Atlas Shrugged...today?

Capitalizt

CAGiversary!
Feedback
11 (100%)
A lot of the parallels in this article seem rather valid today in light of the endless bailouts and massive government interventions we are seeing. Ms. Rand was certainly prophetic, and I think her book should be required reading for every high school graduate.

'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

By Stephen Moore

Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read "Atlas Shrugged" a "virgin." Being conversant in Ayn Rand's classic novel about the economic carnage caused by big government run amok was practically a job requirement. If only "Atlas" were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I'm confident that we'd get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.

ED-AI826_dgmoor_DV_20090108211701.jpg

[Atlas Shrugged] Getty Images
The art for a 1999 postage stamp.

Many of us who know Rand's work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that "Atlas Shrugged" parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.

Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism, was already a celebrity. The left, naturally, hated her. But as recently as 1991, a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that readers rated "Atlas" as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible.

For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.

In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as "the looters and their laws." Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the "Anti-Greed Act" to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel's promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the "Equalization of Opportunity Act" to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the "Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act," aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn't Hank Paulson think of that?

These acts and edicts sound farcical, yes, but no more so than the actual events in Washington, circa 2008. We already have been served up the $700 billion "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" and the "Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act." Now that Barack Obama is in town, he will soon sign into law with great urgency the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan." This latest Hail Mary pass will increase the federal budget (which has already expanded by $1.5 trillion in eight years under George Bush) by an additional $1 trillion -- in roughly his first 100 days in office.

The current economic strategy is right out of "Atlas Shrugged": The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That's the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies -- while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to "calm the markets," another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as "Atlas" grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate "windfalls."

When Rand was writing in the 1950s, one of the pillars of American industrial might was the railroads. In her novel the railroad owner, Dagny Taggart, an enterprising industrialist, has a FedEx-like vision for expansion and first-rate service by rail. But she is continuously badgered, cajoled, taxed, ruled and regulated -- always in the public interest -- into bankruptcy. Sound far-fetched? On the day I sat down to write this ode to "Atlas," a Wall Street Journal headline blared: "Rail Shippers Ask Congress to Regulate Freight Prices."

In one chapter of the book, an entrepreneur invents a new miracle metal -- stronger but lighter than steel. The government immediately appropriates the invention in "the public good." The politicians demand that the metal inventor come to Washington and sign over ownership of his invention or lose everything.

The scene is eerily similar to an event late last year when six bank presidents were summoned by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to Washington, and then shuttled into a conference room and told, in effect, that they could not leave until they collectively signed a document handing over percentages of their future profits to the government. The Treasury folks insisted that this shakedown, too, was all in "the public interest."

Ultimately, "Atlas Shrugged" is a celebration of the entrepreneur, the risk taker and the cultivator of wealth through human intellect. Critics dismissed the novel as simple-minded, and even some of Rand's political admirers complained that she lacked compassion. Yet one pertinent warning resounds throughout the book: When profits and wealth and creativity are denigrated in society, they start to disappear -- leaving everyone the poorer.

One memorable moment in "Atlas" occurs near the very end, when the economy has been rendered comatose by all the great economic minds in Washington. Finally, and out of desperation, the politicians come to the heroic businessman John Galt (who has resisted their assault on capitalism) and beg him to help them get the economy back on track. The discussion sounds much like what would happen today:

Galt: "You want me to be Economic Dictator?"

Mr. Thompson: "Yes!"

"And you'll obey any order I give?"

"Implicitly!"

"Then start by abolishing all income taxes."

"Oh no!" screamed Mr. Thompson, leaping to his feet. "We couldn't do that . . . How would we pay government employees?"

"Fire your government employees."

"Oh, no!"

Abolishing the income tax. Now that really would be a genuine economic stimulus. But Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Washington want to do the opposite: to raise the income tax "for purposes of fairness" as Barack Obama puts it.

David Kelley, the president of the Atlas Society, which is dedicated to promoting Rand's ideas, explains that "the older the book gets, the more timely its message." He tells me that there are plans to make "Atlas Shrugged" into a major motion picture -- it is the only classic novel of recent decades that was never made into a movie. "We don't need to make a movie out of the book," Mr. Kelley jokes. "We are living it right now."
 
I don't think Stephen Moore has ever worked at an actual job.

As I have said before the current crisis is if anything due to too much Rand.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What we have seen over the past 70 years is precisely the OPPOSITE of what Rand wanted...the opposite of free market economics and the dominance of soft fascism. When the government and state are in bed together, nothing good can come of it.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']What we have seen over the past 70 years is precisely the OPPOSITE of what Rand wanted...the opposite of free market economics and the dominance of soft fascism. When the government and state are in bed together, nothing good can come of it.[/QUOTE]

You can say that all you would like but Rand disciples have been in key positions of power for decades and they failed miserably.
 
Maybe because absolute power corrupts absolutely. Alan Greenspan is proof of that. Once a strict defender of laissez faire economics and an honest money system (the gold standard), he completely abandoned those beliefs and became a big government apologist once in power. Any way you look at it, we have never had people in office who made any serious attempt at a libertarian agenda. Democrat or Republican...Government just gets bigger and bigger and bigger...and in the past 8 years, farking HUGE!
 
[quote name='Autumn Star']Didn't Ayn Rand hate the libertarian party?[/QUOTE]

I don't think she liked much of anything so you got to take that into consideration.

Either way its all to much like a cult for my tastes.
 
People who worship the woman are nutcases..but her philosophy has it's merits. People like F.A. Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises disproved socialism on a scientific level. They provided the economic justification for capitalism and free markets, but Rand was the first to provide a MORAL basis for it, something it was lacking before.
 
Completely free markets just don't work. Not when you get banks and other companies that are too big to fail, and that's going to happen because of the greed inherent in human nature.

Banks need more regulation not less. The key is to find the sweet spot as too much regulation isn't a good thing either. But clearly what we've had in the past wasn't sufficient.

I have no moral or other objections to capitalism. We just have to find a system that keeps our economy as stable as possible while also allowing growth.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Completely free markets just don't work. Not when you get banks and other companies that are too big to fail[/quote]

Too big to fail is a socialist's phrase. Nobody and nothing is too big to fail in a capitalist economy. A true free market would allow insolvent companies to go bankrupt..and allow things to correct. Productive companies would survive and prosper, and those that aren't meeting public demand will go under and the workers would need to find jobs in other industries. It's not a popular philosophy because it involves dealing with PAIN every now and then..but we would have a much healthier economy in the long run if we allowed things to correct naturally once they get to extremes.

Instead we are continually trying and prevent the correction and to pump up the economy with newly printed money and government intervention left and right. This is very ANTI-capitalist and is only going to make the downturn worse when we finally face the music.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We'll have to agree to disagree, as I there's not sense in arguing when we're coming from different view systems, since I do lean toward socialism a good bit, and believe the government should do what they can to prevent such pain seeping through the system and ruining citizens lives. They have to hold up their end of the social contract.

But you're coming from the opposite view, and that's fine.
 
I really can see the pros of both sides of what Capitalizt and dmaul are saying.

It ultimately comes down to an individual's personality to which they would prefer.

Some people like to be out on their own in life and are perfectly fine taking all the risk as long as they get all of any reward. And they are fine if they go down in flames, as at least they got to try and have nobody to blame but themselves. We all know people like this. These people experience higher highs and lower lows, and they tend to take chances and risks more, for the rewards, which tends to stimulate progress.

Other people's primary concern is safety and stability. All they want is to know that tomorrow is as ok as today. They don't like risks, and if they have to take a risk they want to know there are many safety nets if they fail. We all know people like this to. These people like feeling safe, comfortable and stable. They tend to experience less pain than the first group, but rarely try anything new so they tend to take less risks which ultimately stifles progress.

I truly believe this is why you have such a division in America today, everyone fits into one of these two categories.

The answer is, there is no right way. It's dependent on a personality, imo. Arguing one is better than the other is like trying to argue one color is better than the other; it's relative.

My big beef, however, is that we can't continue to straddle both capitalism and socialism, trying to find a way to mix them, and tanking the entire economy, country, and world with it. Attempting a mixture of both is buying a ticket on the titanic. We need to pick one or the other and put all resources in that direction or we are doomed.
 
For me it's not just needing safety and stability. It's not wanting to see people who were careful with money and didn't take a lot of risks get screwed because the whole economy tanks and no one can get loans, and jobs are lost etc. etc. So I don't think we can have a total free market.

But I don't think we need a total safety net either. So I guess I disagree that we have to go one way or the other, as you said Thrust. I think the key is finding the right balance between free markets and regulation and we've just not done that yet. And I have no idea what the answer is or if there even is one.
 
What's thrust's getting at is like the "individual freedom" vs. "public order" philosophies of the criminal justice system. We debate over the issue, but recognize that it's absurd to embrace the logical end of either side of the issue.

Applying that debate to capitalist markets, yes, there are those who like to take risks - but we cannot blind ourselves to the fact that those risks can impact those who do not take risks, and are unwilling to do so. Risk takers do so at their own, and others, risk.

laissez-faire is dead. Rand is a relic. Anyone who believes otherwise is unable or unwilling to consider the cognitive dissonance they're putting themselves through to rationalize how free markets are wholly liberating and help everyone. Which is depressing until it is entertaining when you ask them how a pure free market will protect us from the Madoffs of the world.
 
http://www.group30.org/pubs/recommendations.pdf

Link to the Group of 30's reccomendations on how to stabilize the economy. I'll try to skim through it later. Probably be a fairly influential report given it was chaired by Paul Volcker.

The Group of Thirty has released its latest report: Financial Reform: A Framework for Financial Stability. The report addresses flaws in the global financial system and provides 18 specific recommendations to: improve supervisory systems by redefining the scope, boundaries, and structure of prudential regulation; enhance the role of the central banks; improve governance practices and risk management; address pro-cyclicality via capital and liquidity standards; enhance accounting practices; strengthen the financial infrastructure; and increase coordination internationally. The project was led by Paul Volcker, Chairman, and Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa and Arminio Fraga Neto, Vice Chairmen.
 
[quote name='mykevermin'] Which is depressing until it is entertaining when you ask them how a pure free market will protect us from the Madoffs of the world.[/quote]

Free markets and law and order are not incompatible. Even the most hardcore libertarians accept the need for basic laws to protect the public from theft, fraud, and violence. Private property is sacred to Libertarians...in fact, it is the most sacred value of the libertarian philosophy. When someone violates that right by stealing or defrauding others, he should be punished severely. I don't think you will find any Randian against the idea of prosecuting Madoff. His actions are completely contrary to their philosophy.
 
I had a teacher today loudly proclaim that we were capitalists and then rambled off why that was so great. It took everything i had to not question him on practically every point. Maybe capitalists with socialist tendencies would be a better description.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Free markets and law and order are not incompatible. Even the most hardcore libertarians accept the need for basic laws to protect the public from theft, fraud, and violence. Private property is sacred to Libertarians...in fact, it is the most sacred value of the libertarian philosophy. When someone violates that right by stealing or defrauding others, he should be punished severely. I don't think you will find any Randian against the idea of prosecuting Madoff. His actions are completely contrary to their philosophy.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but we still need regulations on things like loans, mortgages, credit default swaps etc. to protect responsible people from being hurt when banks go under from taking on bad debts, having too many irresponsible people foreclose etc. etc.

In a free market fiscally responsible people still get fucked when the market collapses. We need regulations to prevent such things and keep the market as stable as possible.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
In a free market fiscally responsible people still get fucked when the market collapses. We need regulations to prevent such things and keep the market as stable as possible.[/quote]

How exactly do they get fucked? If they were fiscally responsible, they would take note of what they were agreeing to when they sign a contract/mortgage, etc. If a bank makes stupid decisions and goes under, that doesn't effect the borrower at all. He still has the contract he agreed to and will continue making payments, even if the company is in bankruptcy restructuring..

The only way for responsible people to get hurt when the economy turns south is if they lose their job...and while that is unfortunate, it doesn't free them from obligations they have already agreed to such as loan payments, etc. You disagree?
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']If a bank makes stupid decisions and goes under, that doesn't effect the borrower at all.[/QUOTE]

Well those saving their money at said banks would be protected, thanks to the FDIC.

You know, that bunch of commies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Capitalizt']How exactly do they get fucked? If they were fiscally responsible, they would take note of what they were agreeing to when they sign a contract/mortgage, etc. If a bank makes stupid decisions and goes under, that doesn't effect the borrower at all. He still has the contract he agreed to and will continue making payments, even if the company is in bankruptcy restructuring..

The only way for responsible people to get hurt when the economy turns south is if they lose their job...and while that is unfortunate, it doesn't free them from obligations they have already agreed to such as loan payments, etc. You disagree?[/QUOTE]

You misread. I'm not talking about the people who default on loans.

I'm talking about people who lose their jobs because the economy tanks. Or see their retirement accounts diminish or slow in growth because the economy tanks from other people and corporations greed and poor decisions.. Or people that have good credit but have problems getting a decent loan as the credit market collapsed.

The people who sign mortgages they can't pay deserve to get fucked. But it's not ok for the rest of us who are smart with our money to suffer because tons of people default on loans and banks are going under from having too many toxic assests etc. etc.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I don't think Stephen Moore has ever worked at an actual job.[/QUOTE]

After reading your post I read his Wiki, where I see:

Moore sees Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as the hope and future of the Republican Party

...I immediately closed the tab and dismissed everything in the OP.
 
[quote name='Koggit']After reading your post I read his Wiki, where I see:



...I immediately closed the tab and dismissed everything in the OP.[/QUOTE]

You might remember him from his appearances on Bill Maher's show.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']How exactly do they get fucked? If they were fiscally responsible, they would take note of what they were agreeing to when they sign a contract/mortgage, etc.[/quote]
Son, I know lawyers that could fuck you 15 ways in a contract and you'd never see the train hitting your ass until you're standing in front of a judge arguing the semantic value of the word "is".

The real world is far different from your theoretical playground.

If a bank makes stupid decisions and goes under, that doesn't effect the borrower at all. He still has the contract he agreed to and will continue making payments, even if the company is in bankruptcy restructuring..

Except that the mortgage is sold on to the next operator who may see the terms of the contract quite differently.

The only way for responsible people to get hurt when the economy turns south is if they lose their job...and while that is unfortunate, it doesn't free them from obligations they have already agreed to such as loan payments, etc. You disagree?

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Take a long, hard look at Argentina. You'll stop saying things as dumb as that last quoted section. That's just dumb.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Son, I know lawyers that could fuck you 15 ways in a contract and you'd never see the train hitting your ass until you're standing in front of a judge arguing the semantic value of the word "is".

Except that the mortgage is sold on to the next operator who may see the terms of the contract quite differently.
[/quote]

Sorry, I have no sympathy for people who don't do research into what they are signing/buying. Hopefully their losses will serve as a lesson.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Take a long, hard look at Argentina. You'll stop saying things as dumb as that last quoted section. That's just dumb.

We were talking about theoretical capitalist country..not a socialist nightmare with worthless fiat currency. No self respecting capitalist country would have a currency backed by nothing. ;)
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Sorry, I have no sympathy for people who don't do research into what they are signing/buying. Hopefully their losses will serve as a lesson.[/quote]
First off, I would watch your tone of pride. If you aren't a damned fantastic contract lawyer, you are carrying liabilities you can't even imagine. I promise you there are subsections of contracts you have signed that would shock you.

Second, that's a damned disgusting way of conducting one's self. No sympathy for people taken advantage of? Is it just me, or do libertarians and Randians actually seem to relish the nastier parts of their ethos?

We were talking about theoretical capitalist country..not a socialist nightmare with worthless fiat currency. No self respecting capitalist country would have a currency backed by nothing. ;)
Well, I ain't never visited no theoretical country before :D Why exactly does "backing" somehow make paper worth something more in real terms? Because behind a piece of paper is a piece of metal now? Hell, I think it was a good idea to stop pretending that the backing has value, but that's just me. It seems to me like backing is just adding more layers of bullshit, but that's just me.

The human love affair with a shiny piece of metal is the weirdest thing to me. We all think it's crazy that American Indians were down with the beads, and then we use ridiculous metals ourselves.
 
[quote name='speedracer']First off, I would watch your tone of pride. If you aren't a damned fantastic contract lawyer, you are carrying liabilities you can't even imagine. I promise you there are subsections of contracts you have signed that would shock you. [/quote]

I don't think so but you are free to believe it if you wish.

Second, that's a damned disgusting way of conducting one's self. No sympathy for people taken advantage of? Is it just me, or do libertarians and Randians actually seem to relish the nastier parts of their ethos?
No No, you have a huge misperception there buddy. I sympathize true victims of exploitation as much as the next guy..but I also have a respect for human life and the human right to property (an extension of life) that overrules almost everything else. You may find that most libertarians/Randians hold this view...that they will likely side with landlords over tenants who have fallen on hard times and can't pay their bill, but this is NOT because they are unsympathetic to the tenants or enjoy laughing at their plight..but because the rule of law and the landlord's right to their own property must be paramount. It must override whatever sense of cosmic injustice we perceive at the moment because when you deny property rights in any form, you are condoning a form of slavery...and slavery is the complete opposite of libertarianism.

Why exactly does "backing" somehow make paper worth something more in real terms? Because behind a piece of paper is a piece of metal now? Hell, I think it was a good idea to stop pretending that the backing has value, but that's just me. It seems to me like backing is just adding more layers of bullshit, but that's just me.
Oh boy lets not go there again. ;) I've seen debates on the gold standard that last hundreds of pages with zero opinions being changed on either side. But I have to say, gold is not just valuable because it is pretty, portable, non-perishable, highly divisible, and rare (though those are nice properties of it)...but mainly because people have DESIRED it since the beginning of recorded history. Through famines, plagues, world wars, and the rise and fall of empires, gold and silver have always been highly desired. Paper currencies are not backed by anything rare or desirable these days. They are backed by debt, promises, and the faith people have in them. The dollar's value can be destroyed overnight by central bankers or politicians..or it can simply become worthless over time as people lose faith in it. Libertarians who value life and property as absolute rights really don't like this concept because it means you can be robbed indirectly at any time with no way to protect yourself. When people in power can steal (devalue) your life savings at the stroke of a pen, your only alternative is to get out of the currency every payday as quickly as possible (not practical) or to back the currency with something tangible which will prevent government from printing more of it at will.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']I've seen debates on the gold standard that last hundreds of pages with zero opinions being changed on either side.[/QUOTE]

I have never actually seen a decent debate on the matter, I have however seen dozens of pro gold standard people who just take it as an article of faith.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, but we still need regulations on things like loans, mortgages, credit default swaps etc. to protect responsible people from being hurt when banks go under from taking on bad debts, having too many irresponsible people foreclose etc. etc.

In a free market fiscally responsible people still get fucked when the market collapses. We need regulations to prevent such things and keep the market as stable as possible.[/QUOTE]

Regulation is a good think to make sure people are treated in an objective manner according to the law and can make rational decisions based on truths when gambling with stocks. But, the fact that you believe it needs to be controlled and artificially stabilized proves you have no idea what free markets are, and no concept of what the stock market is.

The stock market is a crap shoot. It can be like Black Jack or Poker at times. But regardless of the game, in all cases it is simply legalized gambling. The image in your head of it as an insurance policy is completely and utterly false.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']The stock market is a crap shoot. It can be like Black Jack or Poker at times. But regardless of the game, in all cases it is simply legalized gambling. The image in your head of it as an insurance policy is completely and utterly false.[/quote]

Nah, it's worse then that. The stock market is like old-school Vegas without the comps. At least in modern gambling you know the rules and the odds going in. With the stock market, the executive class can rewrite the rules as they go along, can freeze your ability to cash in, can do anything it can bamboozle Congress and the SEC into. And if it turns out the dealer was cheating the whole time, sorry Charlie you're out of luck. Finally, you only cash in after everyone from the casino owner to the dealer to the cashier has receieved a big fat tip.
 
[quote name='camoor']Nah, it's worse then that. The stock market is like old-school Vegas without the comps. At least in modern gambling you know the rules and the odds going in. With the stock market, the executive class can rewrite the rules as they go along, can freeze your ability to cash in, can do anything it can bamboozle Congress and the SEC into. And if it turns out the dealer was cheating the whole time, sorry Charlie you're out of luck. Finally, you only cash in after everyone from the casino owner to the dealer to the cashier has receieved a big fat tip.[/QUOTE]

I stand corrected.
 
Sounds like the answer then, is to not play the stock market, if you don't like unfairness. That's a hell of a lot cheaper than taxing the shit out of us to pay for all types of complicated regulation that will always corrupt itself anyway.
 
Careful now, that's borderline heresy around these parts. Everything is going to be mandated as fair, didn't you get that memo? That's how it becomes safe for everyone. Don't you feel safer now ?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Careful now, that's borderline heresy around these parts. Everything is going to be mandated as fair, didn't you get that memo? That's how it becomes safe for everyone. Don't you feel safer now ?[/QUOTE]

Hehe. I know.

I've come to believe the main difference between me and most others here like dmaul, mykevermin, etc is this:

Even though I think we all agree the system is inherently corrupt; especially the social fairness systems - and we may even agree on the fact that it's always destined to be corrupt, no matter what action is taken; I happen to believe that is reason enough to forget about trying so hard, for the most part, and quit torturing everyone's paychecks to try and correct an uncorrectable system. While they believe that, kind of like the war on drugs, even though it can never be perfected or "fixed" we can't ever stop trying.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Sounds like the answer then, is to not play the stock market, if you don't like unfairness. That's a hell of a lot cheaper than taxing the shit out of us to pay for all types of complicated regulation that will always corrupt itself anyway.[/QUOTE]

Regulation doesn't have to be expensive. It can simply be new laws on how certain transactions must be conducted, new requirements for getting loans etc. The existing infrastructure should be largely sufficient to enforce violations of new laws/regulations.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
Even though I think we all agree the system is inherently corrupt; especially the social fairness systems - and we may even agree on the fact that it's always destined to be corrupt, no matter what action is taken; I happen to believe that is reason enough to forget about trying so hard, for the most part, and quit torturing everyone's paychecks to try and correct an uncorrectable system. While they believe that, kind of like the war on drugs, even though it can never be perfected or "fixed" we can't ever stop trying.[/QUOTE]

if that is the case, why have any laws at all?
 
You both misunderstood his point.

This always seems to be the disconnect when arguing against individual freedom. That liberty means chaos, lawlessness, or anarchy, if you prefer. Nothing could be further from the truth. Laws are enacted (or should be, anyway) to protect the rights of individuals and give equality under the law. It does not mean government gets a free pass to manipulate the market or attempt to eliminate risk. Doing so always creates preferential treatment or penalty to groups or certain individuals. This constitutes immoral government, regardless of the 'good intention' of the lawmaker.


And Thrust, you are dead wrong. Myke does not believe the system is corrupt. He believes the system simply doesn't have enough control to be effective. He's never been ashamed to admit that his ideal is the complete elimination of property rights as a means to totalitarianism for the common good. Not sure about speedy and dmaul, I think they just might be along for the ride and don't yet realize the end result of their philosophies. But Myke is well aware.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='bmulligan']You both misunderstood his point.

This always seems to be the disconnect when arguing against individual freedom. That liberty means chaos, lawlessness, or anarchy, if you prefer. Nothing could be further from the truth. Laws are enacted (or should be, anyway) to protect the rights of individuals and give equality under the law. It does not mean government gets a free pass to manipulate the market or attempt to eliminate risk. Doing so always creates preferential treatment or penalty to groups or certain individuals. This constitutes immoral government, regardless of the 'good intention' of the lawmaker.[/QUOTE]

Government manipulating the market to "eliminate risk" or to "stabilize the market" is merely a recipe for the market to become more unstable. See: the 1930s, possibly the next few years if we continue with "bailouts."
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Government manipulating the market to "eliminate risk" or to "stabilize the market" is merely a recipe for the market to become more unstable. See: the 1930s, possibly the next few years if we continue with "bailouts."[/QUOTE]

Mainly because the social engineers believe they have the intellectual prowess to achieve social change through fiat. It continues to disintegrate our society and demean us as human beings, yet the solution to failure is always more manipulative control which is completely different than 'regulation'.
 
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." -Robert Heinlein
 
Quotes, nice.

"A necessitous man is not a free man." - FDR

Free market capitalism creates a nation of peons, who are too busy worrying about making ends meet to be concerned about freedoms.
 
I don't think we need any sweeping regulations or anything. Just simple things like laws/regulations on credit default swaps to keep banks form taking on too much bad debt. Laws/regulations setting minimum standards for being able to get a mortgage to reduce the rate of foreclosures (requiring a minimum % down payment, setting a max % of a person/couples' income that their monthly monthly payment can take up) etc. etc.

It's just common sense when you see a few bad things that have a lot to do with the economy going down that their should be some disincentives put in place to keep banks and people from doing the same things in the future.

Because people don't learn from their mistakes on a wide scale. Greed always wins out.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Quotes, nice.

"A necessitous man is not a free man." - FDR

Free market capitalism creates a nation of peons, who are too busy worrying about making ends meet to be concerned about freedoms.[/quote]

That is the most dangerous attitude in the history of mankind. Those type of "freedoms" are actually claims on the lives of others, and humanity is reduced to slavery.
 
bread's done
Back
Top