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.

Having lived in Singapore, I see it is an example of a benevolent dictator, although not completely benevolent. . for it is an oppressive environment where man's mind cannot thrive. No real capitalist society could ever exist under those conditions. I think it is unhealthy to promote state controlled "capitalism" of any kind because to me "state capitalism" is an oxymoron. Capitalism is not only an economic system, it is a moral social system where all men have the freedom to think and produce unfettered by the ideas of an elitist regime who have the power to impose their few ideas on the rest. Instead we should have the benefit of millions of minds. I have often thought we should have a fun discussion of imagining how lassaize faire capitalism would manifest itself if it were to begin tomorrow. What would our world begin to look like? Infrastructure? Schools (maybe cyber schools run by parents?) Health care? etc. I think it would begin to bare no resemblance to our world today.

I suggest you read the bit on coercive monopolies (there can be more than one - in Canada the govt makes sure things appear competitive - there is always more than one drug store) in Capitalism the Unknown Ideal. If there was no government interference, that is the complete separation of the state and the economy, there would be a heck of a lot more companies competing. I think it is hard to imagine what a true lassaize faire capitalist system would look like. I think it would be completely unrecognizable from what we see today. I don't even think we would have roads.

I have just finished reading PARC and I agree completely with your accurate analysis of the book. I would like to know what other "platforms" the Brandens are using to exploit and destroy Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism.

Tony, Can lovers be friends and visa versa? I think you've coined the million dollar question . . "is one defying reality, eating your cake and having it?" . . and you are quite right.. at what cost? I have also been looking for the rational moral principle here. I don't know if you listen to Peikoff Podcasts but he had a couple of podcasts on the topic of lovers and friends (search "relationships) on May 2 and April 25. I wonder what you would think of Peikoff's opinion. The jury is still out for me. Unfortunately, many do pidgeon-hole Objectivists into cold analytical non-feeling anti-humans but now we can be armed. As far as thinking people of integrity go, yes I agree they are rare and precious. Many souls choose just to "blank out". Best, Gayle

Hi Tony, Thank you for the vivid insite and your kind words. I'm getting your picture too and I really appreciate this exchange. I don't regret being intimate with him and I don't consider the time we were together a waste. I only wish I had known how locked his door was before I began dating him because of how much I value a close relationship (for me that means being a very important factor in someone's life) and how deeply it has affected me since we parted. I did find him to be an honest man. He said his two sisters suggested to him its time he found someone to share his life with. . which sort of gave me the idea he was considering their suggestion. At one point I asked him if we were "going steady" because he would call me often and want to get together. He said he had never had a "normal" relationship but then we agreed we wouldn't date anyone else but I don't think either of us would have anyway. I think for me its not a matter of even living together but just to have a dedicated good friend who can witness my life would hold great value for me. He said he still wants to be my friend. So that brings me to the next question... is it possible to be a friend to someone and still have romantic feelings for them or is that a prescription for more heartache? I often wonder if being an Objectivist heightens the emotions because of the nature of the philosophy.. to critically and thoroughly analyze and identify reality. My best to you Tony, Gayle

Thank you for the vote of confidence whYNOT. I forgot to mention that my saxophone player is 55 and has never been married. On one of our first dates he told me that someone told him once to never admit that he'd never been married. I replied, "I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, maybe it means you have very discriminating taste and have not met the right person yet." Alas, I am healing now but I will look forward to the next golden opportunity. Gayle

I have been struggling with this question myself. I have not had much experience dating as I had been married for 20 years and recently divorced. I met a man a few months ago, a tall handsome saxophone player. We met after a concert he performed at in the parking lot. I was quite stand-offish but he was friendly and wanted to know what we were doing after the concert. My friend invited him and the others over for a drink so they came. We didn't sit together or talk much but at the end of the evening I saw him to the door and to the front garden. He said he found me very attractive and kissed me. I went away for a couple of months but we said we would be in touch when I returned. After our first meeting I felt I had gathered a strong first impression of him. . an attractive wonderful musician, strong silent type with lots of confidence. So when I returned we began dating. He seemed quite smitten with me. I was slower to warm to him but I was beginning to. He kept asking me if I still liked him. We went out hiking and for a few meals. I invited him back to my place. After a few dates he wanted to have sex but I said I wasn't ready. He seemed fine with that. Then I began to warm to him more as I got to know him. . we finally had sex but I think it was an expression of what we valued in each other. Neither of us had committed to each other though nor had we told each other about how we valued each other. . I think we were both romantically attracted but neither of us considered we were in "love". We have since had a breakup for what I think was his fear of commitment. He never referred to me as his girlfriend, just his "friend". After I had sex with him he seemed to begin backing away and when I told him how much I was beginning to feel for him he said, "oh oh, be careful". There were other factors involved including his getting sick so it is quite confusing. I am saddened and bewildered because I think we may have missed a golden opportunity. Was it wrong to have sex with him after about one month? I really don't know. Other's comments are welcome.

My x-husband warned me, "Don't ever try to leave me or you'll be sorry." A year ago, after 20 years of marriage, I told him I was through and wanted a divorce. He proceeded to throw me out, lock stock and barrel, from our matrimonial home, enlisting my 19 year old son's help in the process. At the same time my husband was prosthelytizing my son against me with bribery, oppression, defamation and psychological trickery. During our legal proceedings toward a divorce, my husband convinced my son (I believe with coercion) to testify against me in front of a court reporter claiming I was an abusive mom. He cited an event in which I slapped him for driving like a maniac on a dangerous country road. I believe I had no choice because he would not listen to reason and drive safely. It was either get his attention or perhaps be seriously hurt in an accident. My son signed his own Affidavit and attached it to my husband’s Affidavit. I believe my x was trying to discredit me as a wife and mother in front of the law in order to gain financially in the property dispute resolution. My son and his dad seem to have a solid alliance now, a sort of "man's club" and a common enemy, me, who broke up our family. I was a good mom and sole care giver for my son for many years when my husband worked overseas for lengthy periods of time. When my husband was home he was not proactive as a father with my son. I was never an abusive mom in any way and I was always concerned for my son's welfare. For example, I protested issues of indoctrination like global warming, etc. at his school and insisted to the Principal that an opposing view be presented to the class. My husband would portray me as a sort of wacko (for standing up to the teachers, etc) to my son in an attempt to discredit me in his eyes. For the last 3 or 4 years, due to deliberate defamation of my character to my son by my x, my relationship with my son has been severely estranged despite my trying to contact him with warm emails and calls. I don't believe my son acted in a manner true to his most inner feelings toward me. I think he still has a chance at developing an objective philosophy. I hope his self esteem has not been permanently damaged. He currently does not want to have anything to do with me or my side of the family including his half-sisters from a previous marriage. Once he pretended to be warm when he called but later I discovered he was only spying in order to gather information for his dad. I’m wondering if I should continue to try to contact my son and encourage a relationship with him? What about counseling if he would agree to it? He is 19 and legally an adult. I believe he still has some respect for me as his mom and that I could be a good influence in his life if he can find that respect again. But he is currently living as a second hander for his dad and others. A further complication is that I am concerned he may act as an informant for his dad which could have an adverse affect on my life. I wonder what hope there is for him now to have an honest and respectful relationship with me and ultimately to be a Howard Roark instead of a Peter Keating? Rationally, part of me is rejecting a relationship with my son due to the potential adverse affect it could have on my own life (due to him passing information about my life to my x, potential harmful defamation, etc.) The other part of me remembers my son as a delightful benevolent boy. I value his relationship and I would like the chance to guide him to maturity. Perhaps I could do that by just being a role model. I’m not sure. I think the philosophical question to my problem should be - Should a mother's love be unconditional for her son?