lanzarlaluna
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
Objectivism makes me go a big rubbery one.
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
A+ Mr Goldwater..I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can. - Barry Goldwater
Then simply state that what I said does not make sense to you and why, instead of uselessly nitpicking it without saying anything worthwhile about it.
People took the book seriously because the underlying message was so important. Her characters may be one dimensional, but some of the speeches and dialogue carry very profound meaning that had never been offered in intellectual circles before. Capitalism already had an economic justification..The benefits of free markets over central planning were widely known at the time. What Rand did was offer a MORAL justification for capitalism..something it was sorely lacking until that point. She is influential because she filled in the blank spots in the libertarian philosophy. The scientists and economists proved beyond a doubt that socialism is a failure and capitalism is the system that provides prosperity for the greatest number of people...but she proved that it was also the most MORAL system available..that liberty and free markets are not only beneficial, but pro-life and PRO-HUMAN. She showed that those attempting to restrict this freedom in the name of the "common good" are nothing more than mini-tyrants who do more harm than good.Obviously her characters were one dimensional because she was a terrible writer and lacked the ability to create a story with as much emotional depth as a Punch and Judy show. The problem is not even so much the book it is that people take it so seriously.
Yes, people will always act in their own interest and some wouldn't object to enslaving others. Thats why we need government to protect the basic rights of life and liberty. I'm about as hardcore libertarian as they come, and you will never hear me object to a government protecting it's citizens from theft and violence. That is the main reason any government should exist. You lefties want to go far beyond this though..and that is where your ideas become oppressive and tyrannical.free markets did precisely dick and doodly to end actual slavery. Even today they hardly do much to help and in some cases it is painfully obvious mega corporations would jump on it if given a change.
People took the book seriously because the underlying message was so important.
You lefties want to go far beyond this though..and that is where your ideas become oppressive and tyrannical.
Capitalism is nothing more than a system where individuals work and trade voluntarily without the use of coercion or force. There is nothing oppressive about it. The greediest businessman in the world has no right to use any kind of force against you. He can't point a gun to your head and demand your money and your time. The worst he can do is politely beg for your business.
Once you recognize this, you should be a bit more weary of giving Washington any power beyond what is needed to enforce the two universal laws of capitalism (#1. No theft, #2. No violence).
And yes, government has a right to use violence to prevent others from using violence. This is the only instance where force is morally justified.
Bzzt..Stop right there. This would qualify as both theft and violence..intentionally vandalizing public property and endangering the lives of others. In a libertarian/capitalist country, this would be the height of immorality...and government would be required to step in.Since we're using hypotheticals, let's use another one.
Let's pretend the greediest businessman creates water filters at his factory.
Unfortunately, the factory pollutes the local water supply to the point that the businessman's filters are required or the water is lethal.
In a libertarian/capitalist country, this would be the height of immorality...and government would be required to step in.