, as a business owner I would consider my generous offer an advertisement and not force him to pay for the shelter, as in: "buy something or else…" When this guy talks to his buddies later on, he will spread the word about the generosity of this store policy and they in turn look at the store in a favorable light, even might become customers. The store owner would have set up some new customers to have more profit in the end. Kindness can be a wonderful tool ----- Walmart is not a good example, for they already have a policy in place where they encourage people to come and gather like in the old market places, they support fun in the isles, set up benches etc. It is in their self-interest to do so and they are very successful with it.

But could you not agree that academic discussions will drive ideas to the point where you will be able to find out if a particular approach is even feasible. The results of those discussions become in the end concretized goals we want to strive for.

Eliminating taxes would not happen overnight, it would be a slow process. Think about how long it might take to get enough people to throw collectivist ideas out. By the time only user fees would finance defense, law, contract-enforcement the wages would have arrived at a level where no change needs to be made. Mostly people and corporations who have to protect their property would be more than glad to pay the costs either directly or through insurance. The little guy would have a free ride, no costs to him for major issues, benefits such as that would be part of his pay through the employer or through the fact that there are enough people around who have the need for protection.

I enjoyed reading the story, no matter how long it has been around. It was new to me

Wonderful work. I love his use of light and shadows. Very crisp but stylized enough to not be photo realism. Highly skilled.

Thanks all. I have started to get a flavor of the forum. Nice

Just signed up here today, put some weight on the scale for the oldies. I am 63 years young. I agree with you guys that the older people are scared of computers still (roll eyes), but you would think that people who think would have an easier time with it.

Great, I had thought so, but being a new member here I did not want to brake the rules (how I hate that term really). I do look forward to interacting with you guys. It is going to be fun, can't step on toes here, though I have really stopped caring much about that, having been stepped on and being stepped on more than I care to count.

Thanks much Colors are my big love, you could call me an expert in that field.

Thanks for your welcome I am an artist, at this time I produce hand painted silk scarves. I have been in this particular business for 15 years now. I do not know if posting my URL is considered self promotion in this forum, if so, mod please remove. http://ulrikescarves.com/

Well, I finally decided to look around here and not be a guest. I will not post right away probably, but snoop a bit. I read Atlas Shrugged about 40 years ago, it was in the German translation. Also The Fountainhead of course. I did not have any access to other works by Rand at that time, translations were not available for her other writings. But after I moved to the US and learned enough English to read complex subject matter, I dove into all other works by her and Peikoff. The internet was not there yet. I so agreed with the thinking that I started to live more and more as a rational human automatically. It felt so natural to me, I have never believed in any god, in any super natural phenomena, in collectivism, any mysticism for that. I call myself an a-mystic. Atheists can be still mystics, so that term is not quite enough for me. I live in Florida with my husband. He is also a student of Objectivism and we had and have endless discussions, hairsplitting in other words. My life is packed with work that I love, I have not had many discussions with other people about Objectivism, we are more or less hermits, industry drop-outs. I try to look at people in aspects so that I can enjoy a conversation without looking at a person as a whole, so I am able to be friends within a small circle of agreement. At times I bemoan the fact how long it will still take for the ideas of Rand to take a stronger hold. I am very optimistic about that they will though. The net is speeding it along. That is about all for now, hope to participate soon.