freedombreeze

August 26, 2015 I would like to invite anyone interested in IMMIGRATION POLICY and on weighing in on this in depth debate about immigration at Amy Peikoff's blog DONTLETITGO.com. (192 posts so far) The debate is a follow up of Amy's Blog Talk Radio Show last weekend. Catch the rewind here: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amypeikoff/2015/08/23/dligu-a-discussion-of-immigration-policy It's getting really interesting and hopefully it has sparked new thought on the issue of immigration.

Here on the Mike Slater radio show, Don Watkins of ARI has shown how when government mixes in business, they essentially become an arm of the government. In that way, they are coercive monopolies hindering many potential businesses from entering the market in the first place. Just one example is that compliance to government regulation is so cumbersone and crippling to business even before a license is acquired, the time wasted aspect alone is a huge factor toward hindering new, innovative competition. http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kfmbam/podcast/audio/the_mike_slater_show_7003.mp3 I think its essential for ARI to express that fact clearly. Even the lesser unfettered businesses are shackled and somewhat coercive to new business.

Rephrasing my question in this way helps shed some light on the idea for me. Of course man must be productive in order to live but I guess I wonder at what point it is fruitless or shall I say turns the "thrive" aspect into mere survival for an individual and therefore society as well. I can think of examples of careers which are, in my view, totally useless.... the mouchers of the business world, like lawyers making money on irrational contradictory law. Or the kinds of products selling on the shelves which are totally useless and are simply made to achieve the highest profit margin.. and somehow the idea of a fad occurs in the culture and everyone wants one.. (easily sold to a population of people who have been rendered non-thinking sheeple) but it is really a useless item and would not benefit anyone's life in any real way. Or imagine all the things that are not being made that would be so valuable to people today but we are being deprived of their very inventionbecause of government interference . I think all of these corruptions are the result of the government mixed marketplace and would not exist in a true lassaize faire system. Atlas Shrugged certainly aludes to that tipping point and maybe we're already there or have gone past it but where is John Galt?

Ayn Rand was an "all or nothing" kind of thinker. I am as well. “In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.” ― Ayn Rand There are many examples put forth by ARI giving leadership in the Philosophy of Objectivism to businessmen in order to act morally and be truly successful in their pursuits, success meaning achieving happiness. In essence what I'm saying is how can any business be successful in today's mixed economy and how can any businessman strive for true happiness when in some way he is acting disingenuously because he must play by the rules in order to exist? This brings up the issue of morality. How shall man act if he is being forced to act dishonestly for his own long term survival? Will he truly be capable of achieving real happiness?

First, I didn't say that a coercive monopoly is in some way protected by the government. Essentially what I said is that new potential businesses would have their chance at success compromised to what its full potential could be because the playing field can never be level in today's world. Take my example where some govt favored businesses would have better traffic flow than others. If the roads weren't public and in govt control, the playing field would be more fair. That is, if property rights were protected and owned by individuals and not govt, coercive monopolies would have no chance at all. Therefore, unless property rights are galvanized in objective law, all businesses are somewhat coercive to others trying to enter the marketplace. According to Ayn Rand's definition of coercive monopolies, some businesses are coercive because they limit the access to enter the market to compete. We are talking about the extent or degree this affects all new business and I'm saying a monopoly is coercive if it limits to any degree access to free competition. Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner and that is what occurs today in business the minute a license is obtained by a new business operator. Unfair advantage is just that. . . coercive. I hope someone can show me where I'm wrong. .

Aren’t all Businesses Coercive Monopolies in Today’s World? The title of Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal holds a profound meaning. I think she was an extraordinary visionary who understood the world we live in now would have absolutely no resemblance to a different world in which government had never intervened in the economy. I share her vision. Maybe we wouldn’t even be driving cars on roads! According to Ayn Rand, “A coercive monopoly is a business concern that can set its prices and production policies independent of the market, with immunity from competition, from the law of supply and demand.” I accept the premise that interference with force by government is the direct cause of coercive monopolies. By force, the government imposes controls on all business today, large and small, hindering their ability to act completely on their own behalf with licensing, subsidies, incentives, regulation, etc. Even the relatively less unfettered businesses must buy a license and are subject to restrictions on zoning, safety, etc. There would be no coercive monopolies, only healthy beneficial ones, in a completely free market economy. That is the point I’m having trouble with because I also hear from ARI that it is possible to compete fairly and do business morally in today’s economy. But how can that be so in light of the fact all business today is controlled in one way or another with force by government? Doesn’t that make all business, regardless of its nature or size, inherently a coercive monopoly in some way? For example, in Canada, the system is so corrupt that many government friendly businesses who have accepted an incentive, for example, to use the Maple Leaf in their logo or add the phrase “Proudly Made in Canada” in their store window or another example, to incorporate a green message into the business logo, or ad, etc. The businesses who take up the incentive are then favored, i.e., they may be privy to a preferred location with, for example, easy access of traffic flow (i.e., merge lanes into that mall instead of left hand turning light or a preferred location like a government registries office or the post office). Would that not give those businesses a coercive advantage over other businesses who chose not to take the same incentive? If some businesses have advantages over others due to government intervention, doesn’t that make the whole economy inherently corrupt and more difficult for other potential businesses to enter the market and to compete fairly. Wouldn’t that mean all existing business are coercive monopolies? It seems impossible for a true level playing field to exist now in our mixed economies and that all businesses who currently exist have an unfair advantage over those potential new innovations and businesses. If there weren’t any government involvement, I believe there would be so many more businesses competing. I agree completely with ARI in striving for the Ideal which Ayn Rand articulates. However, my concern is the way ARI frames the message. Currently it appears to be somewhat confusing.

here Censorship is imposed through public licensing by governments who have the power to filter and funnel information. For example, in Canada there is a "Heritage Minister" and a CRTC (Canadian Radio and Television Commission) who police all media content in Canada or crossing the border. Ayn Rand wrote extensively on how government controls information through licensing the airwaves. Alex Epstein said, Find the whole article here. Also Read "Property Status of the Airwaves" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand. Censorship is not determined by a free market but by a bureaucrat through licensing (permission).

I am encountering more frequently messages of censorship on the internet. For example, Today I tried to access a video clip on Hulu.com ( ) from Canada and got this message: "We're Sorry currently our video library can only be streamed in the United States. For more information on Hulu's international availability, click here." Following that link informed me "Hulu now available in Japan". Canada seems to have some content from Hulu but very minimal and many streams are blocked. What are others impressions of internet censorship. Your experience could help shed light on our dwindling freedom of information.

Hi Young Engineer, I am an Albertan who has been fighting for freedom in Alberta for the last 20 years. I have given up and am now an Objectivist who sees the only solution is education of our youth in philosophic principles..I work where I think people still have some semblance of free speech.. not in Canada. I feel for you as you are up against not only the environmental religionists but the elite regime in Eastern Canada. Alberta has always been a slave to Eastern Canada. I would love to share all what I know about the truth of Canada with you. Your hair would stand up on end in shock! Canada is not a free country and never was having inherited the antiquated British Parliamentary system invented by Kings when there was not even a hint of the idea that man could control his own destiny. I have nephews in the oil industry who would empathise with you. I suggest you read and listen to Alex Epstein's material at his new website Center for Industrial Progress and his Facebook Page http://www.facebook.com/#!/thepursuitofenergy. My best to you.

"Democracy" doesn't work because it provides no individual rights - particularly property rights, the necessary base for Capitalism. Democracy refers to the majority (a group) rule over the minority (another group)... but neither the majority nor the minority provide any rights for the individual. A group is not a living entity... it is merely a collection of individuals. Sidebar: The Founding Fathers tried to escape the tyranny of a "Democacy". Individual Rights was at the core of their philosophy. So in their noble attempt they formed a Republic instead of a Democracy or Monarchy or Oligarchy. America is not a "Democracy" but a Republic. If you are talking about a compromise on Capitalism, I think you mean a "mixed economy" of some sort whether it be Fascism, Communism or Socialism. Some would call Singapore an example of Fascism. To quote Ayn Rand.. “Free competition enforced by law” is a grotesque contradiction in terms." I am not happy with any compromise on Capitalism for that means some form of tyranny (force at the point of a gun). Yes, I'm a purist. I think we need to openly reject all toxicity, no matter how diluted the arsenic in the big glass of water. . . the drink is still poisonous. We need to advocate the complete separation of the economy and the state.

Hello everyone, It feels like I’ve come through a passage way to a rare and safe place here. I think I’ve been drawn toward ideas since my youth. My search for truth seems to have been a life-long quest on which I have taken many wrong turns. I was raised in a Catholic environment but I declared myself an atheist at 15. I had a sense of Objectivist morality but could not find a way to concretize it or expand it and my exposure was always to its opposite ideas. I studied Geology and Anthropology at University. My life has been in a supportive role living around the world in other countries and raising my family. Living in Moscow, Indonesia and Cyprus and visiting many other countries gave me an opportunity for cross cultural study. Something was wrong with my world, particularly when it came to justice in all forms. My Father was a thinker and was my catalyst to free thought. My parents were both children of Americans who immigrated to Canada to grab free land so culturally maybe that is where some of my “sense of free life” came from. I became interested in politics in Canada as I could see no point for a Monarch of a foreign country to be our Head of State with her profile all over our money. I joined a movement for Canada to become a Republic and we even wrote and signed a Declaration of Independence. Through this journey I gave speeches to a few filled rooms and many empty rooms of people. It soon became apparent the deeper moral philosophy of the audiences was not anywhere near that of freedom and that politics was not a route toward real change. Then I discovered Ayn Rand and turned to what I see now, that it is philosophy at the root of problems and solutions. Objectivism to me is the only real philosophy with real solutions. I’m very happy to have found you all.

Gary Cooper... not particularly in The Fountainhead but as he became more rugged with age ..in Westerns... and the guy I think should have played Francisco d'Anconia in A$. . . Antonio Banderas Both of these men ooze self confidence by their seemingly cool indifference to the opinions of others. . . both are very easy on the eyes and both have gorgeous eyes.