Thank you! That is usually what I do, but when I read the questioner's post and noticed that the "SOURCE URL:" referred back to the /posts/addpost page I had a WTH moment and didn't check the subject link. I see now that the "SOURCE URL:" has been updated to correctly point to the subject link by some mysterious means.

you do not argue with a socialist about the rights of the individual. Where you persuade with a socialist (in this case especially NEW socialist-youth) is in the inherent contradictions of their belief, You point out the contradictions in what they already understand as "moral." start there.
Once you get them to see the inherent contradictions in their belief-NOW is the time to discuss natural rights. NOW you can build the framework explaining the moral case for Capitalism. I totally read the article from that perspective. Shapiro has been clear about reaching out to young people in particular and frankly Objectivism loses that war. Many youth read AS but then reject Objectivism. That's because they are already true believers in altruism. they can't escape it-it's taught either explicitly or implicitly in every class up to college and most classes in college.
As for the 10 commandment part, I usually ignore that stuff, but it is an effective argument to point out government is not a god-most see the absurdity of that when presented with it.

I am amazed at the success the left has at recruiting youth. It's all based on a paper tiger of hating business-yet government is behind every WS face. Where is the outcry for jobs? Although recent college graduates enjoy a low 3.9% unemployment rate-the jobs they are taking are primarily low skill jobs that used to go to high school graduates. The fact is high skilled workers can take middle skilled jobs and middle skilled workers will take low skill jobs. In the US, the number of jobs requiring a 4 year degree is on the rise-meaning college graduates with an education "worth" of 100k are taking receptionist, food service, waiter, secretarial positions at an alarming rate. Why are these people not taking to the streets on the weekend! Youth also tend to support anti-drug laws and anti-immigration. Here is part of the rub. Conservatives will not give in on either of the last two issues, and so they lose the youth. As well, the gvt is handing out NGO community organizing jobs like candy-specifically targeted to college graduates. Take this poorly paying "Help america" job and we will recognize your time in the trenches and award you with a mid level govt job when you've finished. The major colleges are flooding their curriculum with public policy majors. You want to pay off that student loan debt? You gotta work for "us." Capturing the independent vote is harder to do under the current economic climate. The fiscally conservative independents are torn between reducing govt spending and wanting a safety net in case they're the ones laid off. Or they ARE unemployed due to the economic recession. We already have the support of small business owners.It seems to me persuading the youth is key-in many ways they have the most to lose.

Yes...YES we do! :)

The ever growing government spending is one element, another used to be government ownership of mines, mills, telecoms, airlines, railroads, banks, hospitals, power stations. This has changed to control. So it is not socialism as it used to be called or as Marx or Stalin would recognize it. kh, yes- it is unproductive to engage in 'parsing'. It is like a harmful bacteria that has morphed.
So how to stop it? more ammo? Or learn from the enemy?

I agree with your first statements and then WHAT?!

I just think it's the excuse of the progressives to hide behind any number of other labels. In my lifetime, socialism has increased exponentially. From Department of Education to Medicare to Obamacare-major socialist accomplishments. The govts of the GDP is higher than it was during WWII. Regulation explosion compared to any other time in history. Compared to you Lucky, I admit I'm too close to it-if we look worldwide at progress in Asia for instance. But parsing the definition of socialism vs crony socialism vs welfare state vs progressivism vs facism, I'm not sure the point. They are all anti-individual rights, anti property rights. It's dangerous and has to be stopped.

So the fact that a vast majority of our Democratic representatives in Congress are also members of the Democratic Socialists Party and politicians feel free to announce their socialist associations isn't a rise in Socialism?
Go look at their membership.

Yes, it is growing and pretending otherwise is not going to stem it.

What URL?

MM is right again. Socialism is not growing. Unfortunately what is growing is something as bad. You could call it the corporate state, it has much the same characteristics, what happened is that the 'governing class' has, correctly, reached the feeling that government ownership does not work so they switched to government control of companies, corporates, and the economy. The control is exercised by a small class of crony capitalists and government officials while those elected just sign off, example, the EU, uncannily like Orwell predicted. Whatever turns up, climate change, racism, human rights, is turned into more taxes, censorship and restrictions.

MM, you have made two great points:
1. the right of the individual which is the prime justification
2. that all benefit from trade.
I add this comment- as point 2 (trade) gives a higher economic outcome, survival is ensured as alternative systems are out-performed. If this were not the case the prime objective is noble but worthless.
I may stand corrected but I observe that more socialism may give economic growth for a few years but there is inevitable decline. (You have to quote Singapore as an exception but that is a strange socialism with very low taxes, high business freedom etc.). So, even if socialism has merits, the system is not stable but must decline.

You seem to have a very good understanding of the philosophy behind "Atlas Shrugged." I am surprised that you let the fundamental error in this post go by. I understand the sentiment, perhaps, as I said, as a secondary consequence. It is a funny kind of paradox, pointed out by Adam Smith, that when each works for their own self interest that all will benefit. But that is not a moral justification for capitalism. The primary reason for free enterprise is the right of the individual - the metaphysical need of each person - to live their own life by their own standards, even if no one else goes along.

See the topic on "The Creative Genius" under Philosophy from two months ago:
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/1b...

The genius of Ayn Rand's philosophy is that it discovered and presented a METAPHYSICAL and EPISTEMOLOGICAL foundation for the morality of egoism which justifies capitalism. Do you think - as in that piece from the Patriot Post - that the moral justification for capitalism is that you need other people or else you will starve? What if you the smartest person in a village? Would you need them? Truly, in capitalism everyone CAN benefit by trading with others of whatever abilities.

Long ago, a libertarian named Jerry Emanuelson published an algebraic proof of Ricardo's Law of Association. He showed with high school algebra, that even if you can do two tasks better than someone else, it is still more productive for you to divide your labor and exchange it, regardless of who does what.

The point is that without someone else, you could do all of it yourself. If someone else is there to trade with - even if they are not as accomplished as you - you both can benefit.

But that is NOT the moral justification of capitalism.

Remember that too often, the mass of humanity reject the work of the creative genius. Does that true producer have no justification for their own existence?

I am sorry, but this is just plain wrong. This Ben Shapiro of the Patriot Post failed to identify the true moral basis for capitalism and instead - once again - delivered the same moral argument as the socialists, that capitalism is "truly altruistic." Capitalism does not begin with the realization that if I do not trade with you, I will starve. It begins with the fact that a productive person who is free will have surplus that can be traded to others who have values to offer.

It is true that the more we have to offer others, the more we prosper. That is a SECONDARY CONSEQUENCE, not a motivational cause.

Furthermore, Shapiro attempts a mystical, traditionalist justification. Again, the essential, axiomatic foundations of capitalism are in reason and reality, and in the discovery and creation of the New, of innovation and invention.

Socialism is not at all "on the rise." It is on its way out; and has been since 1957. Objectivists have been making the real case for capitalism for half a century and have been taking the steps leading to the demise of socialism.

A handful of desperate politicians in Seattle and New York do not make a movement. The time has come to declare victory. We are right now like the Allies after Normandy or the Union after Gettysburg. All that is left is the mopping up.

We do? Oh I cannot wait to find out more.

Thank you for asking this as I was curious as well.

A campground in north central IL. Called Johnston's Sauk CG. It's one of our fav weekend trips. Nice lake, good fishing and several art fairs a year within 30 miles of it. When I'm in a fair anywhere near it, we camp there.

Mars

LS we have got ourselves a genie

Then you shall have it.

I know you don't need luck for that ;)
hey, where were you camped in the picture you sent of the rig. looks like home to me

Trust me...we want to hear it. :) At least PM khalling and me with it.

That's where things are unless we see some big changes, fast. I joined the strikers list 3 years ago and have been making plans to bug out ever since.