To the Glory of Man discussion
USA
>
Heroes
Mod
From Wikipedia:
He was upheld as a shining example in schoolbooks and lessons: as courageous and farsighted, holding the Continental Army together through eight hard years of war and numerous privations, sometimes by sheer force of will; and as restrained: at war's end taking affront at the notion he should be King; and after two terms as President, stepping aside.
*
Negotiating with Congress, the colonial states, and French allies, he held together a tenuous army and a fragile nation amid the threats of disintegration and failure. Following the end of the war in 1783, Washington retired to his plantation on Mount Vernon, prompting an incredulous King George III to state, "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."
*
The Electoral College elected Washington unanimously in 1789, and again in the 1792 election; he remains the only president to receive 100% of electoral votes.
*
He refused to run for a third, establishing the customary policy of a maximum of two terms for a president which later became law by the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.[38]
*
One of Washington's greatest achievements, in terms of republican values, was refraining from taking more power than was due. He was conscientious of maintaining a good reputation by avoiding political intrigue. He rejected nepotism or cronyism. Jefferson observed, "The moderation and virtue of a single character probably prevented this Revolution from being closed, as most others have been, by a subversion of that liberty it was intended to establish."
*
After retiring from the presidency in March 1797, Washington returned to Mount Vernon with a profound sense of relief. He devoted much time to farming and, in that year, constructed (or oversaw the construction of) a 2,250 square foot (75-by-30 feet, 200 m²) distillery, which was one of the largest in the new republic, housing five copper stills, a boiler and 50 mash tubs, at the site of one of his unprofitable farms. At its peak, two years later, the distillery produced 11,000 gallons of corn and rye whiskey worth $7,500, and fruit brandy.
On July 13, 1798, Washington was appointed by President John Adams to be Lieutenant General and Commander-in-chief of all armies raised or to be raised for service in a prospective war with France. He served as the senior officer of the United States Army between July 13, 1798 and December 14, 1799. He participated in the planning for a Provisional Army to meet any emergency that might arise, but did not take the field.
Mod
He is the embodiment of: "A moral man does not rule, nor can he be ruled by men".
Mod
Washington is the mightiest name on earth, long since mightiest in the cause of civil liberty; still mightiest in moral reformation. On that name, a eulogy is expected. It cannot be.
To add brightness to the sun, or glory to the name of Washington, is alike impossible. Let none attempt it. In solemn awe pronounce the name, and in its naked deathless splendor, leave it shining on.
Mod
I am a member of Operation Paperback.
From Chrissy:
We are a group of volunteers who send gently-used paperbacks to our troops, to give them some relaxation and mental escape.
We also try to find books that have been specially-requested by our soldiers. Here are some of our current requests:
Philosophy and History books, Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, self-help books....
To find out more, go to http://www.operationpaperback....
or email [email protected].
Mod
*
Please post your affirmation to this declaration, or your own. Thank you.
Washington is, by far, the greatest American to ever live and one of the greatest in all of history. A true hero who put his country before himself.I certainly admire industries achievements. They brought us a comfortable life and a way to earn an honest living.
I think Ben Franklin is my hero among the founding fathers. Probably the most multi-talented man of his day & individualistic. He also had a sense of humor.
Mod
*
Love of country is a selfish act. We want to live in a good country; we want a good society for our children.
*
From Reason Reigns: “It was the right thing to do. We couldn’t have done otherwise.”
Good men do things because “It is the right thing to do. I couldn’t do otherwise.” If they do oterwise, they would lose self-respect.
From Reason Reigns:
Frank and Alisa discussed a plan of action. When Alisa got up to leave, Frank warned, “Alisa, you are putting yourself and Toni in danger.”
“I am terrified. But Toni and I do not care to live without the freedom to think and act. We will not follow blindly nor live in fear. No. Not ever. I cannot stand by in safety while other decent people confront evil. I cannot hold convictions without acting upon them. To do nothing is not an option because I won’t like myself then. I have to help expose and stop the evildoers.”
“Almost everyone thinks I kidnapped Lola. Why do you think otherwise?”
“For years, you worked for the cause of freedom, and then chose the business of making people happy. The noblest of undertakings! But I am sorry; it took me hours before I realized that the charge against you is a contradiction.”
Mod
Ben Franklin, like Thomas Jefferson, was a polymath, a genius.
Jefferson is certainly a close second. He had a lot of passions that I share, including fine carpentry. (I'm going from memory here, so I may have some facts confused.) If you ever get a chance to read up on it, it's really interesting. I think James Dinsmore was one of his finest collaborators, brought over on indenture from Ireland - maybe England - to Monticello. Roy Underhill (The Woodwright's Workshop) turned me on to them both in his books & I'm fascinated by some of their joinery & creations. I'm pretty sure they dreamed up the library ladder that looks like a pole & becomes a usable, stable ladder when a catch is released. Their wooden hinges are really cool on some of the tables. Superior woodworking with awesome wood & imaginative joinery - it just doesn't get any better.
As I recall, Jefferson would get these ideas & Dinsmore would create it. Not sure if all the work I'm thinking of was Dinsmore or some others, but most of it was guided by Jefferson. If you ever get a chance to visit Monticello, it's well worth it.
Mod
I thank Ayn Rand and other Objectivist intellectuals for their virtues and precious gifts [e.g. their books]. They make it much easier for me to understand, and to form convictions.
Objectivist intellectuals and rational businessmen are heroes.
The book is not just for businessmen. It is also for thinkers who want to understand business and the government’s policies toward businessmen, like the jailing of businessmen, insider trading, anti-trust laws, etc.
It is for decent men, who wish mankind happiness, who impose on no one, who want to check if they hold false premises and could unwittingly hurt themselves, their loved ones, their heroes, or other good people.
I bought the book on July 4, 2006 at the Ayn Rand Bookstore of the 2006 Objectivist Conference [OCON] in Boston. The book was autographed by Dr. Edwin Locke. After attending OCON 2006, I started writing REASON REIGNS.
I have a simple common-sense philosophy when it comes to things that I do not yet fully understand: I ask myself, “Does this violate anyone’s rights?” If yes, I deem it to be bad. If not, I further ask, “Would it make me happy, or could it make someone happy?” If yes – then it’s good. Objectivism helps me understand.
*
I will be posting what I learned from this book.
A lot of writers have been heroes of mine; Asimov, Burroughs, Heinlein, Howard, Rand, Underhill, Wagner & Bill Wilson. All of these people opened themselves up, often put their souls down in print, & added to the world I live in. They gave me insights, flights of fancy & thoughts to ponder on.Not that any of them were perfect. They were human, had flaws, sometimes huge ones. Howard shot himself at 33, I think. Wagner drank himself to death. Heinlein's books after 1970 or so became long & rambling, espousing ideas that I found repugnant. Wilson was never financially successful.
Flaws or not, they all made a huge impact on me. Burroughs & Howard gave me heroic figures, while Wagner showed me their dark side. Asimov & Heinlein made me want to learn more about science & opened up space to me. Underhill gave me a hands-on touch with history, a personalized view that school never had. Rand & Wilson gave me philosophies to live by & think about - fuel for thought.
A lot of authors touched my life & helped shape me over the years. It's impossible to name them all & I often wish I could thank them. I also always respect them, even if I don't agree or really dislike some of their opinions & actions.
Mod
One has to consistently choose to think, to be rational; it's not a one-time choice.
Good fundamentals lead to consistency, to integrity.
Mod
From message _: I watched the movie, "The Boy Edison", years ago. These stuck in my mind:
The boy Edison was popularly described as addled because of his active mind and pursuits of knowledge (curiosity and experiments).
Scene:
His Mom got sick while his Dad and his older brother were away. Edison asked his little sister to fetch their brother.
Their Mom worsened during the stormy night. The doctor couldn’t operate until morning when there’s enough light. But Edison’s Mom might not survive the night without being operated on.
The town’s bridge was washed away by the storm that night. The townspeople could not communicate with the inbound train. Edison’s siblings were on the train with many other people. The town was desperate; the train would surely plunge into the river.
- - -
Continuation:
That night, young Edison thought up a solution to the inadequacy of lighting preventing the doctor from operating on Edison’s Mom. The boy couldn’t get in touch with the owner of a furniture store, so he broke in and took a big mirror. At home, he lit many lamps and placed them in front of the mirror – the refracted light brightened the room! The doctor successfully operated on Edison’s Mom.
The following morning, Edison returned the mirror. The furniture store owner did not wait for an explanation – he smacked the boy as the news about the endangered inbound train spread.
Young Edison joined the townspeople at, I believe, the train headquarters. No one had an idea how to communicate with the inbound train, except Edison, but none would listen to him. He climbed a truck (I believe it was a fire truck) and operated an apparatus which emitted loud sounds that could be heard from afar.
The townspeople realized what the young boy was doing – he was sending a message through Morse code!
The truck was driven to the riverbank where the bridge was as Edison continued to send: Stop the train! Danger!
On the train, only one person realized that the sounds were in Morse code – Edison’s little sister. She decoded the messages and told her eldest brother who, in turn, told the train conductor. But the latter dismissed the information. He thought, and I believe even told the other passengers, that the little girl was addled like her brother, Thomas.
The train neared the river at great speed. Thomas Edison continued to send messages and his sister continued to decode them.
As the young girl decoded the latest message, she exclaimed – “The town’s bridge was washed away!”
The conductor swiftly pulled a lever to stop the train.
The young Edisons saved the lives of many people. The town showed great appreciation to the young heroes.
*
Reason Reigns depicts young beau ideals. Some family members who read my drafts commented on the ages and feats of my novel’s young beau ideals – I reminded them of Thomas Edison and Jose Rizal.
I wrote Reason Reigns in such a way that it could be understood and enjoyed by readers of all ages. For parents or grandparents who want their young loved ones to be inspired by heroes like Thomas Edison and Jose Rizal, I hope you would check out Reason Reigns – the book is a great gift to loved ones, especially the young.
Mod
- Abraham Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.
Mod
- Abraham Lincoln's Cooper Institute Address, February 27, 1860.
Mod
- The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, "Reply to New York Workingmen's Democratic Republican Association" (March 21, 1864), pp. 259-260.
Mod
- The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, "Address at Sanitary Fair, Baltimore, Maryland" (April 18, 1864), p. 301-302.
Mod
by Edwin A. Locke (published in 2000)
Excerpts:
Even though the categories (and traits) are not, in reality, independent since each reinforces the others, I have grouped these traits into four categories:
1. Thinking
----- Independent vision
----- Active mind
----- Competence and confidence
2. Motivation
----- Drive to action
----- Egoistic passion
3. Attitude Towards Employees
----- Love of ability in others
4. Character
----- Virtue
In summary, here are seven points:
1. Know and use your ability
2. Follow your passion
3. Keep an active mind
4. Develop an independent vision
5. Take tenacious action
6. Hire great people
7. Practice virtue as a means of success
Other traits
- Competitiveness
- Charisma
- Communication
- Frugality
- Patience
Key business strategies that are timeless and universal
- Quality
- Innovation (new products, services, and technologies)
- Customer service
- Speed
- Cost (Low)
*
Foreword by John Allison, CEO, BB&T, Inc.
Over the last 250 years, the quality of life throughout the world has been transformed. Life expectancy has increased from nineteen years in 1750 to seventy years today, and practically everyone today lives better than a king in the 1700s. There has been more progress during this period than in the preceding 25,000 years.
What kind of environment has made this incredible progress possible? Dr. Edwin A. Locke’s answer is one based on reason, individual rights, and free markets.
Who made this great leap in productivity possible? Dr. Locke is unequivocally clear that productive geniuses from Thomas Edison to Bill Gates are the Prime Movers of human progress. While these men amassed great fortunes, they raised the standard of living for all of us. Tragically, despite their enormous contributions to human well being, they have been unjustly branded as “robber barons” and “greedy capitalists”.
What characteristics enabled these men to make such a significant contribution? These great creators have the capacity to see the big picture trends others cannot foresee: vision. They have active and independent minds with an undying commitment to action, the capacity to make rational decisions based on the facts, the ability to judge ability in others, and the willingness to reward superior contributions by others. These attributes produce a level of confidence and competence that leads to success.
Dr. Locke’s view is radically different from the common belief that progress more or less happens automatically or is the result of some undefined collective effort. Dr. Locke sees a relatively small number of outstanding individuals who make a disproportionate contribution to human well-being.
My experience as a banker and CEO of a successful S & P 500 company supports this conclusion. Over the years, I have learned from making loans to many types of businesses that when a company fails, it is practically never true that the average employee of the failed company is intrinsically less competent than the average employees of a successful company. It is almost always true that the reason for failure is poor leadership at the top of organization. Sometimes, unknowable and uncontrollable economic factors cause companies to fail, but 90% of the time, the failure is the result of irrational decisions made by the leaders. Success is the flipside of failure in this context. Occasionally, people get lucky, but 90% of the time, successful companies are created by powerful leaders.
I have often seen mediocre-performing operations transformed into high-performing units by changing leadership. While it is true that to be successful in the long term, a business must have excellent performance from all of its employees, exceptional leaders have the capacity to enable others to achieve more. Oftentimes, this change in performance is created simply (but profoundly) by being sure that everyone is headed in the right direction.
It is interesting to reflect on the implications of Dr. Locke’s thesis. If Dr. Locke is correct, we owe a huge debt to these Prime Movers, and we have a moral obligation to recognize that debt. The term “robber barons” should be driven from our vocabulary.
If the characteristics that Dr. Locke discusses have contributed to these individuals’ success, we should teach these attributes to our children. Clearly, the foundation attribute is an unwavering commitment to make independent, rational decisions based on the facts – which is the ultimate form of honesty.
We must avoid the temptation to use government to put “balls and chains” on great people. ”Balls and chains” are created by excessive taxation and mind-numbing government rules and regulations.
Every person alive today has a far better quality of life thanks to Thomas Edison. Edison’s list of life-enhancing inventions is incredible, including the invention of the research laboratory itself. When we put “balls and chains” on great people like Thomas Edison (or Bill Gates), we reduce the quality of life for the rest of us.
The same concept can be applied to industries. There have been gigantic leaps in productivity in the financial services, telecommunications, and transportation industries as these businesses have been deregulated. What industry is making the greatest progress? Technology. What industry is the least regulated? Technology. Government interference in free markets inevitably reduces productivity.
It is interesting that (so called) “intellectuals” on our college campuses still defend communism and socialism even after the unbelievable human misery created by the communist governments has been exposed. They use the “robber barons’ myth as an example of the evil of socialism’s alternative: capitalism. These “intellectuals” say that communism is good in principle, but difficult to practice because human nature is flawed. The “flaw” is that people tend to do what they are rewarded to do. They believe that people should be SELF-SACRIFICIAL. They must also believe that Mother Nature herself is flawed or they fail to recognize an immutable fact of nature, which is that everything that is alive must act in its self-interest or die. A lion must hunt or starve. A deer must run from the hunter or be eaten. Man must obtain food or perish. Our choice is to act in our self-interest or die (or barely survive in abject poverty, e.g., North Korea).
The underlining ethics of communism is: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. In other words, the more incompetent and less productive you are (i.e. the more needy), the more you receive. The more competent and productive you are, the harder you get to work. No wonder there are many needy people in such a system, and not many producers.
The morality of capitalism is exactly the opposite: From each according to his ability, to each according to his productivity. The more you produce, the more you receive. This is justice. No wonder there are many productive people in a capitalist system, and a higher standard of living for everybody.
Capitalism is the system that allows Prime Movers to make their MAXIMUM contribution. It provides the innovators and creators the freedom they need to use their independent judgment, often to do things that the crowd cannot see or understand. Prime Movers are the driving force of human progress, making our lives longer and happier.
* continued in the next post
Mod
Evidence that wealth-creation requires rational greed
by Richard M. Salsman
We've all heard about the alleged "robber barons." For decades the world's successful wealth creators - from Rockefeller to Gates - have been brushed with that smear. But Dr. Locke shows that the smear just can't stick. The wealth creators aren't the dishonest, short-range, conniving bullies we've long been told. Instead, they're both productive AND moral.
To his credit, Dr. Locke doesn't accept the prevailing view that rational self-interest is evil - or that humble self-sacrifice is noble. That's what makes this book special - in addition to Locke's ability to cut to the essential aspects of creativity in business.
I found Dr. Locke's survey of the great wealth-creators to be as unique as the subjects he studies. Guided by an objective standard for gauging productive prowess, Locke identifies a handful of the most crucial personality traits held in common by history's great business creators and leaders. One of my favorites is "love of ability in others." Successful employees at every level of business will be familiar with the envy and resentment they often get from their bosses. Locke shows that those aren't the successful bosses, that it takes an enormous ego (and self-confidence) to seek out and promote the best employees one can find.
In Dr. Locke's book we learn what's never yet been taught about the productive giants of yesterday and today. Better still, we're given a reality-based, time-tested, and objective yardstick for identifying the giants of tomorrow.
Want to make a bundle in business? Locke says you must develop an independent vision, an active mind, competence and confidence. You must be an activist (not a mere "idea man") and be passionate about your work. You must practice the virtues of rationality, honesty, integrity, independence, justice and self-interest (self-preservation). You must buck conventional opinion, which holds that rational greed is practical, but morally suspect. Locke shows us that rational greed is practical precisely because it's moral. Immoral approaches to business tend, in contrast, to dissipate wealth.
Locke doesn't just advise us. In bringing alive the achievements of the wealth creators, in citing their successes and quoting their own philosophies, he lets the creators speak to and inspire us. Here, Locke AND Rockefeller advise.
This book deserves the rapt attention of entrepreneurs, business leaders, board members, venture capital firms, executive recruiters and business students. It's not just a history lesson. It's a principled "how-to" book with a moral-philosophic base that permits the user to feel he can create ever more wealth and - equally important - feel proud of the wealth he's created.
Mod
- Henry Ford in 1907
We do owe a huge debt to our innovators & wealth creators, but that doesn't mean we should keep hands off entirely. They come in a lot of varieties & some are easier to live with than others. They don't have to get exceedingly rich, become 'kings' or stifle competition. Berners-Lee, Kern/Ritchie & Tvorvalds opened entire new markets without becoming the lords of their creations. Ford & Edison were both tough competitors, but not unfair ones, unlike the 'Robber Barons'. Profit is fine, unfair competition isn't.As I recall from my history courses about the 'Robber Barons' (decades ago) their behavior was fine up until the time they started using their monopolies to actually harm the economy by squeezing out all other competition. Didn't the railroad kings make inside deals with other large companies, jack up prices on the small guys in return for support for keeping their monopolies? There was more to it than that, of course, but the upshot was an exclusive club that threatened the national economy & stifled competition.
I don't recall Henry Ford ever being labeled as one of them, either. He came up with a new way of doing things, but his methods were quickly copied. Some auto manufacturers went out of business, but he didn't wreck factories or cut off resources to the competition.
Putting Gates & Microsoft into the same category doesn't work for me, either. Like Ford, Gates & company came up with a great idea & the competition completely failed to keep pace. Microsoft does use their advantage now as a club, but their stranglehold can & will be broken once there is some decent competition. Unfortunately, those with that ability have been too short sighted to do so & those who are now trying have a bigger battle to fight. Still, Microsoft isn't really a monopoly - the pieces are all there to kick them off their throne. We're just waiting for some innovator to do the hard work, gather the capital & reap the benefits.
Rand says someplace that she is for 'pure, unfettered, laissez-faire capitalism'. I've never understood that since the laissez-faire system accepts some government restraints & she's usually too precise in her wording to make such a mistake. In the laissez-faire system, the government can restrict companies for the good of the overall economy. Leaving major pieces of the national infrastructure completely unsupervised is just asking for trouble.
I'm not for the government messing about with business, if at all possible, though. Bailing out large companies is a worse cure than the disease is. Putting restraints on perceived monopolies should be done with a lot of caution & rarely because not all monopolies will stay that way. Technology & innovation can be a great leveler. Look at the Post Office. They held a monopoly for years until technology & a new business model caught up allowing competition.
Sometimes breaking up a monopoly is the best thing, though. I believe AT&T got its start with a lot of government help. At one time, it made sense to put everything into one basket. It was an emerging technology with a huge infrastructure needed & standards were needed. But it became a tyrant. Breaking up AT&T opened up a huge can of worms, left local 'last mile' monopolies, but it also took a stagnant, closed system & refreshed it by allowing new competition. Back in the day, you leased a specific PBX from AT&T - no other options. Now there are hundreds of players in that space. Competition is active - too active for some of us. It takes months or years to make a decent choice among the varied vendors & products.
Mod
Ayn Rand is for the complete separation of state and economics, i.e capitalism, because it is the social system that respects individual rights.
From wise and honest President Abe Lincoln: “Property is the fruit of labor... property is desirable... is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."
The only moral social system is one that respects individual rights, i.e. Liberty, defined by Presidents Lincoln and Jefferson as: each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor, within limits drawn around him by the equal rights of others.
For decades now, the housing and financial industries are not free. The lending practices that politicians now blame on lenders are mandated by the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) enacted in 1977. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communit...
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are GSEs: government sponsored enterprises. Fannie Mae was founded as a government agency in 1938 as part of FDR's New Deal. From 1938 to 1968, the secondary mortgage market in the US was monopolized by Fannie Mae. In 1968, to help balance the federal budget, part of Fannie Mae was converted to a private corporation. To provide competition in the secondary mortgage market, and to end Fannie Mae's monopoly, the Emergency Home Finance Act of 1970 created Freddie Mac. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governme...
The housing and financial industries are crumbling because of massive government intervention. Politicians who pity the poor and who force banks to lend to people who have no means to pay them back, are short-sighted and irrational; so are voters who cheer them. Of course, the lenders would eventually go bankrupt.
To those who think government intervention in business is good, ponder why the USSR crumbled, why North Korea isn’t an economic power.
*
The economic power of big business establishments is very different from political power which is the “power to use force”. The government has the monopoly on the latter; it should be used solely to protect individual rights.
Business establishments have no power to force anyone. When customers patronize a company because of inexpensive quality products, and its competitors go bankrupt, this is justice – the triumph of the good. Competitors could endeavor to best the best – this is great for customers: better and cheaper goods/services are produced. If a company invents a cure for cancer, Liberty dictates that the company enjoys a monopoly on that invention.
I'll pretty much agree, except that some businesses have to be under government regulation. All government monopolies, for instance. Other businesses that are close to being monopolies have to have some regulation. The president of one company can't be allowed to jerk the chain for an entire country or large portion of it. Some examples would be; gas, water/septic, electric & phone companies.
Mod
mixed economy - an economy that combines elements of capitalism and socialism, mixing some individual ownership and regulation. Some capitalist countries, France, for example, employ what is often called state capitalism. In this form of a mixed economy, the state becomes a major shareholder in private enterprises. An alternative, employed in Great Britain (more in the past than now), is for the state to own some industries while leaving others in private hands.
capitalism - an economic and political system characterized by a free market for goods and services, and private control of production and consumption. (Compare socialism and communism.)
*
If I put a drop of poison in a clean glass of water, you would not drink it. Ayn Rand said that in any compromise between good and evil, the latter always wins. I agree – if you compromise with a criminal (e.g. blackmailer, mafioso), he owns you.
Either man has unalienable rights or he can be leashed anytime his master deems so. The Declaration of Independence confers equal rights to individuals. This means that each man has to be self-reliant.
Free men pass laws governing contractual obligations. Say, after years of hard thinking and hard work, a man becomes the sole owner of a utility company. It is irrational for him to blackmail the country – he has to honor his contractual obligations, else he incurs penalties – he has to consistently satisfy his customers, else, competitors could rise up and best him.
Rational men plan and take action so they would have a say in the production and distribution of necessities like food, water, infant formulas, gas, and communication / transportation / education systems. Hunger is not a just cause to rob anyone; the sight of looters is contemptible. In capitalism, owners of monopolies have earned them – no man or group of men has a right to any of their properties.
Health care is a necessity, but no one has a right to enslave doctors or pharmaceutical companies. No one has a right to enslave - period. Men cannot delegate what they do not possess, so neither their government has a right to enslave.
Since government has the legal monopoly to use force (exception: self-defense in an emergency), it should not intervene in the intellectual (e.g. ideas, production, trade) or moral life of its citizens. If it enforces ideas, truth, or virtue, it is no longer a protector of freedom – it becomes a dictator.
Based on the Declaration of Independence, the only purpose of government is the protection of individual rights. It is not tasked with giving sustenance to its citizens because free men have to be self-reliant -- they have no slaves that would provide their sustenance.
I'm not sure what the exact line is between a mixed economy & laissez-faire capitalism (Rand's pick). The latter has the government playing a 'minimal' role, while the former has the government providing some services & regulation. Not very precise, but I won't quibble about the label. It doesn't much matter to me. I'm not sure where I'd draw the line anyway. It would change depending on the circumstances.The poison example doesn't work for me. In the real world, purity is tough to find. Also, comparing apples to pigs doesn't cut it.
A rational man could build a utility company & run it just fine. His successors may not do as well. Irrational decisions could hurt many people.
- What happens when there is a black out in a city? It's ugly.
- What if the waterworks went down to Los Angeles for an extended period? That was a desert that supported a few hundred people just 200 years ago. Now there's a few hundred million. It would be really ugly.
- What if both electric & water went out? It would be a catastrophic loss of life & business that would be felt around the globe.
Do you really think that any sane person would want that kind of power in the hands of an individual? We put that kind of power into the hands of the government & hope that the checks & balances keep it running.
There are also reasons that the government might invest in a utility for other reasons. Aggressive neighbors, whether in trade or for some other reason. A purely private enterprise often can't compete then.
Should a man go bankrupt because his competitor takes a government handout? Maybe he should, but will he? Likely not. He may have hundreds of people who work there, a family to feed &/or thousands that he services. It would be tough to cut them all loose over a point that would be made moot if the government would then move in & take control anyway - which is what would likely happen.
We aggressively pursued tying the continent together & the railroad system fostered that, so a lot of public monies were invested. When money like that is accepted, government control obviously follows.
It's all well & fine to say that no 'one' has the right to enslave another, but there are degrees of obligation. If an entity accepts help from another entity, the first incurs an obligation. The degree & conditions of those obligations have been feeding lawyers for years. It's slippery.
It amazes me that people whine so much about taxes & then in the next breath say, "The government should do something about that." You have to pay the devil his due, but they seem blind to that fact.
The original purpose of our government has been suborned & superseded as the world has grown smaller & become more complex. We've voted for bread & circuses. I know people that want to vote for a candidate because of what he/she promises to give them - more health coverage & such. Most people seem to be interested in what they'll get from a candidate - how big their slice of the pie is going to be. They forget that everything has a price.
Personally, I vote for the candidate who talks about what they'll take away, when I have that option. Cutting back on government services, leaving services in the private sector, not bailing out failed companies, legalizing prohibited items & services are generally good things as they reduce points where I could possibly owe the government whether directly or indirectly.
For instance, legalizing prostitution would be a good thing. Instead of paying money to police to prohibit something that goes on anyway & gives the government one more lever on my freedom, the government could collect taxes on it. Nevada already has a working model to follow that seems to serve them as well or better than what you'll find in any major city where the practice is illegal. Courts, lawyers & gossip columnists lose some business which is fine by me.
It's a worthy fight to get back some of the liberty we've lost & I try to do my part, but it isn't simple. A bureaucracy is a living entity - it grows. Ours is now an 800 lb gorilla & tough to fight. We also have a much more complex world to deal with & need a bigger government to handle all the pieces.
Mod
"When I say "capitalism", I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism - with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church."
"There can be no compromise between freedom and government controls; to accept "just a few controls" is to surrender the principle of inalienable individual rights and to substitute for it the principle of the government's unlimited, arbitrary power, thus delivering oneself into gradual enslavement."
Mod
"Rejoice! Angels do exist in our midst, though it takes the highest of virtues to recognize them."
*
Source..... http://mises.org/story/2317
Book....... How Capitalism Saved America
Author.... Thomas J. DiLorenzo
The Real History
The lesson here is that most historians are hopelessly confused about the rise of capitalism in America. They usually fail to adequately appreciate the entrepreneurial genius of men like James J. Hill, John D. Rockefeller, and Cornelius Vanderbilt, and more often than not they lump these men (and other market entrepreneurs) in with genuine "robber barons" or political entrepreneurs.
Most historians also uncritically repeat the claim that government subsidies were necessary to building America's transcontinental railroad industry, steamship industry, steel industry, and other industries. But while clinging to this "market failure" argument, they ignore (or at least are unaware of) the fact that market entrepreneurs performed quite well without government subsidies. They also ignore the fact that the subsidies themselves were a great source of inefficiency and business failure, even though they enriched the direct recipients of the subsidies and advanced the political careers of those who dished them out.
Political entrepreneurs and their governmental patrons are the real villains of American business history and should be portrayed as such. They are the real robber barons.
At the same time, the market entrepreneurs who practiced genuine capitalism, whose genius and energy fueled extraordinary economic achievement and also brought tremendous benefits to Americans, should be recognized for their achievements rather than demonized, as they so often are. Men like James J. Hill, John D. Rockefeller, and Cornelius Vanderbilt were heroes who improved the lives of millions of consumers; employed thousands and enabled them to support their families and educate their children; created entire cities because of the success of their enterprises (for example, Scranton, Pennsylvania); pioneered efficient management techniques that are still employed today; and donated hundreds of millions of dollars to charities and nonprofit organizations of all kinds, from libraries to hospitals to symphonies, public parks, and zoos.
It is absolutely perverse that historians usually look at these men as crooks or cheaters while praising and advocating "business/government partnerships," which can only lead to corruption and economic decline.
Mod
Author.... Thomas J. DiLorenzo
The Truth About the "Robber Barons"
Excerpts:
As common as it is to speak of "robber barons," most who use that term are confused about the role of capitalism in the American economy and fail to make an important distinction — the distinction between what might be called a market entrepreneur and a political entrepreneur.
A pure market entrepreneur, or capitalist, succeeds financially by selling a newer, better, or less expensive product on the free market without any government subsidies, direct or indirect. The key to his success as a capitalist is his ability to please the consumer, for in a capitalist society the consumer ultimately calls the economic shots.
By contrast, a political entrepreneur succeeds primarily by influencing government to subsidize his business or industry, or to enact legislation or regulation that harms his competitors.
In the mousetrap industry, for instance, you can be a market entrepreneur by making better mousetraps and thereby convincing consumers to buy more of your mousetraps and less of your competitors', or you can lobby Congress to prohibit the importation of all foreign-made mousetraps. In the former situation the consumer voluntarily hands over his money for the superior mousetrap; in the latter case the consumer, not given anything (better) in return, pays more for existing mousetraps just because the import quota has reduced supply and therefore driven up prices.
The American economy has always included a mix of market and political entrepreneurs — self-made men and women as well as political connivers and manipulators. And sometimes, people who have achieved success as market entrepreneurs in one period of their lives later become political entrepreneurs. But the distinction between the two is critical to make, for market entrepreneurship is a hallmark of genuine capitalism, whereas political entrepreneurship is not — it is neomercantilism.
In some cases, of course, the entrepreneurs commonly labeled "robber barons" did indeed profit by exploiting American customers, but these were not market entrepreneurs. For example, Leland Stanford, a former governor and US senator from California, used his political connections to have the state pass laws prohibiting competition for his Central Pacific railroad, and he and his business partners profited from this monopoly scheme.
Unfortunately, the resentment that this naturally generated among the public was unfairly directed at other entrepreneurs who succeeded in the railroad industry without political interference that tilted the playing field in their direction. Thanks to historians who fail to (or refuse to) make this crucial distinction, many Americans have an inaccurate view of American capitalism.
!!!!!!!!!!
James J. Hill built the Great Northern Railroad "without any government aid, even the right of way, through hundreds of miles of public lands, being paid for in cash," as Hill himself stated.
Quite naturally, Hill strongly opposed government favors to his competitors: "The government should not furnish capital to these companies, in addition to their enormous land subsidies, to enable them to conduct their business in competition with enterprises that have received no aid from the public treasury," he wrote. This may sound quaint by today's standards, but it was still a hotly debated issue in the late nineteenth century.
James J. Hill was hardly a "baron" or aristocrat. His father died when he was fourteen, so he dropped out of school to work in a grocery store for four dollars a month to help support his widowed mother. As a young adult he worked in the farming, shipping, steamship, fur-trading, and railroad industries. He learned the ways of business in these settings, saved his money, and eventually became an investor and manager of his own enterprises. (It was much easier to accomplish such things in the days before income taxation.)
Hill got his start in the railroad business when he and several partners purchased a bankrupted Minnesota railroad that had been run into the ground by the government-subsidized Northern Pacific (NP). The NP had been a patronage "reward" to financier Jay Cooke, who in the War Between the States had been one of the Union's leading financiers. But Cooke and his NP associates built recklessly; the government's subsidies and land grants were issued on a per-mile-of-track basis, so Cooke and his cohorts had strong incentives to build as quickly as possible, which only encouraged shoddy work. Consequently, by 1873 the NP developers had fallen into bankruptcy. The people of Minnesota and the Dakotas, where the railroad was being built, considered Cooke and his business associates to be "derelicts at best and thieves at worst," writes Hill biographer Michael P. Malone. …
The Great Northern's efficiency and profitability were legendary, whereas the government-subsidized railroads, managed by a group of political entrepreneurs who focused more on acquiring subsidies than on building sound railroads, were inefficiently built and operated. Jay Cooke was not the only one whose government-subsidized railroad ended up in bankruptcy. In fact, Hill's Great Northern was the only transcontinental railroad that never went bankrupt. …
Read the entire article for knowledge and justice – an honest man seeks the truth and praises the good.
Thank you, Mr. DiLorenzo. I will buy "How Capitalism Saved America".
Mod
By Walter D. Wintle: Thinking
If you think you are beaten, you are
If you think you dare not, you don’t
If you like to win, but think you can’t
It’s almost certain you won’t.
If you think you’ll lose, you’re lost
For out of the world we find
Success begins with a fellow’s will
It’s all in the state of mind.
If you think you are outclassed, you are
You’ve got to think high to rise
You’ve got to be sure of yourself before
You can ever win a prize.
Life’s battles don’t always go
To the stronger or faster man
But soon or late the person who wins
Is the one who thinks “I can.”
Mod
Pragmatism (from: For the New Intellectual by Ayn Rand)
[The Pragmatists:] declared that philosophy must be practical and that practicality consists of dispensing with all absolute principles and standards — that there is no such thing as objective reality or permanent truth — that truth is that which works, and its validity can be judged only by its consequences — that no facts can be known with certainty in advance, and anything may be tried by rule-of-thumb — that reality is not firm, but fluid and “indeterminate,” that there is no such thing as a distinction between an external world and a consciousness (between the perceived and the perceiver), there is only an undifferentiated package-deal labeled “experience,” and whatever one wishes to be true, is true, whatever one wishes to exist, does exist, provided it works or makes one feel better.
A later school of more Kantian Pragmatists amended this philosophy as follows. If there is no such thing as an objective reality, men’s metaphysical choice is whether the selfish, dictatorial whims of an individual or the democratic whims of a collective are to shape that plastic goo which the ignorant call “reality,” therefore this school decided that objectivity consists of collective subjectivism — that knowledge is to be gained by means of public polls among special elites of “competent investigators” who can “predict and control” reality — that whatever people wish to be true, is true, whatever people wish to exist, does exist, and anyone who holds any firm convictions of his own is an arbitrary, mystic dogmatist, since reality is indeterminate and people determine its actual nature.
*
The two points central to the pragmatist ethics are: a formal rejection of all fixed standards — and an unquestioning absorption of the prevailing standards. The same two points constitute the pragmatist approach to politics, which, developed most influentially by Dewey, became the philosophy of the Progressive movement in this country (and of most of its liberal descendants down to the present day).
- Leonard Peikoff, “Pragmatism Versus America,”
The Ayn Rand Letter
*
By itself, as a distinctive theory, the pragmatist ethics is contentless. It urges men to pursue “practicality,” but refrains from specifying any “rigid” set of values that could serve to define the concept. As a result, pragmatists — despite their repudiation of all systems of morality — are compelled, if they are to implement their ethical approach at all, to rely on value codes formulated by other, non-pragmatist moralists. As a rule the pragmatist appropriates these codes without acknowledging them; he accepts them by a process of osmosis, eclectically absorbing the cultural deposits left by the moral theories of his predecessors — and protesting all the while the futility of these theories.
The dominant, virtually the only, moral code advocated by modern intellectuals in Europe and in America is some variant of altruism. This, accordingly, is what most American pragmatists routinely preach . . .
In politics, also, pragmatism presents itself as opposed to “rigidity,” to “dogma,” to “extremes” of any kind (whether capitalist or socialist); it avows that it is relativist, “moderate,” “experimental.” As in ethics, however, so here: the pragmatist is compelled to employ some kind of standard to evaluate the results of his social experiments, a standard which, given his own self-imposed default, he necessarily absorbs from other, non-pragmatist trend-setters . . . When Dewey wrote, the political principle imported from Germany and proliferating in all directions, was collectivism.
- Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, 128.
Mod
Purity doesn’t mean infallibility and omniscience because men, by nature, are neither. Those who fight for individual rights, like George Washington and his ragtag army, the Founding Fathers, the men Abraham Lincoln honored in his Gettysburg address, are PRINCIPLED men. Prime movers (scientists, industrialists, capitalists, workers) lift the standards of living of everyone – they are good men. There are a number of them - I just discovered Charles Nash and Ralph Teetor, thanks to Jim Hinckley.
One could predict results by using logic and causality. E.g.: If one takes poison, one would die; if not right away, one would eventually die if one does not stop taking it. Thinkers who do not evade reality and who use the principles of logic and causality are able to see the forest, not just the bark of one tree.
One could study the economies of communist and socialist countries, and the causes of the current housing and financial debacle. To those who do not think that government intervention into the economy is poison, please explain why communist/socialist economies crumble, and why the US-government-sponsored Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac collapsed.
Regarding Jim’s what-if catastrophes: If government is better than private individuals/enterprises when it comes to the economy: why then did GSEs Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the political entrepreneurs mentioned by Thomas J. DiLorenzo go bankrupt? Why are they inefficient and corrupt? The levees that broke during Katrina and the Minnesota Bridge that collapsed -> their construction and maintenance were supervised by the government, right?
Let’s enumerate great achievements and catastrophic failures, and let’s give credit where it is due:
1. The Vietnam War - 58,159 U.S. soldiers (info from Wikipedia) were sacrificed
2. The airplane
3. The Thomas Edison inventions
4. The cheap car and tractor
5. The reaper
6. …
Ilyn, wow, you posted a lot. I won't catch it all, but here's a few things.To #29: As I've mentioned before, I don't get what Rand meant by "full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism". The laissez-faire system does allow for some government control. I like capitalism, but I think there are some businesses need some control, like utilities, for the example I cited. I don't see where she disagrees if she agrees with the laissez-faire system or why you bothered quoting this again. It's like the 4th time you've quoted it to me without ever explaining it.
As for Rand not accepting any compromise with government controls - she's dreaming. It's another area where I fall on the side of practicality. I'll agree with her conclusion that we do deliver ourselves into gradual enslavement. It's happened & is happening. That is the problem - which government controls should be allowed? Do you think it's OK to leave the water system for L.A. in private hands without any government controls?
To #30 & #31: I pretty much agree, with exceptions. I think there were more than a few examples where some of the great entrepenaurs got caught making deals they shouldn't have, but the country does owe them a debt. They did build a lot.
One thing to remember is most self-made rich people didn't get rich by playing it straight all the time & they often get richer by cutting even more corners when they're in a position to. I also don't like those who play the political system to make their money. There are a lot of them & most entrepenaurs are a mix.
Rockefeller, for example,(I'm going off memory here.) did do a great job of building Standard Oil. That was fine, but then he got mean & started to put his competition out of business. He one of the main reasons for the Sherman Anti-Trust act, I think. As I recall, he got a lock in with a railroad to ship his stuff a lot cheaper than his competitors & used that to put them out of business. I believe Carnegie was involved with the railroad, but I can't recall for sure. Anyway, it was a backroom deal between the big boys to squeeze out the competition. At the time, there wasn't a viable alternative for shipping their product, so the little guys were screwed. That's not good & is a time when the government needed to step in.
So Rockefeller did a lot of good, but he did some bad. Blindly saying he was one or the other is stupid. He even helped pioneer American law, much in the way Dr. Gatling promoted medical science. We should praise them for the good they did do, look at where they did bad & try to avoid it. Of course, that means trying to understand history & thinking about it.
I did not say that government meddling was always a good thing, was needed or was a guarantee against failure or screwing up. I said that if a business took a government hand out, they gave up some control. I also said it can make it more difficult for the competition & can drive them to bankruptcy. I didn't say it happened in every case. I pointed out how the USPS did get competition that worked - Fedex is a great success story. Hill is another.
Ilyn, #32, nice poem. I agree. It's tough to fight the government, but we should all try to keep it in line.#33 & 34 - you've quoted me this piece on Pragmatism from Rand before - the last time being in "Philosophy in Everyday Life". I am not a pure pragmatist, but do believe that philosophy isn't worth a lot if it can't be applied to the world around us. If a philosopher wants to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, that's his business, but I don't have to take him seriously. When a philosopher makes statements that are at odds with reality, they need to be called on it.
When Rand states that capitalism should be "full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated" that is complete hogwash. It's nice in her ivory tower, but in the real world, I don't want to eat at a restaurant that is uncontrolled or unregulated. I may wind up eating 'long pig' rather than 'pork loin', the price of meat being what it is & people being as greedy as they are.
What Rand should be saying is she'd like to see as little government interference as possible, which is what she is actually saying when she says, "laissez-faire capitalism". Some government control, not a complete lack. That's a practical statement that will work in the real world & now we can talk about what controls are needed. I'd certainly like to see as few as possible & work against most, when at all possible. I know that the more involved the government gets, the less efficient most businesses are.
Again, I never said that government oversight was a guarantee of success nor is it one of failure. I said, "We put that kind of power into the hands of the government & hope that the checks & balances keep it running." Note the word 'hope'. Sometimes it's a forlorn hope & many other times we shouldn't be hoping at all because the government just shouldn't be involved.
While there are numerous examples of our government failing in its duty, there are countless others where it has come through. Read McPhee's book "The Control of Nature". One example there is how the Army Corp of Engineers has kept the Mississippi on course for decades. This has kept the economy of Louisiana intact plus a lot of ports north. (Look up the Atchafalaya.) I think a lot of people are better off for this government control.
Why is the Vietnam War mixed up with capitalism in your examples? That's foreign policy, not capitalism - unless you want to spin a theory, which I don't think has a place here. Pigs & apples, again.
Edison's inventions were great, but local governments paid to put electric lines in place. An old & impure example or one that shows that some government control is needed. We could get into the wonderful area of 'eminent domain' & mandatory purchasing with that example. Truly an ugly necessity on the part of the government.
As for airplanes, do you want to fly in one that is completely unregulated? Not I, thanks. While I detest the current security & will no longer fly because of it, I like knowing that someone is checking maintenance records so they at least don't fall down on me. Another example that is mixed & speaks for some regulation, rather that against all. Yes, they started without any government interference, but it was quickly determined they couldn't go on that way.
Keep in mind that you're looking at a lot of your heroes from a long ways away through history books, which are known for spinning facts, as you've shown. Washington & company made a lot of practical compromises in their fight for & in making their beliefs work 'practically'. Jefferson & Madison both recognized the need for eminent domain, for example, although neither liked the need, I believe. Also, the world was also a lot different even 50 years ago.
Mod
Mod
I had to finish "Part 3 - The US Presidential Candidates’ Declaration of Dependence and Sacrifice". I am now writing Part 4 which is on capitalism. I hope to finish it today, so I could email my blog to family and friends.
Have a good day, friends.
Mod
"Laissez Faire" is French for "leave alone" which means that the government leaves the people alone regarding all economic activities. It is the separation of economy and state.
There are two ways that a government typically is tempted to interfere with the economy. The first is through the initiation of force, and the second is through socialized industries. Neither of these activities are aligned with the proper role of government, and are both unacceptable.
"Laissez Faire Capitalism" is actually redundant, due to the nature of Capitalism. Therefore, simply "Capitalism" is sufficient to get the point across although historically it has been misrepresented as compatible with government economic interference.
Definition of Capitalism
"Capitalism" is conventionally defined along economic terms such as the following: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. - Source: Dictionary.com
This is an example of a definition by non-essentials.
An essential definition of capitalism is a political definition: Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. - Source: Capitalism.org
In order to have an economic system in which "production and distribution are privately or corporately owned", you must have individual rights and specifically property rights. The only way to have an economic system fitting the first definition is to have a political system fitting the second definition. The first is an implication of the second. Because the second, political, definition is fundamental and the cause of the first, it is the more useful definition and is preferable.
Because people often use the term "Capitalism" loosely, "Laissez Faire Capitalism" is sometimes used to describe a true Capitalist system. But this phrase is redundant.
It is important to define "Capitalism" correctly because a proper definition is a prerequisite to a proper defense. Capitalism is the only moral political system because it is the only system dedicated to the protection of rights, which is a requirement for human survival and flourishing. This is the only proper role of a government. Capitalism should be defended vigorously on a moral basis, not an economic or utilitarian basis.
Mod
Source for the following: http://www.fee.org/publications/the-f...
“Economic life was circumscribed and controlled by the government under a system most commonly known as mercantilism. The government controlled exports and imports, gave subsidies, bounties, and grants to encourage certain undertakings, prohibited others, gave patents, charters, and other forms of monopolies to individuals and companies, enforced craft regulations, and maintained much power over the lands of the realm. Harsh penalties were imposed for every sort of offense from blasphemy to treason. Evidence abounded that government was making massive efforts to impose order. As for liberties, they had most commonly to be asserted against the grain of the prevailing system.
GEORGE WASHINGTON and his contemporaries were imbued with a strong belief in a natural order. Order, in their view, was not something that could be arbitrarily contrived and imposed by man. The foundations of order, they held, are in the frame of the universe, in the laws that govern it, in the nature of man and his faculty of REASON, and in the principles of relationships by which constructive activities can take place. At best, men can only act in accord with and imitate the order that is given. …
Newton had persuasively set forth in mathematical terms the laws governing the course of the heavenly bodies. Thinkers were getting impressive results in their searches for the laws and principles governing all sorts of relationships. What struck so many in that age was the idea of proportion, balance, harmony, and order resident in the natural tendencies of the world about them. Most marvelous of all, at least to many, this order was CONSONANT with HUMAN LIBERTY. Rather than frustrating man in the USE of his FACULTIES for his BENEFIT (and for the commonwealth as well), the natural order provided means for him to do so most effectively. The foundations of liberty in this belief in a natural order were in the natural rights doctrine.”
Mod
Zero government intervention in the economy = UNALIENABLE rights = individual liberty = every man is an end in himself
Government intervention, however minimal = NOT unalienable rights = man is a sacrificial animal
Advocates of capitalism: The Declaration of Independence and President Abraham Lincoln
Since men are independent equals, there are no masters or slaves. Since government derives its power from the governed and since citizens cannot delegate powers they do not possess, the government has no mandate to infringe individual rights in any way.
Any infringement on individual liberty is tyranny:
President Thomas Jefferson said: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
President Abraham Lincoln said: "We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the PRODUCT of his LABOR; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny."
*
The Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
Mod
A principled man has firm fundamentals, e.g. objective reality and reason, which dictate his ethics and politics. All his choices, goals, and actions proceed from his principles.
A proper philosophic system is comprehensive and integrated – a philosopher sees the forest, not just the bark of a tree.
Mod
Long before Ayn Rand was born, principled men - George Washington and his men as well as the Founding Fathers and their constituents - thought that it is practical to have a social system based on individual liberty.
History has proven them right. From CEO John Allison: “Life expectancy has increased from nineteen years in 1750 to seventy years today, and practically everyone today lives better than a king in the 1700s.” Compare the USA to communist and socialist countries. Compare the century after the founding of the USA to the Dark Ages, to any period before this, to the 20th century.
Ilyn: On #39, I was using the Wikipedia definition of Laissez Faire capitalism, which says there is some government control allowed. Others say there is none. I'll accept that you think there are none, but I think that's ridiculous & dangerous. You used a lot of nifty quotes but never answered the questions I raised about utility maintenance, restaurants or planes. Please do so if you want to discuss further. If you can't make your philosophy work in a simple, practical scenario, then it isn't worth discussing further.
In #40, what does your objective reality say about a person who can create a tailored virus & sell it to the highest bidder, free from any restraints? Yeah, it isn't rational, but people aren't always. Some are greedy, stupid & short sighted. How much government restraint are you willing to put up with to TRY to see that it doesn't happen?
In #41, your equation that any government interference in a man's life means he is a sacrificial animal is silly, even if only in economic terms. Lots of people & businesses deal with other countries. One of our government's roles is dealing with them. Do you want ICBM's sold to 3d world dictators or completely unregulated items sent into this country? Get real.
You're also comparing ideas based on defunct economic, communication & transportation systems to those of today. We're not a struggling colony that needs months to send a letter across the Atlantic or takes days to travel from one city to another.
In #42 The U.S. has had some sort of draft through out its history (it's lack frustrated Washington before the Revolution) but that's another topic. You used the example when we were discussing government interference in our infrastructure & economy. It doesn't fit in the current discussion unless you want to include all wars. War can & has been used to bolster economies. Some have made a case that they are always economic in nature, but it just confuses the issue here by adding more scope when haven't even addressed several smaller issues.
In #43, I'll agree with the quote from Washington - we do need a government & it is a fearful master.
As to the rest, I think Allison got the life expectancy wrong for 1750. I've read a variety of figures, but none that low. I do agree that anyone today is living better than they did over 250 years ago (indoor plumbing, frozen food, pharmaceuticals). The industrial revolution has created freer societies. There's no doubt that technology can benefit us in a lot of ways, just as it can harm.
"Compare the USA to communist and socialist countries. Compare the century after the founding of the USA to the Dark Ages, to any period before this, to the 20th century." What & who do you want to compare? Inventions like the horse collar, circular saw or antibiotics? Alcoholism rates? Length of life? Number of TV's per household? Overall, I think the U.S. is tops, but several countries have better education & health systems than we do. Some have more money per capita. Such comparisons can lead to dangerous conclusions & you best make sure you're comparing apples to apples. I think that is best done on a case by case basis. Also, we're living in the 21st century now. The 20th is history.
Mod
From "The Founding Fathers" topic:
The result of the Founding Fathers' philosophy was capitalism, freedom, and individual rights. This brought about a century of international peace, and the rise of the business mentality, leading to the magnificent growth of industry and of prosperity.
The enemies of the Founding Fathers exhort: “Sacrifice yourself for society.” This is the basic philosophy of our culture, and it is responsible for the accelerating collapse of capitalism, and all of its symptoms: runaway government trampling on individual rights, growing economic dislocations, worldwide tribal warfare and international terrorism – with business under constant, systematic attack....
***
There were two world wars in the 20th century. In one other war: 58,159 U.S. soldiers were sacrificed. There was the Great Depression.
Mod
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
Ilyn, #45 - Again, you've ignored all my questions - why?I've already asked you what you wanted to compare & you didn't bother answering - again. I personally wouldn't mind comparing 8 years of this one to 8 of any other on a specific topic. Also, the 20th century is almost beyond comparison with any other century in human history except in very discrete blocks. Too much happened & was far better documented.
Korea & all the other hot spots (Gulf, Panama, Angola, etc...) don't qualify as wars, but Vietnam does? I'm sure those who died will appreciate your consideration of their sacrifice. Remember Vietnam was also only a 'police action' until years after, while it was the 'Gulf War'. I don't think any label except 'military action' is proper. Politicians & public pressure is a shoddy way of defining anything.
Anyway, it's a whole different topic. Sacrificing oneself in a war, defending your country isn't bad according to Rand's or the Founding Father's philosophy. But that begs the question of whether or not anything was accomplished or if military action should have been started in the first place rather than other political pressure. Personally, I don't have a lot of knowledge in foreign affairs & don't want to spout ignorant opinions, so I won't argue the point.
#46 - Your question begs a book, not something I'm prepared to write for you. There are already a bunch out there. Why don't you just answer some of my questions? They're simple & straight forward. They cover specific examples in everyday life. What would George Washington or Ayn Rand say about the questions I asked?
Would they think it was OK to sell ICBM's to a terrorist group? Or would they think that trade needed to be restricted? Personally, my feeling is they would agree to the restrictions - they were sane people.
Mod
I have tried to explain fundamentals and that for a principled man, everything proceeds from his fundamentals. No matter what the details or concretes are, he will choose or act in consonance with those fundamentals. Also, when I judge a person, I look at his fundamentals, not his concretes. Example – The Libertarian Party seems to espouse individualism, but based on its founding principles, it is against this principle in the Declaration of Independence: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”
This is from Wikipedia: “The debate that has survived the longest is referred to by libertarians as the anarchist/minarchist debate. In 1974, anarchists and minarchists within the Party agreed to "cease fire" about the specific question of whether governments should exist at all, and focus on promoting voluntary solutions to the problems caused by government instead…. A related internal discussion concerns the philosophical divide over whether the Party should aim to be mainstream and pragmatic, or whether it should focus on being consistent and principled…. As of the 2008 convention, the debate has been settled for now with the wholesale adoption of pragmatist viewpoints in the new platform, and the nomination of Bob Barr for president.”
The philosophy of the Libertarian Party as of the 2008 convention is pragmatism. Hence, it is not based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
We have the same disagreement here - a “philosophical divide over whether one should aim to be mainstream and pragmatic, or whether one should focus on being consistent and principled.”
I think that a proper social system recognizes that the principle of unalienable individual rights is inviolate. I agree with the Declaration of Independence that the only purpose of law and of government is the protection of the equal unalienable rights of man. It is the proper function of government to thwart threats to its citizens – it could pass laws 1) to limit the handling of biological hazards to authorized industries, 2) to prohibit the sharing of fully defined national-security-related data to foreign countries --- the judicial branch should ensure that laws are in accordance with the Constitution, that they are for the protection of the individual liberty of its citizens. An example of an unconstitutional act of government is its intrusion in the housing and financial markets which caused the current debacle.
Jim thinks that capitalism, i.e. zero government intervention in the economy, is complete hogwash - that its advocates are silly, impractical, unrealistic, ridiculous, and dangerous. He thinks that utility maintenance, restaurants, or planes would be better run in a semi-statist system. He says, “Your equation that any government interference in a man's life means he is a sacrificial animal is silly…”
If a man is not free to do as he pleases without infringing the equal rights of others, as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, then his life does not belong to him – he doesn’t own his own life - hence, he is a sacrificial animal.
President Washington and his men struggled through overwhelming odds and deprivation, the Founding Fathers and their constituents risked their lives, families, and properties, for Liberty. People, like those honored by President Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address, struggled or died for Liberty. Yet there are people who call its defense hogwash and silly, and who would have it breached for the “forlorn hope” of better utility maintenance, restaurants, or planes.
There are people like Patrick Henry who are of firm conviction that Liberty is more valuable than life and a peaceful existence. I cannot imagine the state of mind of one who would exchange Liberty for the “hope” that he might be assured of a pork loin.
On Archive.Org, I found some free radio programs with Ayn Rand. I was listening to one last night. She was tearing up McCarthy & RFK in Fall, 1967. It was a pleasure to listen to - timely. Anyway, Archive.org is interesting & it's a good site to check out. Everything is free - public domain. I even got a movie or two there, along with some audio books & other stuff. I highly recommend taking a look through it.
Ilyn, it looks like we cross posted.A man who sells an ICBM or tailored virus to a terrorist is infringing on the rights of others, so we're in agreement that he shouldn't. Unfortunately, your philosophy doesn't allow for stopping him from his actions. Zero government interference means all we can do is spank him once the damage is done - if there is any one left to do so.
This means that your philosophy does not promote racial or individual survival, hence is immoral.
While it may be repugnant to infringe on people's freedoms, it is a practical necessity. The Founding Fathers realized this. They were practical men. They compromised with each other - look at their debates on eminent domain. That's a truly repugnant idea & all agreed. They also agreed it was a necessity & came to an agreement on it.
I applaud the Libertarian party for becoming pragmatic. Standing on principles that are unrealistic & self-defeating is stupid & immoral.
Now you did yield somewhat when you wrote, "...It is the proper function of government to thwart threats to its citizens – it could pass laws 1) to limit the handling of biological hazards to authorized industries, 2) to prohibit the sharing of fully defined national-security-related data to foreign countries..." but you need to extend that thought.
If I understand you correctly, you're now saying that we can't have pure, unrestrained Capitalism, but can put some checks into place. Exactly how much can we infringe on business? This is what I was getting at with my questions about utilities & selling scary stuff. Why not just answer my specific questions?
To the Glory of Man
Books mentioned in this topic
The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought (other topics)Watchmen (other topics)
Defending the Undefendable (other topics)
Defending the Undefendable (other topics)
Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Walter Block (other topics)Walter Block (other topics)
James Bovard (other topics)
- George Washington