Why the hatred towards alternative economic systems?

[Kittie Rose]

I would consider myself an objectivist in that I believe very strongly in objective values and morals. However, I do not like that it is "required of me" to be a Capitalist, it seems.

This seems rather ludicrous to me. How is the objective economic system one of Laissez Faires Capitalism? I shouldn't have to go off and read an "Economics book". You can at least outline the principles.

Of course, there IS no doubt an objective best economic system, but I doubt any of us would quite understand what it is just yet.

It strikes me as odd that "Marxists" are "evading" when the whole point of many economic systems that have evolved from Marxism is to find what ultimately works best for as many people as possible. This is very close to Utilitarianism, which is Objectivism. Surely Capitalists are "evading" by refusing to circulate money in a manner that benefits people in a more efficent manner?

I find that right wing economics and "right wing" social policies so often go hand in hand *because* they're based on not caring about people in situations different from whatever situation you decide is the "normal" one.

I think people are just following what a small handful of notably Objectivists have said about Marxism, most of which is sorely unbacked. The whole point of Objectivism should be to introduce logical thinking in a real useful manner.

If the only system that can work to a satisfactory level is Laissez Faires Capitalism, why is one of the best countries in the world in terms of standard of living and general life satisfaction Sweden, which is a socialist hybrid?

I am certainly not a "Randist". I don't see how the great moral good is refusing to accept that certain restrictions have to be put on some people's restrictions to ensure others are on a more equal standing.

Edited December 21, 2006 by Kittie Rose

[aequalsa]

I would consider myself an objectivist in that I believe very strongly in objective values and morals. However, I do not like that it is "required of me" to be a Capitalist, it seems.

...

If the only system that can work to a satisfactory level is Laissez Faires Capitalism, why is one of the best countries in the world in terms of standard of living and general life satisfaction Sweden, which is a socialist hybrid?

I am certainly not a "Randist". I don't see how the great moral good is refusing to accept that certain restrictions have to be put on some people's restrictions to ensure others are on a more equal standing.

Oh dear, Kitty...I don't know where to begin. First I suggest that you read some objectivist materials. In brief, capitalism follows from objective thought because objective thought leads you to a correct understanding of man's nature. A "rational animal" A volitional being that uses reason to survive. To excercise his reason and produce that which he needs, he must be free to do so. Capitalism is the only economic system which respects man's right to act according to the edicts of his own mind and therefore to act to benefit his own life.

You are conflating utilitarianism with one effect of capitalism. Capitalism does provide the greatest good for the greatest number but that is not it's moral justification.

I would like you to back up your assertion that sweden has the highest standard of living. I am fairly certain that is not the case, but Ill give you the benefit of the doubt.

[Olex]

I do not like the attitude of this post. You are acting like an attacker. Have you read the forum's rules before posting?

I will point out following:

I would consider myself an objectivist in that I believe very strongly in objective values and morals.

This is an error. Your views are not Objectivist . 'O' must be capitalized. It is the name of the philosophy. If you disagree on capitalism, then you are not O'ist, b/c it is part of the philosophy.

Surely Capitalists are "evading" by refusing to circulate money in a manner that benefits people in a more efficent manner?

Here comes the sacrificial song. Who is to circulate money? Whose money? Earned by whose work? What is required to be able to earn that money? You are the one evading the answers to those questions.

The whole point of Objectivism should be to introduce logical thinking in a real useful manner.

More nonsense. 'Useful' manner? By the context of your post, 'useful' apparently means to serve the good of others. This is plain wrong. Check your sacrificial premises.

If the only system that can work to a satisfactory level is Laissez Faires Capitalism, why is one of the best countries in the world in terms of standard of living and general life satisfaction Sweden, which is a socialist hybrid?

This is plain wrong. Sweden rides on a wave of prosperity it had a few decades ago, which was built by capitalism. It is falling apart now under socialistic rule.

I am certainly not a "Randist". I don't see how the great moral good is refusing to accept that certain restrictions have to be put on some people's restrictions to ensure others are on a more equal standing.

If you want to accept something for somebody else, go ahead, sacrifice yourself, but you have no right to force others to accept it as well.

[KendallJ]

Of course, there IS no doubt an objective best economic system, but I doubt any of us would quite understand what it is just yet.

You're sure there is one, yet without knowing what it is yourself, you're sure that I don't know what it is?

It strikes me as odd that "Marxists" are "evading" when the whole point of many economic systems that have evolved from Marxism is to find what ultimately works best for as many people as possible. This is very close to Utilitarianism, which is Objectivism. Surely Capitalists are "evading" by refusing to circulate money in a manner that benefits people in a more efficent manner?

1. Marxism has worked so well at its task, has it? When one screws up the world with a system that purports to be helping the most people, then I would have to say that someone has gotten something terribly, terribly wrong...

2. Utilitarianisn is not Objectivism. Which you would know if you had bothered to read one of those Objectivist "economics books".

3. Could you please provide some evidence for your claim that Capitalists job shoudl necessarily be to circulate money to your liking?

I think people are just following what a small handful of notably Objectivists have said about Marxism, most of which is sorely unbacked. The whole point of Objectivism should be to introduce logical thinking in a real useful manner.

Would you care to point out what part of Objectivist support of Capitalism is "sorely unbacked"? I'm sure that your logical thinking will point you to significant evidence of this.

If the only system that can work to a satisfactory level is Laissez Faires Capitalism, why is one of the best countries in the world in terms of standard of living and general life satisfaction Sweden, which is a socialist hybrid?

Because it's becoming more capitalist, not less.

http://www.forbes.com/global/2001/0319/034.html

I am certainly not a "Randist". I don't see how the great moral good is refusing to accept that certain restrictions have to be put on some people's restrictions to ensure others are on a more equal standing.

I'm sure you'll be willing to actually make a logical case for this argument?

[Kittie Rose]

Oh dear, Kitty...

Don't patronise me.

I don't know where to begin. First I suggest that you read some objectivist materials.

No. You can explain it to me. "What the best economic system is" probably isn't an area for this kind of philosophy to decide anyway.

In brief, capitalism follows from objective thought because objective thought leads you to a correct understanding of man's nature.

Bullshit. This is entirely non sequitor. Because we understand people are selfish, then we must allow them to persue selfish goals to any means? Should we let the violent do the same?

A "rational animal" A volitional being that uses reason to survive. To excercise his reason and produce that which he needs, he must be free to do so.

But what if his right to do so interferes with the rights of others? What is the Objective reason why someone should be allowed to have millions of dollars due to an economic system while children starve in the streets?

Capitalism is the only economic system which respects man's right to act according to the edicts of his own mind and therefore to act to benefit his own life.

What about the lives of others he trampling on to achieve those goals?

All your form of "objectivism" is is being incredibly narrowsighted.

You are conflating utilitarianism with one effect of capitalism. Capitalism does provide the greatest good for the greatest number

No it doesn't.

but that is not it's moral justification.

Then what is?

I would like you to back up your assertion that sweden has the highest standard of living. I am fairly certain that is not the case, but Ill give you the benefit of the doubt.

Then you're vastly uninformed. It certainly has a higher standard of living in the US. There are of course, certain indexes to measure this by.

Just about every "country profile" you read for Sweden that's not written by some bitter right winger states this. Example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/co...les/1021823.stm

This is an error. Your views are not Objectivist . 'O' must be capitalized. It is the name of the philosophy. If you disagree on capitalism, then you are not O'ist, b/c it is part of the philosophy.

And you wonder why you have such a terrible reputation?

You come off as incredibly arrogant and faux-intellectual individual. Why can I not be an objectivist? I believe in objective values and morals. Why do I suddenly have to stop claiming I do because some nutjob says otherwise?

Here comes the sacrificial song. Who is to circulate money? Whose money? Earned by whose work? What is required to be able to earn that money? You are the one evading the answers to those questions.

Hold on - YOU are the one saying that objectivism can only be achieved with capitalism. That is a vastly bold claim - you are the one who has to defend that too.

The government, of course one less corrupt than most we have nowadays, should do this. You seem to be of the illusion that any money that someone recieves is somehow "earned".

It is not. If you are concerned with doing the best for everyone, you have to cast aside convential notions to do so. Putting one concept above all others just for the sake of it is ridiculous.

More nonsense. 'Useful' manner? By the context of your post, 'useful' apparently means to serve the good of others. This is plain wrong. Check your sacrificial premises.

What an earth is wrong with that?

This is plain wrong. Sweden rides on a wave of prosperity it had a few decades ago, which was built by capitalism. It is falling apart now under socialistic rule.

No it isn't. You're just plain delusional. Just about all the really great things in Sweden right now can be traced back to be it's current "socialist" state. You should know this. You remind me of those neo-con nutjob who believe Europe is a "shithole".

It's not just Sweden. Europe(apart from all the eastern states we let in), in general, has a slightly higher standard of living than the US, especially in areas that embrace socialist concepts. For instance, the other Scandavian states have many similiar policies to Sweden. I have had friends who have been over to Sweden, and there is no doubt in their minds that it is a great country. It is NOT "falling apart" by any means. Again, going back to those neo-con nutjobs, there are some that believe the "Sanctity of Marriage" is falling apart in the Netherlands.

How exactly does capitalism benefit people as a whole, anyway? All it does it let huge piles of money amass in some people's pants while others starve. I say there is way way to be a true moral objectivist if this is what you believe, since clearly you are putting your own viewpoint before reality.

Edited December 21, 2006 by Kittie Rose

[Olex]

You come off as incredibly arrogant and faux-intellectual individual. Why can I not be an objectivist? I believe in objective values and morals. Why do I suddenly have to stop claiming I do because some nutjob says otherwise?

Capitalism is part of Objectivism as defined and created by Ayn Rand, if you don't agree with Ayn Rand, then you are not Objectivist by definition. You said you disagree with Capitalism, thus, you don't agree with it as Objectivism does, thus you are not Objectivist.

I had no intentions of being arrogant or anything else you mentioned above there. Do not assign me intentions.

Hold on - YOU are the one saying that objectivism can only be achieved with capitalism. That is a vastly bold claim - you are the one who has to defend that too.

It is defended in Objectivist literature.

You seem to be of the illusion that any money that someone recieves is somehow "earned".

I stated no such claim nor implied it in any of part of my post.

If you are concerned with doing the best for everyone, you have to cast aside convential notions to do so. Putting one concept above all others just for the sake of it is ridiculous.

I do not hold sacrificial ideas. I am concerned with what is best for me. I do not live for anybody else nor against anyone.

No it isn't. You're just plain delusional. Just about all the really great things in Sweden right now can be traced back to be it's current "socialist" state. You should know this. You remind me of those neo-con nutjob who believe Europe is a "shithole".

This is a clear personal attack. I'm reporting you.

The End.

[aequalsa]

Don't patronise me.

No. You can explain it to me. "What the best economic system is" probably isn't an area for this kind of philosophy to decide anyway.

Bullshit. This is entirely non sequitor. Because we understand people are selfish, then we must allow them to persue selfish goals to any means? Should we let the violent do the same?

But what if his right to do so interferes with the rights of others? What is the Objective reason why someone should be allowed to have millions of dollars due to an economic system while children starve in the streets?

What about the lives of others he trampling on to achieve those goals?

Actually, A paternal attitude is the appropriate one when you come accross someone who has such a large number of mistaken premises and you wish to believe that they are honestly mistaken rather then evasive or trolling. This naivete is best evidenced by your suggestion that a best economic system isn't to be decided by "this kind of philosophy". Not sure what "kind" you have in mind, but I will answer in general that economics is an aspect of politics and politics is an aspect of ethics and a proper ethics is derived from a proper understanding of both metaphysics and epistomology. If you do hold an Objective view of things and disagree only with the Objectivist economic system then I ask you to please explain what you believe Objective ethics, epistomology, and metaphysics is. Because if you did accept those, then capitalism naturally follows. THis leads me to believe that you disagree on a much more fundemental level.

The referral to mans nature was not about his being selfish. In fact he very often is not selfish, at least in the proper way. I was referring to the fact that he is volitional. He has freewill and must be free to think and to act in order to prosper. Rights of life,liberty, and property are necessary for this end. A right can not impose a positive obligation on another. You have a right to have your life not taken away but not a right to have it provided for. If you did, this would presuppose the question, provided by who? If it must be provided by someone else, then you have taken away their right to property they have acquired and by doing that you have taken away some amount of their time, which is to say, you have stolen some part of his life.

[Bold Standard]

I would consider myself an objectivist in that I believe very strongly in objective values and morals. However, I do not like that it is "required of me" to be a Capitalist, it seems.

"Objectivism" is the name of the philosophy defined by Ayn Rand. An "Objectivist" is someone who agrees with Ayn Rand's philosophy in its essentials. Ayn Rand's philosophy was systematic, incorporating all major branches of philosophy--epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, and politics. Her political philosophy was laissez-faire capitalism; because it is, as she said, the only moral political system in history, the only system to subordinate "might" to "right," and the only system to consistently uphold individual rights. [Reference: The Virtue of Selfishness pg. 109]

This seems rather ludicrous to me. How is the objective economic system one of Laissez Faires Capitalism? I shouldn't have to go off and read an "Economics book". You can at least outline the principles.

Why do you put "Economics book" in scare quotes? The most essential argument for laissez-faire is that it upholds individual rights--the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, to which every individual has a moral claim, by virtue of being a rational animal. Every other system violates these rights, arguing that individuals should be sacrificed for the good of the whole--much like ancient savages sacrificed individuals into the volcano to please the gods.

This is very close to Utilitarianism, which is Objectivism. Surely Capitalists are "evading" by refusing to circulate money in a manner that benefits people in a more efficent manner?

Although Utilitarianism claims to be an objective approach to morality, it is not Objectivism--it is not, nor is it consistent with, the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Virtually all the defenders of capitalism, from the nineteenth century to the present, accept the ethics of utilitarianism (with its slogan "The greatest happiness of the greatest number") as their moral base and justification—evading the appalling contradiction between capitalism and the altruist-collectivist nature of the utilitarian ethics. Mr. Cohen points out that utilitarianism is incompatible with justice, because it endorses the sacrifice of minorities to the interests of the majority. (I said this in 1946—see my old pamphlet Textbook of Americanism.)

What is the cause of today's egalitarian trend? For over two hundred years, Europe's predominantly altruist-collectivist intellectuals had claimed to be the voice of the people—the champions of the downtrodden, disinherited masses and of unlimited majority rule. "Majority" was the omnipotent word of the intellectuals' theology. "Majority will" and "majority welfare" were their moral base and political goal which—they claimed—permitted, vindicated and justified anything. With varying degrees of consistency, this belief was shared by most of Europe's social thinkers, from Marx to Bentham to John Stuart Mill (whose On Liberty is the most pernicious piece of collectivism ever adopted by suicidal defenders of liberty).

You see, Objectivism is a systematic philosophy. Its politics are derived from its ethics, which are derived from its metaphysics and epistemology. It is a rather complex conceptual chain which is necessary to explain the full justification for capitalism, according to Objectivism. It can be done, but it would take the course of a whole book to do adequately and comprehensively.

I find that right wing economics and "right wing" social policies so often go hand in hand *because* they're based on not caring about people in situations different from whatever situation you decide is the "normal" one.

Objectivists are not conservatives. We care about individual rights, not "normal situations." In fact, we value the exceptional people over the "normal" ones.

I am certainly not a "Randist". I don't see how the great moral good is refusing to accept that certain restrictions have to be put on some people's restrictions to ensure others are on a more equal standing.

Restrictions on restrictions? I believe you mean restrictions on freedom and prosperity? But these are a violation of the rights of those individuals being restricted.

[edit: fixed punctuation. edit 2: added reference for AR's moral justification for capitalism, from essay "Man's Rights" in VOS.]

Edited December 22, 2006 by Bold Standard

[Inspector]

Stop, stop, stop, stop, STOP!

Everybody stop. This needs to be brought to essentials quickly, or else we're all going to run in circles with the marxist that started the thread.

Capitalism is defined here as the economic system that completely outlaws the initiation of force. All other economic systems must necessarily allow the initiation of force. The reason why "all other" economic systems are hated is because all other economic systems, to one degree or another, initiate force.

Period.

[hunterrose]

The whole point of Objectivism should be to introduce logical thinking in a real useful manner.

That sounds cool.

The whole point of many economic systems that have evolved from Marxism is to find what ultimately works best for as many people as possible.

But if we're to think logically, the first question there is: why should we base a system on what works best for as many people as possible? A person (e.g. a Marxist?) who blankly accepts that economic systems should be utilitarian is evading whether utilitarian systems are actually objectively best.

I don't see how the great moral good is refusing to accept that certain restrictions have to be put on some people's restrictions to ensure others are on a more equal standing.

Why ought we ensure that others are on a more equal standing in the first place?

[DavidV]

Regarding Sweden, read my recent post about Sweden’s “soft dictatorship.”

Reminder: name calling is a quick way to get banned from this forum.

[Bold Standard]

Stop, stop, stop, stop, STOP!

Everybody stop. This needs to be brought to essentials quickly, or else we're all going to run in circles with the marxist that started the thread.

Capitalism is defined here as the economic system that completely outlaws the initiation of force. All other economic systems must necessarily allow the initiation of force. The reason why "all other" economic systems are hated is because all other economic systems, to one degree or another, initiate force.

Period.

Would you agree that "outlaws the initiation of force" is simply another way of saying "upholds individual rights"?

[Inspector]

Would you agree that "outlaws the initiation of force" is simply another way of saying "upholds individual rights"?

Of course, but the Marxist won't have a clue what you mean. You're going to need to explain the connection.

[intellectualammo]

I would consider myself an objectivist in that I believe very strongly in objective values and morals. However, I do not like that it is "required of me" to be a Capitalist, it seems.

Very strongly, huh? Capitalism is based upon an objective theory of values. That is its moral defense, and Objectivism is its philosophic base. Period. If you consider yourself an Objectivist, as you say you do, then you are an atheist...you are a capitalist...and so forth. It's not as you say "required", but accepted as part of the closed philosophic system, known as Objectivism.

If you do not accept laissez-faire capitalism...Rose, you are in the wrong garden. Go plant yourself somewhere else. We are radicals for capitalism here. Roses like you are merely weeds, that must be weeded out. If you find something wrong with laissez-faire capitalism, then you also do with Objectivism, and so you can no longer consider yourself an Objectivist. Maybe you should use your petals to open up a book, such as "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand, or "The Capitalist Manifesto" by Andrew Bernstein. There is enough sunlight on those bright white pages to help you to understand which garden you should really be in.

Edited December 22, 2006 by intellectualammo

[Bold Standard]

Very strongly, huh? Capitalism is based upon an objective theory of values. That is its moral defense, and Objectivism is its philosophic base.

When an Objectivist says that his politics is based on an "objective" ethical theory, by "objective" he means, "corresponding to objective reality." When a Utilitarian says his politics is based on an objective ethical theory, he means, "disinterested; applies to everyone." So there is a definitional issue of what it means to be "objective," that goes deeper than ethics--relying on the answers to epistemological (and metaphysical) questions. That's another reason that giving the kind of sound-byte type point-by-point answers this thread seems to be seeking is quite difficult.

[Bold Standard]

Of course, but the Marxist won't have a clue what you mean. You're going to need to explain the connection.

Oh, okay. Here's my best attempt to sum it up in a few words--A right can be seen as essentially a moral claim to be left alone. The right to life means freedom from having one's life taken. The right to liberty means freedom from having one's actions forcibly limited (upon threat of violence). The right to property means freedom from having one's possessions stolen, or vandalized. The right to the pursuit of happiness means freedom from being compelled to act towards one's own destruction. How can one's life be taken? How can one's actions be controlled? How can one's property be taken? How can one be made to act towards one's own destruction? The answer is: Only through force and fraud. Freedom is freedom from force and fraud. Political freedom means the banishment of the initiation of force and fraud from human relationships. Stated in the positive, political freedom means the upholding of individual rights. The upholding of individual rights means the banishment of the initiation of force and fraud from human relationships. The political system which is based on the principle of upholding individual rights is called: laissez-faire capitalism.

For a more detailed and eloquent explanation, see Ayn Rand's essays "Man's Rights" and "The Nature of Government" in The Virtue of Selfishness (they can be read on their own apart from the rest of the book, although the whole book is helpful for understanding these issues).

[Inspector]

Very strongly, huh?

As you may have figured out and no doubt, at the very least, suspect, Rose is a Marxist troll and is only claiming Objectivist ties. (In order to... what? Appear legitimate?)

The very question of this thread shows that (he? she?) is not the least bit familiar with Objectivism, and is furthermore quite dishonest in representing herself as otherwise.

Oh, okay. Here's my best attempt to sum it up in a few words--

That's a fairly good summary, but I severely doubt that our "guest" is the least bit interested in doing anything but trolling.

[intellectualammo]

So there is a definitional issue of what it means to be "objective,"

I was under the impression that only Objectivism has the epistemological right to call their theory of values an objective one. They do, but I can understand what you are saying, Bold.

Keep in mind that Rose has already considered herself or himself an Objectivist, who does "believe in objective values and morals". So, knowing both of those pieces of information, we then have to focus on the objective theory of values in Objectivism itself. They give us the moral defense for laissez-faire capitalism, and that is exactly where Rose is not planted firmly in, so to speak. Rose doesn't want to accept that, and is challenging that in this thread. Rose is only making this soil more and more inhospitable for herself/himself to grow in here.

Edited December 22, 2006 by intellectualammo

[intellectualammo]

Regarding Sweden, read my recent post about Sweden’s “soft dictatorship.”

Anyone else remember reading pages 320-22 in "The Capitalist Manifesto" where Bernstein brings up the topic of Sweden?

Does this quote from the book, ring a bell?:

from page 322:

"Two conclusions must be drawn: First, Sweden rose to proseperity as a capitalist system, and the massive socialist elements of its post-1960s period is slowly lowering its standard of living. Certainly, as with all countries possessing a substantial degree of political/economic liberty, Sweden is prosperous - and is fabulously wealthy relative to the starving Third World dictatorships that never had a capitalist period. Still, 'Sweden's rapid economic growth occured before the imposition of the welfare state. As government control became more pervasive...previous gains were eroded and were insufficient to maintain Swedish prosperity.'

However, a second, more fundamental conclusion regards the nature of innovation. The Swedes and Norwegians, et al., are wealthy to a significant degree because they possess automobiles, airplanes, electic lights, telephones, televisions, modern medical and agricultural technology, personal computers, state of the art software, Internet access, etc. But these products were not invented in modern Sweden, Norway or in any other semi-socialist state. Overwhelmingly, they were created in capitalist America, many during the Inventive Period of America's greatest freedom."

Edited December 22, 2006 by intellectualammo

[DavidOdden]

However, a second, more fundamental conclusion regards the nature of innovation.

...

But these products were not invented in modern Sweden, Norway or in any other semi-socialist state. Overwhelmingly, they were created in capitalist America, many during the Inventive Period of America's greatest freedom."

IMO, this is a subtle yet profound insight. There are individual exceptions, but something that has always struck me about Scandinavia is how unimportant "career" is. Aggressively pursuing professional goals is not an indigenous value, and what the heck was invented up here (apart from lutefisk and skis)? The job is not a central expression of your values, it is an inconvenience that you deal with so that you can pay your taxes and have fun. The one thing that seems to have kept the system going is the feeling that you shouldn't be a slacker, and I think that ethic is dying.

[Tabitha]

If I lived in Sweden, I would have a huge problem with being forced to pay for other people to have and raise kids (among other things). Maternal and paternal leaves are 18 months per child; half is paid by the employer and the other half, by the state. Why should individual citizens be forced to subsidize your decisions (or anything, really) -- especially when the upshot is the creation of another generation of mooching?

[DavidOdden]

If I lived in Sweden, I would have a huge problem with being forced to pay for other people to have and raise kids (among other things). Maternal and paternal leaves are 18 months per child; half is paid by the employer and the other half, by the state.

To the west, they also have barnetrygd, a payment of about $150 a month until the child is 18, just for having a child. That's about $33,000 additional, or $2.25 billion in annual welfare payments. Plus you have to put up with their spawn.

[gags]

Why should individual citizens be forced to subsidize your decisions (or anything, really) -- especially when the upshot is the creation of another generation of mooching?

You'll never receive a satisfying answer to that question from a Marxist.

[Bold Standard]

That's a fairly good summary, but I severely doubt that our "guest" is the least bit interested in doing anything but trolling.

Thanks. : ) As to trolls, eh, I don't write primarily for my audience anyway. ; P

I was under the impression that only Objectivism has the epistemological right to call their theory of values an objective one.

Ack, I wish you hadn't chosen those words, after I worked so hard defining legal "rights." Just so that no one's confused--everyone has a legal right to say whatever they want [edit: with the exception of words that are actually an initiation of force, such as a threat or an order to have someone attacked, or famous yelling "fire" in a theater scenario, etc], since the right to free speech is a derivative of the right to liberty. As to this sentence, which uses the word "right" in a quite different context and meaning, I agree that only Objectivism can properly call it's theory of values "objective"--by the Objectivist definition of "objective." But, supposing that Utilitarianism could call its theory of values objective according to its definition (which really, it ultimately failed to do, which is one reason it ended up collapsing into something that could advocate socialism) it could be possible for both to do so at the same time, since they do not accept the other's definition for "objective." And the reasons for that are not derived directly from their theory of values (i.e., their ethics), but primarily from their theories of knowledge (epistemology; and also their metaphysics, theory of the nature of reality). According to Objectivism, "objective" doesn't mean "disinterested." According to Utilitarianism, "objective" doesn't mean "corresponds to objective reality." But it's not an arbitrary semantic decision; in order to determine which definition is correct, the premises that give rise to the definitions must be checked (which is more complicated a task than I have time to elaborate on this morning).

Anyone else remember reading pages 320-22 in "The Capitalist Manifesto" where Bernstein brings up the topic of Sweden?

I haven't gotten a chance to buy and read it yet, so thanks for the quote! I'm looking forward to reading it eventually. Edited December 24, 2006 by Bold Standard

[Maarten]

To the west, they also have barnetrygd, a payment of about $150 a month until the child is 18, just for having a child. That's about $33,000 additional, or $2.25 billion in annual welfare payments. Plus you have to put up with their spawn.

We have the same thing here. I think it only works up until the 4th child, but I can't say that I've been paying very much attention to it. In fact, I had completely forgotten about the practice until I read this.