Ayn Rand, Toilet Paper Meet Pro-business Socialism

[Justino]

This is my first time starting a new thread. Be gentle.

The title of this guy's blog post, HERE, was pure gold. Not only does he [not] have the slightest understanding of economics (favoring a pro-business socialism ), he has some overt obsession with toilet paper. I couldn't make this stuff up.

So this is what I post in the comments section as a response:

    Wow, that straw man took a beating. We need more of that passionate reasoning, you know, speaking truth to power. ONLY, MORE CAPITALS NEXT TIME!

    However, if I may interject for a moment--the purpose of capitalism, the free trade of property rights, is to have the government behave neither pro-business nor pro-consumer, letting the private parties agree to the terms of the deal themselves.

    But your toilet paper utopia is not out of reach even in capitalist nations. You are free to voluntarily join a commune or any other such arrangement you find, instead of literally forcing yourself onto others.

    I'm not necessarily opposed to the toilet paper idea, BTW. I'm just curious of how you would decide how much to produce, where at, what quality, who produces what, and so forth in the production line. You know, the same questions socialists have failed to account for in the last 150 years with regimes that have no place for property rights and no monetary system for exchange.

    Moving on. In feudal Europe, what separated people was who ate and who starved. Now the divide is who drives a Benz and who drives a used Ford, who eats steak and who eats quarter-pounders.

    It is a mistake to look at income as the measuring stick for equality. Instead look for what you can actually buy with that income. Whenever you find a high-priced product, there is bound to be a much cheaper alternative, For example, the Whole Foods vs. evil Wal-Mart scenario.

    But you are right in one regard. There are two sets of people: those who serve the needs of consumers and those who don't.

    And if you wish to discuss slavery, then understand that it was the mechanization of agriculture under capitalism that exposed the inefficiencies and wastefulness of involuntary servitude.

I can't wait until he responds.

>>>Edited to remove minor profanity, however since the rest of the post was respectful, I allowed it to stand.--Jennifer<<<

Edited June 18, 2005 by JMeganSnow

[Capitalism Forever]

Ah, Jennie and I were trying to moderate this post at the same time...Looks like she beat me.

[Capitalism Forever]

I can't wait until he responds.

Don't hold your breath...I think his most probable response is to delete your comment. Toilet paper-worshipping communists are not known for their respect for dissenting opinions.

The title...was pure gold.

You need to learn to have higher standards. Watching toilet paper worshippers as they scream in pain at their own stupidity is a nice form of entertainment when you've got nothing better to do--but most of the time, I have.

[BurgessLau]

So this is what I post in the comments section as a response:

Justino, what do you gain from spending your time dealing with such people? Do you see some value to you that would justify such an investment of your time?

In brief, the puzzle for me is why anyone would spend time on a "nut job" rather than on bigger issues -- and bigger targets. Your reasons for doing so could be very enlightening.

[Justino]

Well, rest assured. I use Bloglines to subscribe to certain search phrases. One of those is "capitalism." So when that word pops up on in a blog post, I get to see a short summary of the post.

And I like practicing to defend my ideas. Also, it helps if you can type fast.

[Added] Also, my original post was edited by the moderator to read "Not only does he [not] have the slightest understanding of economics." I could have made my statement clearer; but I meant what I originally said--he does have "the slightest understanding of economics."

Edited June 19, 2005 by Justino

[JMeganSnow]

That's highly nonstandard usage and likely to be misunderstood.