DougW

OK, I guess the lesson for me here is not to use extremes as a way of proving or disproving a point.... Obviously 100 people couldn't control all the wealth in the world, I was just trying to see if 'Even then...' it would be considered rational not to give a large portion of it away... (Although I recommend Roger Zelazny's 'Lord of Light' as a good example of what might happen if we continue to allow power to accumulate to fewer and fewer people...) But that said, I completely disagree with the follow-up points. So 'my world' where 100 people control all the wealth in the world is 'impossible'... so is the world postulated by Rand, where the rich pay fair value for labor, and take only their fair share of the wealth created by production. In our world, people with wealth, and wealth-derived power act irrationally every day, in the 'Golden Era' that Rand is always waxing poetically about they sent workers into coal mines without ventilation, knowing they would develop life-threatening illnesses...they allowed copper to saturate the water table in the towns where miners lived, they forced slaughterhouse workers to endure sub-human conditions, working such long hours that they would often lose fingers or even hands to the cutting mechanisms.... more recently they lie about the health of the company, knowingly taking money from workers paychecks and 'investing' it for the workers retirement, knowing that it is worthless... In the world I live in (and you too...) there are plenty of people working their butts off, playing their role in production, but when those at the top of the companies do the math, they somehow calculate that their handshakes and golf outings are worth 50, 100, even 1000 times what the efforts of those who put in long days on a noisy assembly line are worth. And please don't give me some story about how irreplaceable these guys are...I've worked along side them, most of them aren't that bright, some of them are downright stupid, but the one trait they all had was their willingness to take whatever is on the table for themselves, whether they deserve it or not! Also, where did the idea come from that production is unlimited? Markets are saturated, lomg-term deals are in place with many suppliers of raw materials, those with inherited wealth and the power that goes with it do work hard at one thing, and that's making sure that the opportunities for competition are limited. There is no virtually minable land left in the US that isn't already owned or has the mineral rights leased. The search for oil has moved offshore where the cost of becoming a player is in the billions, so old Jed with his shotgun isn't gonna strike oil while shootin at some food... Our economy has become 'service-oriented' where again a cap exists on how muh can be provided, limited by both the size and wealth of the population that we wish to service. And the whole taxation thing.... what about roads, sewers, schools...they should be private? I'd love to see what would happen when the guy who 'owns' the roads in your town decided he wanted to buy two or three more mansions, and upped the toll to use the roads by 100% one day... And all private education...perfect...well just price it so that the lower class can't quite afford it, less competetion for our kids to face in the workplace, plus the bonus of a cheap, hungry labor force... And we couldn't have enough police from Rand's 'voluntary' tax, so we'd need lots of 'private' police forces, I'm thinking Pinkerton's or maybe even Blackwater sounds like a good solution for that.... And finally, I never said that inherited money 'sits'..only that it is 'irrational' to think that a world where the wealth of the economy is distributed so unevenly will be a fun place for anyone to live. Keeping a vast, hungry, uneducated mass of people is the absolute surest way to bring about terrorism, revolution, war. If you'd like to live in a society where people with guns and bombs aren't constantly knocking on your door, you would probably be better with a philosophy that says: A) those born with wealth aren't 'better' or 'more deserving' than those born poor. As much as you'd like to believe otherwise, 80 hours of your work each week is very, very, very unlikely to be worth 1000 times the 40 hours of production put in by the average worker. C) It makes absolutely no sense to claim that giving money for food and education to strangers who are starving and uneducated would actually cause them harm, rob them of pride, teach them sloth, etc., but also to claim that giving huge amounts of money to your children wouldn't harm them one bit, no sir! and finally D) While it's fun to play the 'look I just moved up 2 spots on the Fortune list, watch out Gates...' game, once you have covered your necessities for like 1000 lifetimes, it's difficult to come up with a rational reason why you should continue building personal wealth. (and no, 'Because I can...' is not a rational reason) Capitalism is certainly the very best system ever devised for a fair, free economy. But it isn't without it's problems, and one is that it allows a cyclical build-up of economic power that in turn allows those with capital to reduce the choices of those without capital to "play our way or starve", and nobody wants to starve....

Eiuol, that's cool, I don't think our viewpoints are that far off... the concept of destroying "any hope of living in a place where anyone is rational" is really what I mean when I say 'increasing the levl of rationality in the world"... to me it isn't so important to couch it in Objectivist-speak, but I understand your desire to be more accurate within the objectivist system. I know Rand sometimes spoke about how it's wrong to judge the Objectivist philosophy by using 'extreme' examples, but it's hard not to sometimes. The question I was trying to ask (and maybe not doing a good job of wording it..) was "is there no point at which keeping wealth for your self becomes irrational?"....if you take that to an extreme, I can't see how a world would be 'rational' if 100 people control all of the wealth on the planet (of course that's a crazy scenario....). In my mind, desperate people will do 'irrational' things to survive, they literally can't think too far ahead, if they do they'll probably eb dead before they get there... increasing education among the 'savage' (I hate that word!) populations in the world would do so much to 'create rationality'....population growth would almost certainly go down... production would increase....aggressive wars aimed at acquiring resources for pure survival would be reduced.... Anyway. continued thanks for the opinions.....

Quo, Thanks! The quote from Francisco is enlightening, and I think gets to the bottom of where the differences in our thinking lies. I agree perfectly with him. Giving the money to one person creates one parasite. My objection has been that all along everyone seemed to be saying that it doesn't create any parasites... and he is also right, the second act creates 50 (or 100 or whatever) parasites. Where we split in thinking is what the likely outcome of the two processes would be. I can't see how parasite 1 (the heir) would be any more or less likely to use reason to raise himself out of the irrationality of being a parasite based on whether he is given $1 million dollars as his inheritance or $350 million. (in fact, I would bet that there are statistics if one looked hard enough that would show that the inheritors of $1 million do better in terms of avoiding alcoholoism, mental illness, suicide, drug abuse, etc. than the $350 million set...). Anyway, in the second example, in my mind we would be elevating the 50, or 100 from 'savages' to 'parasites'. Even if you don't believe that is a step up the rational ladder, I would also postulate that an 'educated' parasite has a far, far greater chance of becoming rational than an uneducated savage. Anyway, I'm not obessed with other people's property, it happens to be the subject of this argument (I could hardly argue about religion in this forum...). What I am completely, insanely obsessed about, is never ever accepting anything that doesn't make sense to me. I really am sorry that the thing not making sense is something you feel so strongly about...and I don't mean that sarcastically or anything.... I completely realize that I am overly obsessed with needing to see logic in everything... So, after I read Rand's books, I imagined a world following Rand's theories, but I could not imagine how it could exist without the judgement of the marketplace being an integral part. By that I mean the individuals that make up the marketplace would look at each person or company that they trade with and would weigh whether they think that person/corporation is adding to the rationality of the world, or lowering it, and would only trade with those who they felt were acting rationally. And to follow that up, if I were the individual doing the calculating, I would say that a person who gathers resources to the level of a Bill Gates or Warren Buffet is lowering the rationality of the world. I would, on the other hand, say that the actions of Paul Newman were increasing the rationality of the world. I know we will never agree on that, but that is what I believe. That also is the motivation behind my 'surprise' at my partners actions when we sold the company. I thought I knew him to be a rational person. Now, as a partner, I knew all of the workings of our company. I knew exactly what his contribution and my contribution to the growth, stability and success of the organization were. I also knew what the contribution of each employee was. I know exactly how much 'risk' each of us took (in fact the business was started with capital I contributed, and which was repaid over time prior to the sale). So, in my mind, the bonuses to the staff weren't gifts, they were payment for services they had rendered, which while not expressly written into their contracts, were in return for the 'risk' they took working for a startup, for the extra hours they put in when things weren't going well, for the lack of 'ownership' benefits that other workers enjoy (i.e. stock grants, etc.) because we were a small enough company that we couldn't split ownership and still effectively make decisions. In fact, when we hired people, we expressly played up the idea that as a small company, they were 'getting in on the ground floor' and that in the future there would be a chance to 'buy into' the company's success once we got large enough. Instead, we sold to a larger company, that had no obligation to those employees. Anyway, in my mind, my partner's first choice seemed like a betrayal of people who we were friends with, valued, and had shared a dream with. The fact that after a half-hour of discussion he agreed with me made me feel better, but what I was saying earlier is that we can't ignore that there is an inherent greed in all of us that we have to be aware of, and make sure it isn't coloring our decisions about what is rational. As for what I do with my money, I doubt you'll think it wise. I believe in rationality at the transactional level, but with a twist.... I enter every single transaction I am involved in by calculating what I believe the value is to both parties, then I make an offer that is slightly to the benefit of the other person. If they accept it, I go forward. If they don't I usually walk away completely, I never negotiate (probably because I know how crazy I would get in that process...). But, the benefit I receive is that the people I do business with like doing business with me because I never undervalue their contribution. The 'loss' I take from making my initial offer 'more than fair' is, in my mind compensated for by these future relationships, as well as by the time I save not dickering with people. To me, it seems like a rational system, but I know for a fact, I haven't extracted the most I could from these transactions.

Quo, I'm really sorry that I am posting again, after I said I wouldn't, but it seemed like your response was addressed to me to elicit a response. I understand the logic you are using, but I disagree with it. How can a man direct his own actions rationally if he does not ask 'what is rational?' If I were to ever (lol) be faced with the dilemma of having a few billion dollars and need to decide what to do with it, how could I possibly make a rational decision, if all through my life whenever I asked what kind of spending is rational or irrational I was told 'hush, now, that's none of your business.' Also, in the same book, Rand later followed up with the statement 'Judge, and prepare to be judged' as the rational way to live. I believe that Rand would say that you can (and even should) discuss, have opinions, and share those opinions about anything that anyone is doing. It is only if you either refuse to use your mind, to think, to be conscious OR if you act that you can be irrational. So, by that logic, my saying that I believe the acts of certain people with regard to their property is irrational should be fine. If I advocate making laws to prohibit their use of their property (I haven't and wouldn't), if I act to harm them or restrict them in any way (I haven't and wouldn't) then I would be irrational. And later you say that 'I' went subjective. But in reality, for the point in question, my position is Objective and yours is Subjective! My one error is not putting the word 'rational' in my argument, as in: '...has enough money for a person to rationally care for himself, his family, their family, etc.' Now in an 'Objective' system, that amount is and must be the same everywhere, for everyone. It is purely 'Subjective' to say that the amount differs from person to person. Those are base definitions of objective and subjective, ( Objective = same answer from multiple reporters; Subjective = varies by the person or situation). Lastly, you make the statement: "We assert that a man's property is his own. Period. Of no one's concern but his own. Period." Who is 'we' in this statement. Again, not to say I've read every word Rand ever wrote, but that statement was nowhere. What IS there is something that starts out the same, but ends differently "We assert that a man's property is his own, to dispose of as he wishes." If there is a quote by Rand that follows that up with this being 'no one's concern', I'll buy the book and read it and stand corrected, but I don't believe it exists.

OK....

Jennifer, I admit I'm not an expert. I did not make assertions. I keep asking questions. I bought 'Virtue of Selfishness' and read it after the first couple of posts, noting that in it Rand herself says that all of her philosophy is contained in Atlas Shrugged, which I have read twice. I will get and read more on Objectivism as I can. I believe I understand what I am reading. The main thing I have problems with, and am asking questions about, is that there seems to be a 'sacred' aspect to immense wealth. In my mind (and only in mine, I make no claims on anyone else), amassing huge amounts of money is no different from amassing political power or economic power. You have every right to do so if you want, but having power of any type does not absolve one from examination and judgement, nor does it abdicate one's responsibility to 'rationality'. I don't believe I have read anything an any of Rand's work that says differently. Yet, whan I ask if it is rational for a billionaire to choose keeping his wealth vs. using it to help others (spefically to help educate those born in abject poverty), in light of the fact that the billionaires life would not be significantly adversely affected, vs. the benefit of living in a world made more rational by educating these people, I am told that I am not allowed to ask this question. It is wrong. I have no right, etc. I had been hoping someone would instead use logic. In a few cases some people did do that, but I felt the logic was flawed (i.e. the billionaire spending the money on himself creates jobs, stimulates the economy, etc. but I pointed out that building the schools and buying the books, teaching, etc. also stimulates the economy, that in fact the economy is stimulated by how much is spent, not by who is is spent 'for'). But mostly I got responses that claimed I was pro-communist (I'm not), that I was saying there should be laws forcing people to give away their money (no, I'm not), or that I'm advocating giving the money to anyone who asks regardless of whether they can work or not (no, I'm not). I'm very worried that we will never get to a rational world if we aren't willing to point out irrationality wherever we see it. If we think there is a rational world in which one person's contribution to production is worth 10,000 times as musc as another man's, when both men work hard, and both work full-time, that really scares me. While I don't have any hard data to prove that belief is wrong, I would ask for an example of a major corporation that went belly-up soon after the death of it's president CEO. I am saying that it is my belief that the primary way that businessmen get to be billionaires is by making irrational claims to the profits of production in virtually every transaction they make. Whenever there is work to be done and profit to be split, they assess their contribution to be much higher than it actually is. I said this earlier in the thread also, I rarely have found CEOs to be the smartes person in the room at meetings, but they are always the most ruthless... Anyway, we differ about the best means to get to the same ends...a rational world. It's a very long thread, so I don't blame anyone for not reading it all, but I think that if you do, you woudn't say I was irrational, or making unsubstantiated claims. You'd probably say I was ADD, that I switched topics too much, maybe got too emotional...but I think you'd also see that people kept assigning beliefs to me I never stated (and don't have)....

On the grow up comment, I apologize. As I mentioned earlier, your 'amen' response seemed a bit dismissive... I overreacted. Second examples ARE using logic and conjecture. It's not a proof, because the exact circumstances you are trying to prove don't exist. Third, I didn't use Ad Hominem. Ad Hominem would be something like "how could one ewxpect a 'biker' to have a rational argument...and I never said anything like that. I specifically said that in this thread you didn't use any logic in your arguments. That is not ad hominem. Also, the fact that you have posted a lot doesn't indicate anything about whether you are right or wrong. If it does. I'll just keep posting until I'm right all the time... I'm sorry if you don't want to engage on this...I would think that if you really wanted Objectivism to become widespread, you'd understand that you'll need to convince a lot of people who start off with wrong opinions. If you simply dismiss them because they ask for proof, or because they aren't convince by your first argument, how can you ever spread your philosophy widely enough to actually bring rationality to the world?

D'kian, I agree completely. I don't want any legislation about what people should or shouldn't do with their money. Admittedly I like the idea that Melinda Gates convinced Bill to give away a vast bulk of his wealth at his death. In fact she did so by convincing him that saddling his children with 80 B of unearned capital would probably ruin their lives, removing any understanding of the pride of self-accompliushment. Don't know your feelings on this but I'm hoping you don't think it is a mistake. As for the comparison of Communism to America, again, I'm completely not getting why you would say that! I never ever advocated communism. In fact, let's take a minute and compare what I have been saying using your example: In which country is there more voluntary 'giving' by wealthy individuals to the less fortunate, the former USSR or America? And how has the ecomony in that country fared with regard to the other? Clearly the answer is that there was NO voluntary giving by wealthy individuals in the former USSR. There was a huge corrupt system of government officials controlling the distribution of all wealth. In the United States, there is significant voluntary giving, and the US has a better economy. So my suggestion using your example proves my point, that voluntary giving leads to increased rationality, and better economic outcome. That's where we have differed all along. I am saying that working the system to try and elevate yourself to 'king-like' status economically is irrational. For many reasons, from the probability that your contribution almost certainly doesn't merit that compensation, to the probability that the world will be less rational if the resources are so concentrated among the wealthy that millions upon millions have no food shelter chloting, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, no education which could be used to elevate themselves.

I already understand about living as a human, not an animal. There is a particular logical flow I have a problem with: 1) A=A 2) Man must live as man 3) To live as a man, you must be rational, focused, conscious. You must live for your own self-interest. 4) Self-interest does not mean by 'whim' or 'desire'. It is only because self-interest creates a more rational world that we can conclude that there is no conflict of interest among rational men. (i.e. rational is rational not 'rational only for me' or 'rational only for you') 5) We must constantly judge and be prepared to be judged. If we find irrationality we must defeat it. 6) Having any concern with how an individiual acts with regard to his property is irrational (I don't get how that fits) 7) It could be rational to do something sometimes but not others (don't get that either) 6 and 7 are representations of what I have been told here. Number 6 is proof of how I am wrong to even question what a person does with their property. But that simply can't be true all the time. If a neighbor sets fire to his woodlands, I would certainly have a right to be concerned about the effect on my property. Likewise, if a neighbor continually overvalues his contribution to the economy, and removes much more than what his efforts indicate he should get, I should be concerned. In a completely rational world, rational buyers would simply not trade with this person, rational workers would not work for him. But we don't live in a completely rational world, and I don't think that if we believe he is being irrational we should just 'not be concerned'. Likewise I just don't get how giving something to a stranger who has not earned the compensation (whether that is an education or food or money) would result in that person becoming lazy, irrational, etc., but giving money to your heirs when you die won't make them lazy or irrational, etc. I get that you can do whatever you want, but it seems to me that either it would be harmful to both (and what would you want to harm your loved ones??) or it wouldn't be harmful to either (and the argument about harm when giving to strangers is not really true, but it sells better to the public...) Anyway... Again, I'm not trying to make anyone mad....as you said it's frustrating, and I was feeling like I was being dismissed...

If I have escalated the level of rhetoric I apologize. Biker's 'amen' quote above certainly seemed dismissive/demeaning to me, almost like a statement one would make after the person being spoken of had left the room.... That post came first. I responded to that one, and he followed with two additional responses, the second accusing me of making unproven assertions, which I never did. I never made ANY assertions! I asked questions. In every post I ask, "how can it be that...." or "how do we reconcile...." and after every post I get back an answer that says "you want this" or "you have a problem with that". If I'm not asking a question, then I'm starting the sentence with 'It seems to me..." I'm asking for a logical response. I just want someone to show me where I'm wrong...I'm not saying I can't be wrong...just asking to be shown logically, not with statements like "Handing out money irrationally will lead to..." when I never ever said to hand out money irrationally! No one has ever addressed any of the logic....ever... just give me one post where someone says: "Well Doug, it's like this, when you give money to a stranger, even if only to educate them, we have done studies that indicate....., while our studies show that if the same person gives the same amount of money, or even more to a direct heir, the result is very different...." And to your point. I clearly quoted a long piece of Rand text which answers your question. Did you miss that? here it is again: "But man's responsibility goes still further: a process of thought that is not automatic nor "instinctive" nor involuntary - nor infallible. Man has to initiate it, to sustain it and to bear responsibility for its results. He has to discover how to tell what is true or false an how to correct his own errors; he has to discover how to validate his concepts, his conclusions, his knowledge; he has to discover the rules of thought, the laws of logic, to direct his thinking." But in direct opposition to that concept I am told I shouldn't be questioning. I have no 'right' to question what people do with their property (I agree I have to right to tell them what to do, but why don't we all have the right to question everything? Rand's model asserts that if a businessman is acting irrationally, the marketplace of rational men will choose not to do business with him...how the heck can that happen if we aren't allowed to question what he does? How do we determine whether he is rational? I wish I had Virtue with me I remember another quote of Rand's where she takes apart "Judge Not, Lest Ye be Judged', and turned it around, saying the rational way to live is 'Judge, and prepare to be judged? How do you reconcile your final paragraph with that? I never said I knew how to steward their fortunes. Never said I had a plan for giving that was loophole free. Never said about 90% of what you have claimed I said. I've asked questions that no one ever answered...including why it would not be an irrational choice to keep wealth beyond 10,000 lifetimes worth of resources... When I can't get an answer to something, it is not that unreasonable of me to assume that you have no answer. If I am wrong, please tell me what the reason is? Now I am getting a response (not from you, the next post) that indicates I am going about the asking incorrectly. But no indication of what the right method would be. Is it that there can be no debate? You either agree with what we say or get out? Is Rand's philosophy to be a dead-end, never changing, never being modified to remove errors, never adapting to a chaniging world? I hope not. As I have said repeatedly throughout this post, I agree with a huge amount of what she said, but can see flaws or loopholes in the totality of her philosophy. Is troll worse than beatnik poet by the way?

In the world today, power is excercised in many different ways. I think that power can be broken down into three categories, though I'm completely open to adding more types to the list, or removing one of the three or even combining them, as long as there is a logical argument for doing so. The three types, as implied in the title of the thread are: Military Power Economic Power Political Power I list them in no particular order. The question/subject of the debate is: Are there any differences inherent in these types of power? Is one 'good', another 'bad'. Does one lead to abuse faster or more certainly than another. Does one need to be checked, or regulated against, more than another, and if so, why?

Unfortunately, as with most of Rand's philosophy, the idea of a 'self-regulating' business world is every bit as much of a fantasy as the fantasy communist society envisioned by Marx in which all men worked hard for the state as a matter of pride. Rand's phiolosophy conveniently leaves out many truths about men (both as individuals and in groups) simply because they don't fit her model. Such as: 1) Power corrupts. That means all kinds of power, whether military, economic, political or even personal power in a relationship. 2) When power is handed down from generation to generation, there is no guarantee that it will be used wisely by the heirs. Again, that applies to economic power as well as political. One of the things that makes the model of government here in the US so good is that power changes hands very rapidly. Capital, which is the power of capitalism, changes hands more slowly, and Rand wants to slow that transfer down even further building a model of economic feudalism. 3) Rand claims that all men must act in their own self-interest, and then claims that 'self-interest' doen't mean whatever 'whim or desire' they may have, yet when you talk to current objectivists, they claim that people can do 'whatever they want' with their money. (of course they 'can', but that doesn't follow Rand's model...) 4) Rand constantly states throughout her works that she understands that the current world is not 'rational' and not ready for all aspects of her system....but again, the followers one finds in these forums think that ALL of Rand's philosophy should be applied today. 5) and to me the big one....Whenever you ascribe to a philosophy that, coincidentally, gives a huge advantage to you and others in similar situations to yourself, you should be doubly skeptical of the reasoning used in the philosophy....double-check and triple-check the logic behind the philosophy, because it is so easy to slide into acceptance of a flawed system when the benefits to you and your kind are so readily apparent...

Dude, grow up! So you don't agree with me...guess what, I don't agree with you either. As I said, I presented logical arguments...again, you misstate my words as you did in EVERY ONE of your posts! I never said I ACTUALLY demonstrated anything, because, duh, It would be kinda hard to build a model of the world that has been populated by millions of people for the several thousand years we've had civilization....and guess what, Rand ALSO didn't ACTUALLY demonstrate anything...unless you are so far gone you think AS was a true story. When debating philosophy like this, all one can do is use logic and conjecture...of course, you've never debated philosophy, just spouted your beliefs, misstated what others have said and contibuted nothing.... unless I'm missing some logical statement in your most recent post....lemme re-read it.... nope!

What???? Where the heck is that philosophy in Rand's work? Was Galt 'not worrying too much about what others were thinking' when he decided to shut down the world??? Throughout her works Rand consistently claims it is the responsibility of the rational to question the system and try to change it to be more rational. I hope her ideas haven't been hijacked by people who now interpret it as "please question or try to change things that don't have any negative impact on me or my life". She talks all the time about being constantly 'conscious'. The interpretation that 'these questions have already been answered, so stop questioning and just believe it...' is the EXACT type of philosophical dead end that Rand hated! Her words: "But man's responsibility goes still further: a process of thought that is not automatic nor "instinctive" nor involuntary - nor infallible. Man has to initiate it, to sustain it and to bear responsibility for its results. He has to discover how to tell what is true or false an how to correct his own errors; he has to discover how to validate his concepts, his conclusions, his knowledge; he has to discover the rules of thought, the laws of logic, to direct his thinking." She didn't say: "Luckily for you, I have already done this, and here is the final answer, so no need to ever think hard again!!" Throughout this thread I have tried to present logical arguments about where objectivist philosophy breaks down, where it seems contradictory. Yet in the responses, no one ever really addresses the logic or the specifics of the argument. Instead they bring up another point that doesn't even correlate as some kind of proof, or they re-state my position, substituting the completely irrational position of the very farthest fringes, and then disproving THAT position...which I never even put forward! Yeesh. It's pretty sad when a philosophy that is supposed to be based upon rational thinking, that specifically rejects the kind of arguments that attack the other side without presenting a single iota of logical argument, are defended by using exactly that kind of argument. But I guess I'm just worrying to much about the other guys....... To those people who participated in the thread who did argue logically and did not distort my position, thanks, it was informative.

Quo, Nope....I would never advocate that anyone 'had to' give anything to anyone. never. BUT if they claim they have done the calculations and that they would rather live in the world that results from keeping more than 100 million than the world where they keep only what they need and then use a lot of the remainder helping others to achieve rationality, I question their calculation. Entitlements is a completely different thing than charity. Anyoine who thinks they are entitled to anything is clueless, As I said I agree with Rand on many issues. Too much government involvement? That I have mixed feelings about...it's the frying pan or the fire....Corrupt government officials making so many bad decisions they can't be counted; or put ourselves at the mercy of greedy corporations that think of the 'good old days' as back when workers got black lung and mortgaged their lives to the company stores and didn't complain about it... that's a no-win. I just don't want either of those sides putting on wings and pretending to be angels... anyone with significant power, be it military, economic or political, must be constantly scrutinized... In my opinion, the reason poverty has increased recently (and I say recently because i don't believe that poverty has increased in the long term, is because our society goes through cycles where the powerful gather more and more power, always going to far, getting too greedy and the the masses take back power, often violently, sometimes through political exercose (i.e. voting socialist, etc.) and right now we are in a cycle where the powerful are again going to far. Soon there will be a shift back the other way. However, there is one corollary that seems to work all the time....poverty goes down as education goes up...I think thats pretty much universal. Educating people would almost certainly benefit all economies, but whatever, thats not an argument that we can solve here.... Also, I never said that anyone can't do anything for themselves. What I said was that the likelihood that a poor, starving, uneducated child born in the third world will become a rational member of society without help is low. The likelihood that many of them will in fact, without the help of rational persons, be turned against rationality, and will ultimately becomes soldiers for the iurrational, is very high. I said exactly this: The rationale behind not giving (intelligently) when you already have enough for several thousand lifetimes is flawed logic. You are harming your own cause. I am not saying your cause is unworthy. Who wouldn't want a rational world? I do too! But you will be less likely to get it if you allow the world to produce vast armies of irrational, uneducated people who believe YOU are responsible for their plight. And that's where we've been heading for a while. Also, you are taking one point where you are right and using it to try to prove a different argument. Your point is: "when the government begins handing out money to people who simply won't work, poverty increases." Yup. Absolutely I agree. Would never argue that. Never advocated that. However. Show me statistics that say...'the better public school education is available, the higher poverty levels are.." I don't think that'll happen...or "increased education among the dispossed members of the third world always produces more poverty". I highly doubt it. So, what I'm hearing (and I know you're not saying it, but I'm hearing it) is "finding the right places to give which would produce a rational result would be hard....why bother. Especially when spending on myself feels so good, and especially when I can justify my hoarding through the statistics available showing what happened when others have given irresponsibly!" So, here is the one and only thing I advocate. That everyone says what they are really doing. If you don't want to give because you want to keep your stuff...fine...say so... If you think you need 200 million dollars for some reason, say so. But if you are claiming that you keeping the money or spending it on yourself is better for the economy, I think you need to re-examine your math. Money put nto an economy doesn't know whether it is spent for personal gain or not. It generates the same result on the economy either way. Your argument must rest on the psychological impact on the receiver. It must be that you are saying that giving money to people makes them lazy, only struggle will make them work harder and raise themselves out of their current poverty. BUT, if that is so, how can anyone possibly reconcile inheritance with that thinking??? Giving money to a stranger would make them lazy and prevent them from succeeding, but giving unearned money to my children won't have that effect..." I just don't get it. Where's the Socratic logic there? And yes, it's your choice. It's everyone's own personal choice. I just think it's a bad choice. I think people calculate very badly and choose what magazine covers tell them they should choose, or vapid talk-show hoists, or philosophical books that have an agenda, or sometimes they choose what is in their immediate best interest because they don't thin very far ahead, or because they do think ahead, and have calulated that it will be one or two generations down the road that will pay the price for their decisions, so who cares. And no, I have no idea how to fix all the problems in the world (Oprah??? Please....). The world is a chaos system. The math on fixing it is beyond what we can calculate. That is one of the reasons why I worry about Objectivism. It claims to have done the final calculation, which I don't even think is possible. And then it shows some minor calculations as proof, and I think their logic is flawed, even on the minor calculations! One place where I do agree, though, is that it is every citizens duty to call into question the proclamations of any system they believe will result in the destruction of reason.

Quo, You are dramatically moving my position with your arguments. I have never advocated handing $100 (or any amount) to anyone. That would be crazy! Last year I lived in Evanston, IL while contracting on a job, and in the streets there are several professional 'beggars'. I have never handed any of them even one dime, because I weighed the likely result and came to the same conclusion you probably would have, that the money would go to booze or drugs, or at the very best would encourage them to never get a job, since they can make a living begging. I am a very logocal guy...I am not going to suggest anything crazy. So instead, lets logically compare what you actually proposed to what I actually propposed. You said the wax was created by a business, yes it was. It was also shipped, put in stores, marketed sold by a cashier. Of course. Anyone can see that. I completely see the value of that. If we really wanted, we could do a spreadsheet and total up the contribution to the economy. And of course to be fair we'd have to put a lot of things on that spreadsheet, because the cost of just one can of wax wouldn't amount to enough to do anything serious on the other side of my equation, so we're talking about the economic sum of what transpires when someone spends tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. Good. Now on my side of the ledger, the guy would take the money and vaporize it right? All for morality. Well, no, not exactly. He would use it to do something useful. like build a school. Which wouldn't just appear magically in Somalia, by the way. There would be brick manufacturers, and carpenters, electricians involved, air freight companies to move the supplies, laborers to lay the bricks...in fact, I guess that whether you are putting money into an economy for your personal gain or for someone else's gain there really isn't any difference with regard to the effect of the money entering the economy... so that particular argument for not giving scores a zero in my mind...if my math is wrong, please show me how... You'd have better logical results if you argues that 'Giving to someone in Somalia is bad because such a large part of the money would be taken up by corruption." That's true....so build the school in the slums of Atlanta instead... or Mississippi... AND, to rally be rational, we have to think of the other effects of the actions. Your's does nothing to affect the lives of those in need. They will grow up poor, perhaps illiterate, hungry, and I would guess angry. Having lots and lots of these poeple around probably doesn't increase the chances of the world being a raitional place. On the other hand, if we educate people, so that they have an opportunity to live a rational life, and then they in turn do the same, and so on...maybe we can get to a world where there are enough rational people to stop all of the irrational stuff happening everywhere. Maybe. And I know...we have no obligation...I know..I'm just saying my idea seems smarter, more likely to be successful, more rational. As far as the envy thing goes....I dunno...maybe. I like to think not. I think I have such an inbred 'Christian' dislike of money and power that I would have felt this way even if I never met the guy who wouldn't let his son date my sis...and I wasn't kidding when I said I liked him...the guy is an amazingly charismatic, 'present' personality if you know what I mean...it would be hard to meet him and not like him... (and no, I'm not a Christian now, just raised that way...mysticism = bad, I agree) I definitely don't 'wish I were rich'. My second child died the day after his birth, while in the hospital, from a Strep-B infection he caught there. I could have sued the hospital/doctors for a lot of money. I never did. My third child is also a special needs child, he spent the first 10 weeks of his life in the hospital, and doctors told us not to get 'too attaached', that he would probably never come home....thank goodness that was 21 years ago, and he is still here with us. So, when stuff like that happens, it changes your perspective so dramatically...anyway, I'm sure being the 'poor but smart' kid in a community of 'rich' kids had a big effect, as did the other incidents....but I am more than anything a creature of logic. All anyone ever has to do to convince me of anything is lay out the logic. But it can't be halfway.... it can't be that you prove 1 or 2 points and then stop calculating, lets all assume the rest is true. That is what I keep seeing in the arguments of Objectivism.

OK...you still haven't actually said it, but at least you seem to be indicating that it's better that many die than that you bend your concept of rationality. That's OK, part of the issue I have been having in the forum is that people seem to want to have their cake and eat it too (and what would Ayn have to say about that ? ;-) ). They all seem to want to want to say that 1) man has no moral obligation to help others, and 2) a rational man would want to do the things that make a better world for himself to live in and 3) No way am I giving anything to anyone and 4) I'm perfectly rational. The logic just doesn't flow well...I would have a lot more faith in Objectivism if it was filled with people who said things like: "Of course no man is obligated to give anything but as a rational being I understand that the world will continue to flounder as long as there are oppressed uneducated starving masses who can only survive by taking a gun from whatever despot offers them a crumb of bread...." instead of "well I'm certainly not going to stop YOU from helping others...." (more or less a direct quote from Virtue of Selfishness, including the emphasis...) So, I said this waaaaay earlier in the thread....the position of Objectivism appears to be that while the widespread practice of Objectivism would lead to increased suffering and death among the impoverished, even those impoverished through no fault of their own (I guess those 2-year-old Somalis shouldnt'a voted for totalitarianism!), that in the long run the world will be better off... so it's a better system. The ends, in other words, justify the means.... Or put it another way, as I already also said before...."We've substitued the words 'rational' and 'moral' when what we really mean is successful, because we find that the dogma sells so much better that way...." Also, I want to address some of the specific points made in your reply. 1) In a capitalist system, wealth absolutely gives you poilitcal and military power. In the fantasy system sometimes laid out as the goal of Objectivism, where men can not be influenced by greed, or propaganda, and where absolute power doesn't corrupt... in THAT system wealth won't give you political or military power...much like in the fantasy Communist society where all men 'want' to work hard for the good of the state...hmmmm.....see, it only takes one or two bad assuptions for the whole theory to be bad.... 2)You didn't have to tell me that helping out is optional, I agreed with that about 300 times already..I literally begged that people not use that in their argument because I am not disagreeing with that! I am questioning whether it is rational to build a world where ultimately there are going to be a lot of really angry, hungry poor people with pitchforks and torches knocking on your door asking if you were one of the people who has been holding onto 90% of the world's resources while they were starving.... or perhaps more rational to help educate and enlighten others so that perhaps we can live in a society where no one is making decisions based on their immediate hunger/survival.... from your response, I get the impression that your logic goes: "once those people are all dead, we we'll be left with a world filled with only men who....", which, again, is fine, as long as you don't try to dress it up as something else. 3) It is immoral to give out money indiscriminately....hmmmm..I'm re-reading all my posts, and I can't seem to find my advice that we should give money indiscriminately. I guess that's because I would not advocate that. I don't advocate doing anything indiscriminately, ever. Including not believing everything you are told, or read.. heck I don't even think we should indiscriminately believe everything we believe! We need to be constantly checking and re-checking our thought process, if for no other reason than that we are all prey to becoming 'comfortable' with ideas that help our position, or that tell us how 'special' we are... and 4) I don't think I need to re-read AS, I've read it twice now, once when I was 17 and a friend gave it to me, and again a year and a half ago, because I had been reading how Objectivism had been catching on with younger intellectuals, and I wanted to see if maybe I had missed something the first time through. I don't think I did. Rand's ideas are extremely seductive, particularly to those who were born with some wealth and power and are frightened that it they may lose it, or those who feel disaffected because the world doesn't recognize how 'special' they are. She says many, many, many things that are true, that are right, that are rational. But in my opinion (and I know just how little that means in the grand scheme of things...), she uses the facts she states to then prove completely unproved points. She postulates a society where things will happen the way she wants, and then claims that is proof that it will happen! I mean, hell, she quotes HERSELF as other people all through Virtue of Selfishess (as in quoting speeches by Galt, Roark, etc...) as though these are real people lending weight to her arguments! And she creates 'evil' characters whose sole purpose in life is the complete destruction of all rational thought on the entire planet...Muhahahahahaha, and expects that we should believe this proves that anyone who questions her ideas is evil by nature!. In this reality, where we all live, there are very, very, very few Galts, Roarks and Reardens... Nowehere near enough to put together a deal like AS.... the people running the corporations that are successful aren't the smartest people in the room, just the most ruthless. And if the ones who thought something like AS would ever work ever did all abdicate their positions, there would always, always be hundreds ready and willing to take their spots, and possibly even do a better job. So at best AS is a thought experiment, but even then one built with flawed logic in my opinion....but a thought experiment that is being sold as an acceptable version of reality!

I'm not sure why everyone on the forum always seems to ignore the base questions I ask, and instead answer only the lead-ups, or sometimes answer questions I never asked. Being able to state a truth contained in a doctrine does not make the doctrine correct, or make all proclamations of the doctrine true. I never stated that inherited wealth is morally bad, I said I probably have some problems with it because of my upbringing, because I experienced many people acting very badly who had inherited wealth, and very few, really almost no people acting rationaly who had inherited wealth. My opinion is clearly biased by my experiences, but there is certainly no inherent immorality to leaving wealth to heirs. What I did ask was this. How is the concept of inheriting wealth different from the European Fuedal System? And let me point out that in that system, a person could have become a soldier, worked his way up through the ranks, by force of arms, charisma, etc. could have taken command of a armed band, overthrown the local duke or lord, and moved himself into a position of power. Much like a child born today in the slums of Calcutta trying to become a wealthy person, he would have needed exceptional will and ability to be able to accomplish it. The primary difference between that society and ours is that we have substituted Intellectual and Economic Power for Force of Arms. Now, is there some inherent value to intelligence that makes it more 'moral' or rational than strength. We could have a 50 page discussion on that one... I think every one of us always need to keep asking questions about the 'system' we are applying to our lives, and one very important question we need to keep asking is: 'Do I think something is moral because it produces good results for me and my kind, or is it moral for everyone?' One of the main arguments that Rand keeps stating for Objectivism is that is is the only reason-based philosophy. If that it so, then it is important to explain the reason behind acceptance of the disparity of the starting point in which each man enters the equation. Why is it reasonable that two men of equal intellect, will and moral resolve could have such dramatically different opening positions in their life that the first has an easy ride to success, where the other is almost doomed to failure. (And NO, I'm not saying it is anyone's fault, so please, please, please don't post that the wealthy have no obligation....yeesh I get that already!) So, the real key to this thought process is to then take the next step. If the people who have the wealth are rational, IF....IF they are rational, how can they then choose to continue the perpetuation of this system. NO THEY ARE NOT OBLIGATED!!!! But, which choice is more rational? Just answer that.... more rational to continue leveraging wealth to heirs who may or may not be rational beings, even when that wealth amounts to 10,000 lifetime's worth of resources, or more rational to help those who suffer and want for no reason other than chance of birth? Not the 'lazy'....not 'moochers'....not 'beatnik poets' even.... Have we convinced ourselves that there are none out there worthy of assistance when weighed against having HBO on the TV in the pool house? That the rational choice between a first class upgrade and a school in Somalia is the upgrade? And one more time...you have no obligation.... I just want to hear you say that you have looked at the facts, have weighed the values involved, and have rationally decided that moving from 49th to 48th on the Forbes list is more rational than using the wealth to help others have a chance at a rational life.... ...and RationalBiker, I wasn't really singling you out as the reply here, yours was just the bottom of the stack.

Quo - man you are asking the question that has literally kept me up nights for a long period of my life. I was born and raised in Greenwich, CT, one of the wealthiest places on earth. I am the child of a poor family, for 3 generations my ancestors were servants who worked on the estates of extremely wealthy landowners. I grew up with good friends who had trust funds of $10,000,000 plus, drove brand new cars to high school and had 12 or 14 acre estates to play in. I worked from the time I was 15 (lied about my age...), and it was not unusual that some of my buddies would ask me to spot them a couple of bucks for this or that... which I didn't mind at the time, I never really even thought about there being a difference. When I was about 21, my dad was doing work on the estate of a really, really rich brokerage firm Pres., and his son met and became infatuated with my sister. There was a huge incident, my dad told my sister she wasn't allowed to talk with the son anymore, and we found out it was because the father had 'spoken' with my dad to say that it would be 'inappropriate' for his son to date the child of one of his 'workers'. I think on that day, some part of my view changed....what's odd is I really, really like (still) the brokerage guy. He was exceptionally bright, good sense of humor, politically liberal...he even got me an introduction to a good friend of his who was a Hollywood Producer at a time when I was thinking I wanted to work in the film industry. He just had one problem....he actually believed that people in his 'Class' were different than those of the working class... So, maybe I do have an issue with inherited wealth...though I think I would say more than that, I have an issue with accumulation of any type of wealth or power when it passes the point of ridiculousness. This is one of the big questions I have about Rand's Writing/Philosophy. I kept reading and reading, waiting for the point where she would say something like: "Of course no rational person, who had already acquired enough wealth and property to sustain his life and the life of his children, and the lives of their children, and the lives of all his relatives many, many times over, would ever fail to see that the rational choice between keeping all of his money and leaving it to his heirs or using it to help those who may be less fortunate, and who are suffering, is the latter choice." Now, before everyone goes freaking nuts on me, let me say the following: 1) Of course the person is under no obligation, of course, I get it, no one should ever be compelled, etc. etc. I agree!..... but I just listened to an audio debate where Dr. Ghate (sorry, forgot his first name) said that of course a rational being would save a drowning child as long as it wouldn't put him at severe risk or harm him in some way, and there would actually be a benefit to the rational man in this case...so, if that is true, how can the rational man think an extra coat of wax on the red Lamborghini (as opposed to the black one we only drive on weekends) should come before the extra shipment of vaccine for African children who are dropping like flies? Does the 'laziness' of their parents make them unworthy of being saved? Do we calculate only their future value in cash to the economy (they'll probably never earn more than a few thou...so let 'em die?) 2) I would not presume to decide where the limit is that a man should feel 'secure' about his future and those he loves. I understand this is a tricky issue. However, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I had the 'fortune/misfortune' in my life of dealing with a few very, very, very rich people, like Vince McMahon, Donald Trump, Lou Gerstner, Thomas Watson III, and a few others, and really, I never saw one minute where they weren't calculating how they could derive personal gain out of every situation. So, my real questions about Objectivism all center around these areas: Is there ANY amount of wealth a person can have where additional accumulation becomes so trivial that it becomes irrational to not use it instead to help others? Is ANY giving to those who suffer, or are less fortunate in their circumstances ever acceptable? The only area I ever saw Rand address here was 'disasters' like earthquakes, floods, etc.. But what about young children born into poverty, perhaps with no parents, or a parent so broken they could never provide the necessities to help that child live rationally? Do they inherit the sins of their parents? Is it never 'in one's own best interest' to help them become educated, rational beings? In a system designed to allow the wealthy to make great use of the advantages of their birth (i.e. the capital they start with, the better education they will receive, the benefits of social nepotism in hiring, finnce, etc.), how and why do we believe that this system will vary in any way from the European Fuedal systems of the past, other than to replace 'military power' with 'economic 'power'? and finally: In so much of Rand's work, she specifies that every aspect of her philosophy is the ONLY answer, and that to be rational a being must follow the code she lays out at all times, that any deviation from the plan should be called out immediately, that believers should refuse in any way to participate in activities that do not follow this doctrine to the letter....yet there are inconsistencies within the works themselves, and here on the forum people say things like "Rand's word's aren’t holy writ...". What are the real beliefs of Objectivists? Is Rand 100% right, or just partly, because there's a part of me that keeps thinking 'if you reject any of what Rand says, you almost have to reject it all because she is so vitriolic in her opposition to anyone who deviates'... Anyway, I have a plane to catch, so I'm out....thanks again for the discussion.... it's really enlightening...

Just to close out my side of this. I never said the stock market was a zero sum gain. I said traders who make a living day-trading are playing in a zero-sum gain game. I said this before, but there are so many posts maybe it was missed...I do understand the workings of the stock market, I worked on the Comex (which is commodities, not stock so a bit different, but....) so I already know about what triggers buys and sells and where proifit is taken. I am not condemning the stock market, or investing in corporations, or capitalism or even Objectivism or Rand as a philosopher! I am looking at a very specific aspect of the stock market (and perhaps of capitalism in general) and calling it into question. That is the aspect where a person buys something, adds no value to it and then trades it soon after for a profit. D'kian, thank you for the reference about Francisco. AS is so long it's hard to keep every plot point in memory, but you're right, by giving that little bit of Francisco's history, it seems Rand is accepting the use of intellect, market knowledge, etc. as a means to acquire weath through speculation. This just seems very weird to me.... Rand was so explosively angry about people who 'took from the system without contributing'.... I don't see how this reconciles... If it takes a fixed amount of effort to imagine/design/produce/deliver a good or service to the market, and a person injects himself into the system without contributing to that effort, why is he not a moocher? Is it simply because he doesn't "expect" payment, but is taking some risk? Is it the risk involved in day-trading that makes it an acceptable way to make a living, or is it more like 'any method of making a living that doesn't interfere directly with the rights of others is acceptable'. Perhaps what Objectivism is saying is that if the collection of individuals that we call the market has a problem with these 'no-added-value' traders, they could simply avoid buying goods that they have 'marked up'. The choice is theirs to be freely made... Maybe Rand would accept someone who made a living gambling (not against stacked 'house' odds where losing is inevitable, but playing games directly against other men where ultimate profit will be based upon the skill of the player...). That would seem to make sense in light of the attitude on speculation...

Apologies....I am not trying to assume anything about anyone... for all I know, half the people on the Forum could be intimately involved in the market, and while I am not as ignorant of it's workings as some of the posters have suggested, I am still not in any way shape or form an expert. I also apologize if my wording is causing anger...I get excited about this kind of philosophical debate, and when I see a line of reasoning that seems so clear as to be (in my mind of course) unassailable, I probably write about it a bit too forcefully. I'm sorry.

SoftwareNerd - where is that information?....again I can't recall a single character in Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead who made a living simply by buying something and then selling it in an unmodified form. If I am wrong, pelase tell me where the information is. My guess is if you gave these books to 1000 people to read and asked afterwards what the author would think of someone who profited from selling a product without being involved in the actual line of production (which includes financing and transportation, but not speculation or buying/selling without modifying) 990 of the people would guess that the author held these people in disdain... And again, just to be clear, buying a company's stock at offering in order to finance the company is NOT what I'm talking about...I'm talking about buying stock from another investor, and then selling to yet another investor at a profit or loss...

D'kian, I don't recall the Mulligan character in AS specifically, but was he a stock speculator? If so, and Rand included him in her list of 'rationals' then I stand corrected, though I would be confused. If his business is speculating in another way, however, such as oil fields, that is totally different, as the end result is in fact to produce something 'real' (i.e. oil or gold, or coal, gas, etc.) I still haven't read anything written by Rand herself about her opinions of pure stock speculation, but if she sees it as anything other than someone getting rich off the hard work of others I can not even begin to understand it..... If we are expected to accept that the number of 'Beatnik Poets' that ever existed who live a rational life = 0, and the number of 'Noise Composers' who live a rational life = 0, and if you dance in the modern way, jerking around on the dance floor with no purpose means your chance of living a rational life = 0, yet the number of pure stock speculators who live a rational life > 0, I really, really have to wonder....

Quo -- No, I have to disagree with almost every point here.... This point in the thread started with me reflecting on someone who inherits their money, and then produces nothing other than increasing their wealth by playing the market. If someone actually earns their money through production of real value, I have no issue with them investing it...though again I don't believe there is any significant difference between day-trading on the stock market and betting on horse races... I specifically said I understood that jobs were created to support the process of trading itself, but that that is no different than saying a casino contributes to the economy because of the jobs it creates to run itself... What exactly were Rand's views on gambling anyway, I haven't seen that....can't believe she thought it a 'rational' part of an economy... So, are you telling me that Ayn Rand would have thought it OK for a man to have no job that produces actual value, but instead makes a living at a near-gambling level zero-sum-gain process which is arguably not hard work.... No way! Rand would have called the decision that this person made to avoid using his talents to help produce real value 'irrational', would have called him a leech or moocher for sucking cash from the fountain produced by 'real producers', etc...she would have crushed this guy! I mean, the stock market existed in the 1920s, 30's and 40's....I would hazard a guess that there is an actual real reason why Rand didn't include any smart speculators as heroes in any of her stories...instead her heroes were all involved in the creation of something real, something that had actual value....Hell, she didn't even include any 'middlemen' traders as heroic...I'm sure her opinion of them is that while they aren't necessarily an evil in the system (as long as they obey rational logic...) they also weren't anything to get excited about... Finally, I am absoluetly NOT anti-capitalism.... I am pro-pro-pro capitalism! I just believe, from my experience in business, that most of the people in the higher levels of the business community today fall into the category that Rand would have labeled 'Looters' or worse, and I was commenting that it seems like Objectivists give those guys a pass more often than not...and this seemed illogical to me in light of Rand's adamant view that anything but 100% acceptance of the rational lifestyle was unacceptable (and I'm not talking about making miscalculations in what is rational, I'm talking about businessmen who knowingly attempt to circumvent rational rules of fairness, or who knowingly inflate the value of their contribution to production by an absurd factor...)

OK, but how is that NOT a zero-sum-gain?? And how does it create jobs other than those directly involving the trading/analysis process? Are you assuming that the 'seller' would then use his gains to buy new-issue stock which would in fact create jobs, etc., or create some new company? The question is what aspect of this kind of trading is different from casino gambling...one could argue that the winners in the casino would use their gains to create jobs and stimulate the economy too.... I get the mechanism...I understand that the marketplace is in fact a marketplace, but so what....a slave trading marketplace is also a marketplace, and 'monetary value' can be created there as well...but I wouldn't argue that it creates any value by objectivist standards. I'm sorry if this has all been discussed before, but in the end, at the very base of this argument, if you can't show that post-offering trading of stocks actually impacts the productivity/profitability of a corporation in a way that is 'real' (in other words, you can't say that the bad publicity from a stock price dropping will cause a company harm, etc, because it's either the underlying real information that caused the price of the stock to drop in the first place that is the root cause, or the impact is an irrational reaction to a change in price that has no root cause...either way there is no valid cause/effect...) What is NOT debatable is that a lot of people make a lot of money participating in this process...and in my mind that means that these people have a huge, vested interest in not wanting us to 'look behind the curtain' of the stock market, because it would interrupt the flow of billions of dollars into their pockets. I am frankly amazed that even after the revelations of the recent past about how dishonest so many of the major corporations in this country are, that Objectivists ALWAYS seem to believe that anyone involved in business is sacrosanct, and should never be questioned or criticized!