Adam Smith the Moralist, Ayn Rand the Barbarian force behind the FED

[Chosen]

Adam Smith, the true founder of capitolism rejects the barbarity of Rands selfish independence. This is an important topic because our current crop of Authoritarian Oligarchists have been using her championship of selfishness as a smokescreen for theft and brutality for decades now. Adam Smith at least had morality, but now we are stuck with the Ayn Rand morality of the federal reserve and its greatest champion Alan Greenspan, the theologian behind the scenes of bailoutmanship.


The Adam Smith Solution

The founder of modern economics, Adam Smith, takes a different approach by trying to incorporate both concepts in his "system of natural liberty." Smith and Rand are in agreement about the universal benefits of a free capitalistic society. But Smith rejects Rand's vision of selfish independence. He teaches that there are two driving forces behind man's actions--in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, he identifies the first as "sympathy" or "benevolence" toward others in society, while in his Wealth of Nations, he focuses on the second, "self interest," the right to pursue one's own business. Smith believes that as the market economy develops and individuals move away from their community, "self interest" becomes a more dominant force than "sympathy." But both are essential to achieve "universal opulence." (Smith 1965:11)

Adam Smith is famous for making a statement that sounds Randian in tone: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." (Smith 1965:14) But this statement is often taken out of context. Smith's self-interest never reaches the Randian selfishness that ignores the interest of others. On the contrary, in Smith's mind, an individual's goals cannot be fully achieved in business unless he appeals to the self-interest of others. Smith says so in the very next sentence: "We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages." (Ibid.) Moreover, he writes earlier on the same page, "He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour....Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the mean of every such offer." (Ibid.) Smith's theme echoes his Christian heritage, particularly the golden rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (See Matthew 7:12)

Perhaps a true capitalist spirit can best be summed up in the Christian commandment, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." (Matthew 22:39) Adam Smith and Ludwig von Mises would undoubtedly agree with this creed, but apparently Howard Roark and John Galt -- and their creator -- would agree with only half. And that's a great tragedy for the greatest novelist of the 20th century.

Smith, Adam. 1965 [1776]. The Wealth of Nations. Modern Library.

[Truth Warrior]

Ayn was 8 and in Russia when the Fed came in, silly "collectivist" Trotskyite Neocon. :p :rolleyes:

http://capitalism.org/ (http://capitalism.org/)

[BuddyRey]

I'm pretty sure Rand was anti-Fed.

The Voluntaryist society she portrays in "Atlas Shrugged" only accepts gold as true currency and has no monopolistic Central Bank.

Just because Greenspan was *ostensibly* an adherent to Rand's philosophy, which he was most certainly not (most scholars agree that Greenspan's Objectivist period was over by Rand's death in 1982) and he happened to lead the Fed does not in any way mean that he was acting as she would have or was in any way reflecting her views. He has spinelessly repudiated every moral absolute he once held dear since breaking with Rand; in fact, in a recent op-ed which appeared in our local newspaper, Greenspan said that free markets were "naive."

[rational thinker]

I'm pretty sure Rand was anti-Fed.

The Voluntaryist society she portrays in "Atlas Shrugged" only accepts gold as true currency and has no monopolistic Central Bank.

Just because Greenspan was *ostensibly* an adherent to Rand's philosophy, which he was most certainly not (most scholars agree that Greenspan's Objectivist period was over by Rand's death in 1982) and he happened to lead the Fed does not in any way mean that he was acting as she would have or was in any way reflecting her views. He has spinelessly repudiated every moral absolute he once held dear since breaking with Rand; in fact, in a recent op-ed which appeared in our local newspaper, Greenspan said that free markets were "naive."

You see, does anyone else notice this recurring pattern or is just me? Every politician which ran on those types of principles (limited government, lower taxes, libertarianism) always seem to betray their positions while in office. I can't seem to find any exceptions.

How do we know that Ron Paul himself is an exception? I believe that he is, but that's just out of faith.

[Chosen]

Ayn was 8 and in Russia when the Fed came in, silly "collectivist" Trotskyite Neocon. :p :rolleyes:

http://capitalism.org/ (http://capitalism.org/)
Easy there fucking child. I am convinced you have asperbergers syndrome, because you cannot ascertain abstraction, even if it is based on clearly extrapolated point. If you had a father, I am sure he would have taught you this.

Trotskyite Neocon is someone like Bill Kristol. Neocons support illegal immigration and of course the reason you are probably using this term is because it is an anti-semitic term, basically a veiled hate stab.

I have in much with Kristol as you have with Ron Paul.

I am an unapologetic Reagan Conservative. Now don't you have a UFO abductee meeting to attend?

[LibertyEagle]

You see, does anyone else notice this recurring pattern or is just me? Every politician which ran on those types of principles (limited government, lower taxes, libertarianism) always seem to betray their positions while in office. I can't seem to find any exceptions.

How do we know that Ron Paul himself is an exception? I believe that he is, but that's just out of faith.

RT, he has quite a few years of voting history to back him up. Don't ya think? The man has not changed much at all, since he first went to Congress in the 70's.

I understand what you're saying though, but for me, if I can't trust Ron Paul, there is NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE, I could trust.

[Chosen]

I'm pretty sure Rand was anti-Fed.

The Voluntaryist society she portrays in "Atlas Shrugged" only accepts gold as true currency and has no monopolistic Central Bank.

Just because Greenspan was *ostensibly* an adherent to Rand's philosophy, which he was most certainly not (most scholars agree that Greenspan's Objectivist period was over by Rand's death in 1982) and he happened to lead the Fed does not in any way mean that he was acting as she would have or was in any way reflecting her views. He has spinelessly repudiated every moral absolute he once held dear since breaking with Rand; in fact, in a recent op-ed which appeared in our local newspaper, Greenspan said that free markets were "naive."
Greenspan Shrugged.

What scholars? Greenspan acted selfishly, not with any concern to the greater good (his job was to do this), but to satisfaction of his desires. Greenspan is the modern manifestation of Ayn Rand, what we need is an Adam Smith.

[rational thinker]

RT, he has quite a few years of voting history to back him up. Don't ya think? The man has not changed much at all, since he first went to Congress in the 70's.

I understand what you're saying though, but for me, if I can't trust Ron Paul, there is NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE, I could trust.

Well, I was going to use the voting history record as an argument but many of rationalized that as him simply being in Congress taking care of his small area and the game is a lot different on the national level (assuming he becomes president).

So, yes the voting history can be used but I don't think it's as indicative if it were to be, say, a Senate voting record. The fact that he only takes care of his district may not convince everyone.

And yes, I feel the same about Ron Paul. I mean, I couldn't vote third party this past election at all because Ron wasn't running. I couldn't get myself to vote for either Barr or Baldwin because I simply didn't trust them. And there was no way in hell I was going to vote for McCain or Obama.

[LibertyEagle]

Chosen, while I can certainly understand you being pissed off at "Truth" Warrior, I'm not buying that the term, "neoconservative" is anti-semitic. Irving Kristol (Bill's dad), coined the term and after they had successfully infiltrated the conservative movement and trashed it all to heck, they understandably wanted to drop the term. It doesn't change the facts. They aren't conservative at all.

You've probably already read or watched it, but just in case you have not, here's a link to Dr. Paul's speech called, "Neo-conned". He lays it all out here. I think you'll find it quite interesting. I know I did. :)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4156174553630131591

[Dripping Rain]

the Libertarian political supremacists will eat you alive for questioning Rand
get ready to be eaten
I respect Murray Rothbard but I have no love for that crazy old woman
and no i dont agree with some of your crazy ideas as well

[LibertyEagle]

Well, I was going to use the voting history record as an argument but many of rationalized that as him simply being in Congress taking care of his small area and the game is a lot different on the national level (assuming he becomes president).

So, yes the voting history can be used but I don't think it's as indicative if it were to be, say, a Senate voting record. The fact that he only takes care of his district may not convince everyone.

And yes, I feel the same about Ron Paul. I mean, I couldn't vote third party this past election at all because Ron wasn't running. I couldn't get myself to vote for either Barr or Baldwin because I simply didn't trust them. And there was no way in hell I was going to vote for McCain or Obama.

But, the biggest things he does are for the country as a whole. Such as his bills to get us out of the UN and his bills to dismantle the FED. There are a lot of others too. In my opinion, he does more at the national level, than most any Senator I can think of.

Plus, RT, he votes against ALL bills that are unconstitutional. Regardless of whether it might help out his district. That to me means a lot, because he knows it could very well mean the difference between him being reelected or not. Fortunately, the people in his district apparently put liberty above their own personal gain.

[Invalid]

Neocons are belong to an extremist movement that parasited themselves into the GOP during the Reagan years.

[BuddyRey]

Greenspan Shrugged.

What scholars? Greenspan acted selfishly, not with any concern to the greater good (his job was to do this), but to satisfaction of his desires. Greenspan is the modern manifestation of Ayn Rand, what we need is an Adam Smith.

Fair enough, but consider this: Greenspan may have acted "selfishly", but his actions were predatory, an example of selfishness for its own sake, not out of Enlightened Self-Interest, but out of the same groping, unprincipled covetousness practiced by "The Looters" in Rand's books. In this way, the Randian credo of "I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine" has been completely forsaken by Greenspan, who uses a predatory agency to forcibly extract the wealth of innocent people.

I'm not an Objectivist, but I've read enough of Rand's work to know that this is not the kind of selfishness she was advocating.

[Dripping Rain]

You see, does anyone else notice this recurring pattern or is just me? Every politician which ran on those types of principles (limited government, lower taxes, libertarianism) always seem to betray their positions while in office. I can't seem to find any exceptions.

How do we know that Ron Paul himself is an exception? I believe that he is, but that's just out of faith.

if voting History was not an indication then there is no way to convince you that Ron Paul will stay true to his word.
I question your "Rational Thinking" when you make such a statement. You really think someone spent 30 years in Congress with a flawless voting record that matches what he says so that he can betray all his beliefs and supporters in his seventies when hes approaching his death?
my support for Ron Paul wasnt based on faith. He didnt start a religion and im not in a cult or a movement. my support for Ron Paul was because of his actions

[constituent]

Easy there fucking child. I am convinced you have asperbergers syndrome, because you cannot ascertain abstraction, even if it is based on clearly extrapolated point.

Fucking illiterate.



I have in much with Kristol as you have with Ron Paul.

LoL, you do what now?

[Dripping Rain]

Easy there fucking child. I am convinced you have asperbergers syndrome, because you cannot ascertain abstraction, even if it is based on clearly extrapolated point. If you had a father, I am sure he would have taught you this.

Trotskyite Neocon is someone like Bill Kristol. Neocons support illegal immigration and of course the reason you are probably using this term is because it is an anti-semitic term, basically a veiled hate stab.

I have in much with Kristol as you have with Ron Paul.

I am an unapologetic Reagan Conservative. Now don't you have a UFO abductee meeting to attend?

I didnt see this post. actually i wont feel sorry for you after you get eaten alive
this asinine comment just destroyed any good thing that can come out of this thread
good bye my friend

[constituent]

I didnt see this post. actually i wont feel sorry for you after you get eaten alive
this asinine comment just destroyed any good thing that can come out of this thread
good bye my friend

I love it when minuteman messiah "Chosen," relying merely on garbage, propaganda and insults, in order to "make a point," attempts diagnosing others with afflictions he can't properly name.

Beautiful.

Pure, distilled, crystalline fail.

Epic retardation.

[Truth Warrior]

Easy there fucking child. I am convinced you have asperbergers syndrome, because you cannot ascertain abstraction, even if it is based on clearly extrapolated point. If you had a father, I am sure he would have taught you this.

Trotskyite Neocon is someone like Bill Kristol. Neocons support illegal immigration and of course the reason you are probably using this term is because it is an anti-semitic term, basically a veiled hate stab.

I have in much with Kristol as you have with Ron Paul.

I am an unapologetic Reagan Conservative. Now don't you have a UFO abductee meeting to attend? And your buddy Robert Locke. :p

Yep, and I'm convinced that you're an idiot. Abstractions ONLY exist in REALITY as human mental concepts and constructs. :rolleyes: DUH!!!

Don't you have several Reagan cabinet member Trilateral Commission meetings to deny. :rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

Stop the name-calling, people. Geez!

[Young Paleocon]

Easy there fucking child. I am convinced you have asperbergers syndrome, because you cannot ascertain abstraction, even if it is based on clearly extrapolated point. If you had a father, I am sure he would have taught you this.

Trotskyite Neocon is someone like Bill Kristol. Neocons support illegal immigration and of course the reason you are probably using this term is because it is an anti-semitic term, basically a veiled hate stab.

I have in much with Kristol as you have with Ron Paul.

I am an unapologetic Reagan Conservative.

Just for clarification, you do know that Reagan Gave 2 million illegals amnesty and didn't fix the problem? By the way, Smith was the founder of capitalism, read Turgot, Cantillon, and the Spanish scholastics. There is a long tradition of free market capitalism before Smith comes along. Who by the way in his Magnum opus goes ahead and divides value between exchange value and use value because he doesn't understand subjective value and basic supply and demand.

[Truth Warrior]

Stop the name-calling, people. Geez!

Don't you have some remaining Texas GOP fortresses to storm, take over and reform? :rolleyes:

[BuddyRey]

Stop the name-calling, people. Geez!

Agreed! This thread started off as an interesting and (mostly) civil debate and quickly degenerated into a first-blood verbal Death Match!

I'm starting to wonder why I come here for conversations anymore.

[Young Paleocon]

Ahh, he got banned so no rebuttals.

[constituent]

Agreed! This thread started off as an interesting and (mostly) civil debate and quickly degenerated into a first-blood verbal Death Match!


That was the OP's objective.

[Dripping Rain]

That was the OP's objective.

i agree
im not a fan of banning. but most of his posts were just making a ridiculous thread with a ridiculous title then not responding to most the comments. even his name "chosen" sounds more like a parody
thats pure trolling. Start a Sh*t Storm then leave.
I used to be sympathetic with his "cause" not his threads. but by his disgusting response to Truth Warrior i knew i didnt want to be associated with him in any way
ive never seen truthy insult anyone on this forum which is a +1 for him

[LibertyEagle]

Folks,

Chosen was given a 1 day ban. Let's not beat up on him while he has no chance to respond. Ok?