Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


prescient last won the day on December 3 2014

prescient had the most liked content!

About prescient

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Real Name
  • Copyright

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. where to start? This proposition seems so insulting. Economists in the preceding six years have been quarter after quarter unexpectedly surprised or taken aback by the results of the previous quarter. These same economists made predictions or assessments for the next quarter and again unexpectedly surprised to be off the mark where reality fell short of their attempts to talk up dysfunctional policies.This fellow is no different. His making a comparison between a society formed around principles of minimal governance and respect for the individual against societies of the past formed around mo
  2. Well put and in 1981. This same affliction infects American business, governmental and acedemic institutions today. As pointed out 32 years ago, the successful have been cowed into accepting some blame or shame for benefiting from their success rooted in their abilities, motivation and ambition. Instead of admiring the successful and striving to emulate the them, a growing number of people are brain-washed into hating the successful and expecting to be entitled to the very rewards of those who have succeeded. Perversely, this very sentiment has been formulated and advanced by members of the ve
  3. This manner of left leaning tantrum is too frequent and as always mis-guided. Attack Ayn Rand while ignoring the basic message. Statism and the tyranny of altruism is counter productive and not conducive to a well functioning society. People like Maher disregard this was proved by the failure of the Soviet Union in its 76-year experiment with the cradle-to-grave-model of social engineering. Maybe those of Maher's ilk are blissfully unaware of this since the old Bolshevik empire simply dissipated because there was no hard structure to collapse and cause destruction and the create the spectacle
  4. What too many critics of Rand completely miss is that these two stories pointed out are intended to be cautionary tales rather than scripts or manuals for living. They are just stories. Howard Roark and John Galt are characters who produced solutions to architectural and energy producing problems. One character struggles to maintain his integrity in an industry which displays a weather vane type behavior. The other character is fighting against an out of control state. Neither of them imposes the product of their efforts in a "for your own good" manner we see practiced today by the statists r
  5. Nothing makes objective discussion difficult like a subject term. Words like fair, enough or "too much" are bandied about too casually and the treatment of these terms as fact rather than opinion is dangerous. The opinion that someone "makes too much", "doesn't pay enough taxes" or "they need to pay their fair share" are the uninformed opinions which shaped this recent election. We have indeed entered an era of the church of statism and every payday is a forced collection to subsidize the good works of this contrived theology.
  6. This is certainly an act of incitement which can only backfire. How advertising licensed gun owners helps the public is mystifying. I think a degree of quid quo pro is in order. A map pointing out women who have received abortions would be a good start. We really do need to know who is on public, taxpayer funded, assistance. Where do the six offenders in our neighborhood reside? These have to be far more relevant than pointing out people who actually obey the law.
  7. How have we come or how far have we gone? The misue of firearms leads to injury or death and now we want to ban them. The misuse of drugs leads to injury or death and now want to to legalize them? Is this legalization an admission a war is lost or a tacit acknowledgement that too many are too weak minded to not use drugs? Is it easier to rationalize sloth and depravity rather than put the effort into self control? The war on poverty has certainly failed to the absurd point where we subsidize it through confiscated income, yet complain at once about people are in poverty. Why are we not disman
  8. Well, Clinton may have been a better politician, but he was certainly not a better president. The nation was not helped by four terrorist attacks by November 2000 and an economic collapse by March 2000. Not to mention Clinton strengthened the Community Reinvestment Act which lit the fuse on the housing crisis which blew up by 2008. The choice of a statist over statist is not much of a choice.
  9. I think what you are referring to is philanthropy. One's efforts to help their fellow man irrespective of their accumulated wealth or earning power is simply an act of benevolence. A person's voluntary efforts on their time to help the truly poor cannot be deemed hurtful where this philanthropist has not used the levers of the state to confiscate other peoples' income or compel others to act through coercive or subtly manipulative means.
  10. While Mr. Tedeschi’s observations are right on the mark, I would propose “Keynesian” economic theory is not growing as an influence and rather the growth of this economic theology is already well established and now working to establish permanence where it has been well established on both sides of the Atlantic for decades. In the U.S. since at least the New deal programs of the Great Depression. In the context of recent developments in the U.S., as Keynesian economics are theoretical, they are treated as law. They are treated as unassailable fact where if the government is spending large amou
  11. I will resist the temptation to make a crack about Fred Shapiro simply because, well, who is Fred Shapiro? The point being missed by Mr. Shapiro, sarcasism notwitstahding, is that making money is not a sin or affront to society. Fred seems a bit confused about the question and seems somewhat dismissive of Rand's contention we are free to benefit from the fruits of our labor without having to be subjected to the contrived idea we must comply to a subjective assesment of what we owe society such that those who do not expend the extra effort to succeed can realize the benefits of other peoples' a
  12. By first, this content must viewed understanding the The Daily Show is an entertainment program hosted by an admitted fake newsman on a comedy channel. Beyond that it is funny indeed. Another amusing example of the pretzel logic of the subjectivist statists attempting to butter both sides of their bread then explaining we should not try the same. San Francisco is the model which the progressives in Washington (Paging Nancy Pelosi!) attempt to expand to the rest of the republic. These are amusing anecdotes but people who can think critically and objectively soon see through these transparently
  13. When someone like Tom Snyder attempts to discuss a book he has not read with the author who, I cringe. This clip was quite informative and as philosophy and epistemology may seem abstract at first, Ayn does a good job of breaking down the base concept into understandable language. As the tag line under the clip states, we are first and foremost responsible for ourselves and to ourselves. If we cannot meet these two essentials, how then can we expect to be of any use to others around us?
  14. An interesting and thought provoking short film. However, a couple of the follow-up questions have the “have you stopped beating your wife” flavor which cannot have a simple yes or no answer. If you willingly enter into a contract which you have read through and understand, how then can your decision to break that contract be defended? Unless of course the other party in the contract has abrogated their responsibility in the contract. If I understood the film, the principle invented something he did not want to surrender to his employer even though the employer has provided the main character
  15. This discussion once seemed to be the philosophical difference of statism versus the free market. The whole conversation seems now to have fermented into unholy mating of statism and the free market. I think in some respects, these former objectivists have been beaten having worked in a decades old system which has extolled the tyranny of altruism. A system which has made a virtue of good intentions rather than substantive outcomes. That is, there is a resignation in the Alan Greenspan’s of the world that the statist interference in the free market capitalism is here to stay, fact of life
  • Create New...