Ayn Rand's ideas help kill an American Icon. (soldier, healthcare, speech)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mises, Rothbard and Hayek are much better reading than Rand.
And yes the VAT is evil.
Agreed. Rothbard is correct on at least two points. Banks doing well has nothing to do with a good economy. He is also to be praised for being correct on ordinal utility vs cardinal utility. Hayek is to be praised that his idea of market money as the only real competitor to fiat sovereign money in a federated state. That is why I would like to see them both. Among other reasons is government cannot tax a commodity to provision itself with out making a de facto legal tender which means a bigger government will be good for the cartel that controls the market money the government chooses(is forced to choose by the growing power of the cartel). Of course, as I also say, government cannot go into debt without printing money. Sovereign favors are liquid assets which have the least amount of aggregate material value.
I would also add some more context to our little dilemma. The Scottish clearances, I'll bet few people even know about. Who protected the Highlanders from their own chiefs? I'll bet if you looked into it you have the means to find the answer. You seem to be one of logical means by my reckoning.
Agreed. Rothbard is correct on at least two points. Banks doing well has nothing to do with a good economy. He is also to be praised for being correct on ordinal utility vs cardinal utility. Hayek is to be praised that his idea of market money as the only real competitor to fiat sovereign money in a federated state. That is why I would like to see them both. Among other reasons is government cannot tax a commodity to provision itself with out making a de facto legal tender which means a bigger government will be good for the cartel that controls the market money the government chooses(is forced to choose by the growing power of the cartel). Of course, as I also say, government cannot go into debt without printing money. Sovereign favors are liquid assets which have the least amount of aggregate material value.
I wish everybody understood this...it's amazing how many people don't OR just don't care.
Quote:
I would also add some more context to our little dilemma. The Scottish clearances, I'll bet few people even know about. Who protected the Highlanders from their own chiefs? I'll bet if you looked into it you have the means to find the answer. You seem to be one of logical means by my reckoning.
From my understanding, the Highlander Clans adhered to a non-aggression axiom as a result of the Glencoe Massacre. Admittedly, I am not well read on the Scots..especially the pre-cleared Highlanders
I wish everybody understood this...it's amazing how many people don't OR just don't care.
From my understanding, the Highlander Clans adhered to a non-aggression axiom as a result of the Glencoe Massacre. Admittedly, I am not well read on the Scots..especially the pre-cleared Highlanders
Ok....totally see why you went there now.
Wouldn't this dilemma have presented itself even if land were still held collectively? The bottom line is there was land being used...no matter who the landlord is...a decision would have been made in regards to it's utilization.
I wish everybody understood this...it's amazing how many people don't OR just don't care.
From my understanding, the Highlander Clans adhered to a non-aggression axiom as a result of the Glencoe Massacre. Admittedly, I am not well read on the Scots..especially the pre-cleared Highlanders
Me reference is specifically about the clan leader no longer having a need for their people once they fell under the full governance of England. So it was better to make room for sheep. Thus the liberty of the average Highlander was guaranteed by the conflict between Scotland and England before it was over decisively at Culloden.
Consider what self determination means. For example say there was a group of 100 people and a group of 5. What would occur if they joined the 105 under a democracy? Even if it were a that the group of 5 were somewhat dominated by 1 of their group there is hardly self determination when joining the 105. The 5 will enjoy another tyranny.
It is the scale that matters. Assume there was that 100 again and the original 5. Assume again the other five find 20 other clans like them at 5 each. Perhaps they can ward off the 100. So what happen is this federation is a single force against a common enemy, but they are no monoculture among themselves. They will be the happiest of states because the scale of their enemy is the same as they collectively and any sort of tyranny between them is not going to occur among them so easily with the 20 states.
That is the most flexible condition for the individual. It was these states that were Greece, Rome and the United States, all of which were very powerful.
Rand's philosophy of the "individual" will destroy it all, just like Marx.It creates a monoculture and a power vacuum. Individual liberty will take care of itself when petty states hold each other in check, a market system if you will. We should not free the individual, we should divide the states to be distinctive but unified from the outside. If we do not find away to increase state power at the cost of Federal power liberty is lost for sure.
Wouldn't this dilemma have presented itself even if land were still held collectively? The bottom line is there was land being used...no matter who the landlord is...a decision would have been made in regards to it's utilization.
Actual that is another angle. My point is when your government has as its competition another government on its scale , liberty thrives. That is why Federations are so effective for liberty. When a threat comes, 50 states protect each other. The government in that context is at the scale capable of defence. Domestically the same goes for the states. Other states are on the scale of a possible rogue state. So the individual is protected in several ways.
As to the land provisioning:
It depends on how much it would be divided. In the US we also owned the land and thus the land rent was conflated with the labor output. So each individual would enjoy the produce of the sheep. That is why we in the US do not see feudalism hiding in capitalist clothing.It is also why socialism takes hold in Europe as their anti-feudal measure. I of course prefer more Georgist methods over the socialist ones.
If that were the case then she would be just another anti-socialist. But I bet we define what government is very differently. The problem she was trying to solve was altruism. You know because we are just a nation full of altruists , always throwing ourselves in front of the bus. There just doesn't seem to be enough greed and fear.
I mean you have to be kidding me. Talk about a solution looking for a problem. When was the last time you ran into an altruist? I don't think I am going to consider that 1 in a million altruist a threat. Don't feel guilty for self interest? OK , sure, already don't.
He wasn't kidding and he is dead center bulls-eye correct. The "Socialist" or "Collectivist" model to which Rand denounces, centers around altruism ... or rather, uses the ideal of altruism to sell it's seedy goods. It plays to the guilt factor which seems to pervade these days, denouncing those selfish individual as bad persons who think of their own best interests first, rather than accommodate the best interests of others ... or preferably, the "greater good" of the collective ... that fictional entity that really doesn't exist when the individuals who make up that "collective" have agreed to sacrifice self interests. This coincides with and is parlayed by promoting Egalitarianism ... another of the great frauds perpetrated by the left. So, everyone is equal, and we all must sacrifice our self interests in deference to the greater whole of "society". This is the premise established which leads to the sacrifice of privacy and individual freedoms and rights, which is always a central target of authoritarians, one and all. We have to endure the loss of privacy so that law enforcement can protect us .... we must sacrifice our 2nd Amendment right because too many of our fellow citizens are dying from gun violence ... we must sacrifice the 1st Amendment right of free speech because words are harmful .... the list goes on and on, and it's a transparent fraud immediately recognizable to anyone with an ounce of insight and common sense.
The hard cold truth is, Altruism is a tactic, not an ideal ... it's a snake oil salesman trying to convince you not just to buy snake oil for yourself, but to pony up and buy it for your neighbors as well. Everyone needs to pitch in so that there can be snake oil for everyone!!! That is what is behind the concept of collectivism .... it's a scheme, rather than a philosophy, which leads to misery for all, as they are "collectively" sheared like sheep.
Strange, I get that familiar feeling when I read Ayn Rand.
Then you must consider Aristotle a boring buffoon, do ya? It must be very lonely being smarter than one of the greatest intellectuals in history.
Since Rand herself identifies Aristotle as her most significant influence, among a few other notable intellectuals, it only stands to reason that rejecting her ideas is not far removed from dismissing them too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
