- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
How many people or corporations have never had a quarter in which they earn less than the lowest-paid employee? How many have never had a quarter in which they actually lost money?
The socialist poster is just factually wrong.
I guess he thinks if you mow grass for money, it's not capitalism. If you do it really well, though, and find so many customers that you start buying equipment, finding jobs for others who want work, providing training, setting up billing, and so; at that point you're a hierarchal master with "more power" than the people you're finding the jobs for. It doesn't matter to the socialist that all these people are working of their own free will and they can/should/will leave you immediately if someone else finds a better way to serve customers with their labor and can pay them better. I guess that person's a real hierarchal master. This whole thing is a crock.
Communism, after reading "The Stones Cry Out", makes me almost violent. Everybody should read that book.
In both socialism and communism there is no middle class and little innovation. Look at Cuba for a moment. I would guess the poor have a 57 Ford while the middle class have a 58 Chevy. This is because there is no innovation. If you draw the line finely enough there maybe a group of people that earn slightly more. Even at that, none of these people will rise to the level of "Ruling Class".
In Capitalism, the poor have the chance and incentive to rise above their beginnings and become the Chairman or President of a company. It is so vibrant they can either do this the Bill Gates way and create their own company and pathway, or they can do it the Lee Iaccoca way, making vertical moves between companies. Does everybody move up? No. It is for the individual to decide what they will do and how hard they will work. Even then many are failures. The great lesson in failure is what not to do next time. Then start over and build a better business model. In Socialism or Communism there is no "next time". After a few generations there is no first time.
It is the individualism in capitalism that sideswipes Rand's philosophy. Without the open architecture of capitalism, the objectivist cannot exist. And so, to pose an objectivist in a socialist or communist society is impossible. They will be culled by the government.
One other point I notice when the academics are discussing the socialist utopia is this. Why is it that AS is no longer fiction? Everyday in this utopia we live in I see the news where the government has fixed the problem with another new rule. More and more it's something I read about in AS.
Well said, though.
For anyone who's reading the comments over there, notice the deep connection between Anarchy and Communism. Many people believe that anarchy is the opposite of totalitarianism, but my own studies and personal research have given me sufficient evidence to believe that it is not. Rather, anarchy is the gateway through which totalitarianism can be made manifest.
I've mentioned a few times here that I oppose Anarchy and anarchistic philosophy. Well, this is why.
He who controls CO2 controls the world, and even life itself.
He helped a college-educated street bum get a job. She went off to her job on a Monday. Tuesday she was back on the street. "What happened?" said my friend.
"Oh, I couldn't work there. It's impossible."
"Well, what's wrong?"
"They expect me to show up every day at 9:00 AM. I can't do THAT!"
On another occasion he got an earful from a bum who he had allowed to sleep for a few nights on the floor in his apartment. The bum had been out with friends, and had absorbed some discussions of "street" philosophy. Came back that night and started telling my friend that the problems of the world were all caused by "The Jew." My Marxist friend is Jewish. Even though he claims he's the only atheist in his Orthodox congregation, the insults were too much for him. He evicted the bum.
To me those stories are an excellent object lesson in the "immorality of selflessness." (I'm inverting the title of a well-known book.)
Also, subsequent children would have a declining scale of support, since they can wear hand-me-downs and the incremental cost for cooking a meal for one more is much less than for the first one.
article by a NY liberal who wanted to spend more
money on some program or other. She was beloved
by her readers and I gave a polite comment
mentioning that we are broke and also men-
tioned that the U.S. became wealthy due to
freedom. Those readers decended on me like
hungry mosquitos, and one gave me a lesson
about the U.S. which became rich due to
"landmass and slavery."
And that's all we are up against ?
My favorite comment: "get him a copy of Grapes of Wrath quick!"
There was never a more dehumanizing book written with beautiful prose that I can think of. well, wait a minute, I can think of more...
Yes, DO read Grapes of Wrath-and in the final scenes-tell us how you viewed the pressure on the young mother who lost her child to offer up her breast to the starving, dying old man whom she had never met before. I always love it when the women are asked to give up shit first in socialism....like their femininity for one...
Our population is so rife with dumb sheep - just mindless, hapless victims.
Rand knew more about the failings of your bankrupt philosophy in its practical application than any of you. She lived in it and escaped to a better way of life here in the United States. History shows us that socialism and communism ignore a basic truth of human nature- that humans are best incentivized towards productivity by the prospect of self-betterment. Taking this away with a "from each....to each" philosophy leads to mass apathy and generalized misery (except for those that run things- remember, socialism is never for the socialist). Stressing the importance of hard work and self-advancement with the least amount of government intrusion is the most effective way to create wealth for an entire society- history proves this. My observation is that socialists oppose capitalism out of simple jealousy. They aren't able to achieve the success which they feel entitled to so they want to take it at the point of a spear.
Wolves are individuals that, because of nature and their intelligence, decide to live in packs. So do lions, dolphins, whales, fish, ants, etc. We humans are far from being bees and ants, and much closer to being wolves and whales. Any questions?
Greed is self regulating as competitors will arise at lower costs. Envy on the other hand is a bottomless pit of need with no contribution to others. It is what the left is based on. Theft from one to bribe another to continue the ruination of the recipients of stolen property and the destruction of victims of the original theft.
Silly socialists. They don't get it. Just like the government we have now, they don't get it either. . .
If you have 10 kids that’s your problem not mine. I’ve never understood the concept that I have to pay for your kids. I paid for mine without your help.
For those who rant about how bad or wrong AR was might just need to have it explained to them as it appears that they just don’t get it on their own.
I did something for another, that person paid me.
These commies are just as lazy as Marx. Got done with college and tried to find a way for some one to take the money from others and give it to me. Oh and for the bribe, I will vote....