PDA

View Full Version : Ayn Rand calls Laissez-faire Capitalism ideal and urges rich not to share wealth




Contumacious
11-27-2013, 12:37 PM
Capitalism (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html)

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.


When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

FrankRep
11-27-2013, 01:19 PM
I can choose to give my wealth to charity and donations if I wish. Why would Ayn Rand "urge" me not to? Did she really say that?

Acala
11-27-2013, 01:25 PM
I can choose to give my wealth to charity and donations if I wish. Why would Ayn Rand "urge" me not to? Did she really say that?

My experience with Objectivist has been that they have a very hard time recognizing that whatever value I may put on my charitable act is exactly as much a creation of wealth as is selling iron.

Lucille
11-27-2013, 01:29 PM
She was not opposed to charity.

"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue."
--AR

Contumacious
11-27-2013, 01:44 PM
I can choose to give my wealth to charity and donations if I wish. Why would Ayn Rand "urge" me not to? Did she really say that?

Charity (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/charity.html)


My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.




The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others—a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal . "

.

FrankRep
11-27-2013, 01:46 PM
She was not opposed to charity.

"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue."
--AR

I figured Ayn Rand wouldn't really care either way. It's your money, do what you want.

The title of the thread is misleading.

Acala
11-27-2013, 01:55 PM
She correctly regards economic transactions such as buying and selling goods as the fountain of wealth creation. But she fails to realize that a charitable transaction is identical in its wealth creation because both parties are happier when the transaction is complete.

erowe1
11-27-2013, 02:13 PM
Capitalism (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html)

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.


When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

I kind of speed read through your link. So I'm sure I missed a lot.

I wouldn't be surprised if Ayn Rand said what you claim. I am no fan of hers.

But I couldn't find it in those quotes. Where did she urge anyone not to share their wealth?

Contumacious
11-27-2013, 02:20 PM
My experience with Objectivist has been that they have a very hard time recognizing that whatever value I may put on my charitable act is exactly as much a creation of wealth as is selling iron.

They do not object to you VOLUNTARILY sharing your wealth. The problem occurs when the welfare/warfare state wants to FORCEFULLY share our wealth.

.

Acala
11-27-2013, 02:52 PM
They do not object to you VOLUNTARILY sharing your wealth. The problem occurs when the welfare/warfare state wants to FORCEFULLY share our wealth.

.

They don't recognize that it is no different than any other economic transaction. They think it is at best without merit and at worst destructive of virtue.

Contumacious
11-27-2013, 03:04 PM
I figured Ayn Rand wouldn't really care either way. It's your money, do what you want.

The title of the thread is misleading.


The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference to one’s own rational self-interest and one’s own hierarchy of values: the time, money or effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one’s own happiness.

Is it?.

erowe1
11-27-2013, 03:09 PM
Is it?.

Unless you can provide any evidence at all to back up the thread title, which you so far have not, then yes, it's misleading.

Contumacious
11-27-2013, 03:17 PM
She correctly regards economic transactions such as buying and selling goods as the fountain of wealth creation. But she fails to realize that a charitable transaction is identical in its wealth creation because both parties are happier when the transaction is complete.

No she doesn't.

"The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference to one’s own rational self-interest and one’s own hierarchy of values: the time, money or effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one’s own happiness."

.

gwax23
11-27-2013, 03:20 PM
Why is the title written in the present tense. Shes been dead for decades, unless zombies....capitalist zombies...

Contumacious
11-27-2013, 03:32 PM
I kind of speed read through your link. So I'm sure I missed a lot.

I wouldn't be surprised if Ayn Rand said what you claim. I am no fan of hers.

But I couldn't find it in those quotes. Where did she urge anyone not to share their wealth?

Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes.


I’m not a libertarian. I’m not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.

Gee, I am a Libertarian yet have never advocated that everyone runs around with no clothes on. I do not advocate "drug" use but object to criminalizing their use. But I am certain that you are using your signature as a subterfuge for you fascistic/socialistic tendencies.

.

erowe1
11-27-2013, 04:28 PM
Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes
.

Could you explain how this supports your thread title? I still don't see it at all. Where does she urge anyone not to share wealth with others?

Contumacious
11-27-2013, 04:42 PM
Could you explain how this supports your thread title? I still don't see it at all. Where does she urge anyone not to share wealth with others?


My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

I started the thread as a response to Pope Francis Calling Unfettered Capitalism ‘Tyranny’ (http://billmoyers.com/2013/11/26/pope-francis-calls-unfettered-capitalism-tyranny/)

As if the producers have a moral or legal duty to help the poor.

.

erowe1
11-27-2013, 04:44 PM
I started the thread as a response to Pope Francis Calling Unfettered Capitalism ‘Tyranny’ (http://billmoyers.com/2013/11/26/pope-francis-calls-unfettered-capitalism-tyranny/)

As if the producers have a moral or legal duty to help the poor.

.

So you're not really trying to say that she urged people not to share their wealth?

Contumacious
11-27-2013, 05:02 PM
So you're not really trying to say that she urged people not to share their wealth?

She urged people not to share their wealth based upon some moral standard or duty. To share it if they concluded that it made sense to them.

.

erowe1
11-27-2013, 05:25 PM
She urged people not to share their wealth based upon some moral standard or duty. To share it if they concluded that it made sense to them.

.

I definitely, and strongly, disagree with her on that point. So, if your point was to disagree with her about that too (I can't tell if it was), then I agree with you.

I still wouldn't put her position the way the thread title does.

Ender
11-27-2013, 05:25 PM
I started the thread as a response to Pope Francis Calling Unfettered Capitalism ‘Tyranny’ (http://billmoyers.com/2013/11/26/pope-francis-calls-unfettered-capitalism-tyranny/)

As if the producers have a moral or legal duty to help the poor.

.

Pope Francis did not mention capitalism nor did he make any reference to a "legal duty".

Contumacious
11-27-2013, 05:37 PM
Pope Francis did not mention capitalism nor did he make any reference to a "legal duty".

I see. So tell him to sue the "The Guardian" (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/26/pope-francis-capitalism-tyranny) for slander.

.

Ender
11-27-2013, 06:23 PM
I see. So tell him to sue the "The Guardian" (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/26/pope-francis-capitalism-tyranny) for slander.

.

Go for it- haven't heard Pope Francis complain.

Contumacious
11-28-2013, 09:50 AM
Why is the title written in the present tense. Shes been dead for decades, unless zombies....capitalist zombies...

Ayn Rand treated us like red headed step children , but from my standpoint her philosophy is alive.

.

.

Acala
11-28-2013, 10:42 AM
No she doesn't.

"The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference to one’s own rational self-interest and one’s own hierarchy of values: the time, money or effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one’s own happiness."

.

That is pretty convoluted. I'm not sure what is meant by this. But it sure doesn't need to be that complicated: if it makes you happy to help another person, that charitable transaction is of equal value to society as any commercial transaction because wealth is created whenever both parties to a transaction - charitable or otherwise - feel happier as a result. Simple.

Red Green
11-28-2013, 11:11 AM
I personally dislike the use of the term "capitalism" to describe a free-market or Laissez-faire economic system. Capitalism is the use of capital to derive income which happens in all economic systems and one can be for a Laissez-faire system without necessarily being a capitalist.

erowe1
11-28-2013, 11:11 AM
I think the thread title is a legitimate use of the present tense. I'd call it a literary present. But grammar buffs may have another category for it.

Contumacious
11-28-2013, 01:01 PM
I personally dislike the use of the term "capitalism" to describe a free-market or Laissez-faire economic system. Capitalism is the use of capital to derive income which happens in all economic systems and one can be for a Laissez-faire system without necessarily being a capitalist.


Fundamentals of Laissez Faire

As a system of thought, laissez faire rests on the following axioms:[1] 1. The individual is the basic unit in society. 2. The individual has a natural right to freedom. 3. The physical order of nature is a harmonious and self-regulating system. 4. Corporations are creatures of the State and therefore must be watched closely by the citizenry due to their propensity to disrupt the Smithian spontaneous order. These axioms constitute the basic elements of laissez-faire thought, although another basic and often-disregarded element is that markets should be competitive, a rule that the early advocates of laissez-faire have always emphasized.


interesting. I 'll buy that.

.

Christian Liberty
11-28-2013, 01:05 PM
They do not object to you VOLUNTARILY sharing your wealth. The problem occurs when the welfare/warfare state wants to FORCEFULLY share our wealth.

.

First of all, you really have no right to be making these claims considering what you've posted in other threads. You're an extreme statist, and a supporter of child murderers (I'm not even talking about abortion here, but children already born). You have no place here, or in this movement. Just a reminder to anyone here who may have stupidly forgotten who you really are and embraced you as a libertarian again. You are not.

Second of all, for the benefit of everyone else, my problem with Ayn Rand on this particular is that I actually do view charity as a moral duty and virtue. That doesn't mean it should be forced.

Contumacious
11-28-2013, 01:26 PM
First of all, you really have no right to be making these claims considering what you've posted in other threads. You're an extreme statist, and a supporter of child murderers (I'm not even talking about abortion here, but children already born). You have no place here, or in this movement. Just a reminder to anyone here who may have stupidly forgotten who you really are and embraced you as a libertarian again. You are not.

Excuse me dingle berry,

You are the stupid motherfucker who suggested that a driver should get in a police officer's face and begin a confrontation while the vehicle is full of children.

I, on the other hand suggested that the driver should dispute the ticket in traffic court.

Armed corrupt violent officers are a fact of life.

Government owned and managed roads are UNlibertarian but they are a fact of life. And as you have seen , the mother , not the police officers was charged with child
endangerment. If the police officer had killed a child and the officer was prosecuted for his murder that would not help your family any.





Second of all, for the benefit of everyone else, my problem with Ayn Rand on this particular is that I actually do view charity as a moral duty and virtue. That doesn't mean it should be forced.

I don't have a problem with your opinion so long as your ECCLESIASTICAL opinion is not commingled with civil law.

.

erowe1
11-28-2013, 01:28 PM
What do you mean by ecclesiastical? And why do you write that in all-caps?

americanpatriot
11-28-2013, 01:30 PM
One thing ALWAYS to remember regarding Ayn Rand- she may have talked a good theory but she sure as heck did not practice it. One need only consider how she behaved as a typical spurned woman regarding Nathaniel Branden and the Reality that she signed up for Social Security/Medicare- the keystones of the Moloch State. She could not live her philosophy, perhaps because her philosophy is completely out of touch with the real world. Certainly her ideas of how a new steel might enter the market or of how a railroad is operated were completely divorced from Reality. It is best for one who is a friend of Liberty to concentrate on simply applying the non-aggression principle to daily life and crossing to the other side of the road if necessary to avoid the snare of socalled objectivism.

erowe1
11-28-2013, 01:43 PM
Did Ayn Rand tell people not to sign up for Social Security and Medicare?

Contumacious
11-28-2013, 02:29 PM
What do you mean by ecclesiastical? And why do you write that in all-caps?


ec·cle·si·as·ti·cal (-klz-st-kl)
adj.
1. Of or relating to a church, especially as an organized institution.
2. Appropriate to a church or to use in a church: ecclesiastical architecture; ecclesiastical robes.
ec·clesi·asti·cal·ly adv.


The poster is a "christian conservative" - he subscribes to the theory that mystic fascism is acceptable.

.

.

Contumacious
11-28-2013, 02:35 PM
Did Ayn Rand tell people not to sign up for Social Security and Medicare?

Since Vivien Kellems in the 40's american patriots have been resisting the IRS but to no avail. Federal "judges" have been sworn to support and defend the welfare state so freemen are compelled to participate in the ponzi schemes.

Now is a freeman prohibited from getting his/her money back?!?!?!?!?!!?!?

americanpatriot
11-28-2013, 02:44 PM
...............................

Now is a freeman prohibited from getting his/her money back?!?!?!?!?!!?!?

of course not if you are an ordinary joe BUT if your philosophy is that of Ayn Rand it takes a bit of class act hypocrisy to do so.

Christian Liberty
11-28-2013, 03:45 PM
Did Ayn Rand tell people not to sign up for Social Security and Medicare?

Should she have? I know this is an issue libertarians and other anti-statists will debate forever, but personally I don't see anything wrong with plundering the State of its ill-gotten gains. As I recall, this was a theme of one of Ayn Rand's books as well (Note that I do not support Ayn Rand, for other reasons.) What's your take on this?

Excuse me dingle berry,

You are the stupid motherfucker who suggested that a driver should get in a police officer's face and begin a confrontation while the vehicle is full of children.

No, I didn't suggest that, you liar. I suggested that her trying to drive away was not an excuse for the police officers to shoot at her and her children.

Where do you get your crap from? Oh wait, yourself. Because that's literally what you are. Now, go to God and repent, and stay away from this forum. Nobody who loves liberty wants you here.


I, on the other hand suggested that the driver should dispute the ticket in traffic court.


I agree with this. But that's not what you said. You didn't say the woman acted in a theoretically justifiable but practically illogical manner. Which I agree with. You said you stood with the pigs.


Armed corrupt violent officers are a fact of life.


Sure. That doesn't make their actions justified.

Government owned and managed roads are UNlibertarian but they are a fact of life. And as you have seen , the mother , not the police officers was charged with child
endangerment.

Of course she was. The State never holds its own accountable. And you, more than most people, should know that this is simply not acceptable.


If the police officer had killed a child and the officer was prosecuted for his murder that would not help your family any.


Of course not. Again, I'm not saying the woman wasn't naive or stupid or whatever. But being naive or stupid in the way you assert your rights does not warrant you or your children being shot.

You are despicable.






I don't have a problem with your opinion so long as your ECCLESIASTICAL opinion is not commingled with civil law.

.

Of course i agree with this. Stealing is immoral. Although, telling you to repent is not.

jmdrake
11-28-2013, 04:22 PM
Pope Francis did not mention capitalism nor did he make any reference to a "legal duty".

He made reference to "economic growth based on free markets". I'm not sure what you would call that other than captialism. The mental gymnastics of the past few days has been dizzying.

Contumacious
11-28-2013, 04:36 PM
He made reference to "economic growth based on free markets". I'm not sure what you would call that other than captialism. The mental gymnastics of the past few days has been dizzying.

According to the Mexican Press - which speaks Spanish - as do I - he actually refererred to "unregulated capitalism: (http://mx.noticias.yahoo.com/cr%C3%ADticas-papa-capitalismo-000000368.html)



Lamentablemente, el mundo está todavía marcado por focos de tensión y contraposición provocados por la creciente desigualdad entre ricos y pobres, por el predominio de una mentalidad egoísta e individualista, que se expresa también en un capitalismo financiero no regulado, así como por distintas formas de terrorismo y criminalidad", dijo el Santo Padre durante la homilía."


.

erowe1
11-28-2013, 06:17 PM
I'm on a computer that is having problems. One result is that I can't use the reply with quote function. When I try, it just never finishes loading the page.

My question above about SS and Medicare was directed to the poster before me that mentioned them. I have no problem with collecting them. And the only way she could be accused of not practicing her theory on account of collecting them would be if she told others not to collect them. So I was asking if she did tell others not to.

Christian Liberty
11-28-2013, 06:20 PM
The poster is a "christian conservative" - he subscribes to the theory that mystic fascism is acceptable.

No, I'm an anarcho-capitalist. You know what I believe, fascist pig. Quit lying.

jmdrake
11-28-2013, 06:20 PM
They do not object to you VOLUNTARILY sharing your wealth. The problem occurs when the welfare/warfare state wants to FORCEFULLY share our wealth.

.

The Christian view (at least the biblical Christian view) is that charity is both voluntary and ultimately beneficial as much to the giver as to the receiver. (See Acts 20:35 and 2 Corinthians 9:7). There are financial consultants, some of whom aren't even theists, who teach that being generous actually helps one grow financially.

Christian Liberty
11-28-2013, 06:23 PM
The Christian view (at least the biblical Christian view) is that charity is both voluntary and ultimately beneficial as much to the giver as to the receiver. (See Acts 20:35 and 2 Corinthians 9:7). There are financial consultants, some of whom aren't even theists, who teach that being generous actually helps one grow financially.
you are of course correct, but he doesn't care. As I've mentioned, he's a fascist pig. I know neither you or erowe1 like to single out specific people, and that's fine, but in this case its the truth.

He knows full well that I wasn't advocating force, and he doesn't care. Sometimes I was sympathetic to SF because people did stuff like that to him too.

moostraks
11-28-2013, 07:49 PM
you are of course correct, but he doesn't care. As I've mentioned, he's a fascist pig. I know neither you or erowe1 like to single out specific people, and that's fine, but in this case its the truth.

He knows full well that I wasn't advocating force, and he doesn't care. Sometimes I was sympathetic to SF because people did stuff like that to him too.

Please stop name calling under a banner of being a Christian. You are egging the situation on by claiming some authority on who should be allowed to participate here and within "this movement". It is the type of thing that leads others to treat you as SF was treated because he ran off at the mouth towards people rather than just disagree.

Red Green
11-28-2013, 07:49 PM
interesting. I 'll buy that.

.

Thanks. It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Capitalism exist despite what govt does. It's like trying to legislate gravity out of existence: it just can't be done. However, a free market economy is a legislative animal given that governments have found it within themselves to legislate the economy.

Christian Liberty
11-28-2013, 09:09 PM
Please stop name calling under a banner of being a Christian. You are egging the situation on by claiming some authority on who should be allowed to participate here and within "this movement". It is the type of thing that leads others to treat you as SF was treated because he ran off at the mouth towards people rather than just disagree.

Treat me how you want, I don't give a crap.

The bottom line is that this person is someone who has literally supported shooting at children because the mother was speeding and then violated "Contempt of cop". Jmdrake, with all due respect, you're throwing pearls at swine here.

Christian Liberty
11-28-2013, 09:17 PM
Since Moonstraks is comparing me to SF, I'm gonna comment briefly just to explain the kind of thing I'm talking about. And I think my point goes beyond this one poster.

I certainly didn't agree with SF all the time. Sometimes he came off as harsh, and sometimes I believed he was wrong. I have never agreed, for instance, that every "Arminian" without exception is unsaved.

I did appreciate a number of things about his posting, however, especially his sticking to principle. But sometimes he was simply wrong.

Him being wrong, however, and this goes for everyone, is no excuse for lying about a person's argument.

I remember one thread about an SDA church being attacked by cops, or something like that. SF posted something about the SDA's being a cult and about the similarities between their theology and that of Koresh's people in Waco. Now, of course, this comment was completely inappropriate and off topic. Regardless of whether the SDA is a cult or not (Not knowing enough about it, I don't offer an opinion here) it simply wasn't relevant to the topic. But then people started lying about SF's position and saying that SF actually supported what the cops did, which was absolutely ludicrous to anyone who had read anything SF had said about politics.

That's exactly what this other poster did to me. I said that the cops were completely UNJUSTIFIED to shoot at that minivan, and he made it out like I was saying that trying to escape a ticket with kids in the car is actually a good idea:rolleyes:

moostraks
11-29-2013, 12:22 PM
Treat me how you want, I don't give a crap.

The bottom line is that this person is someone who has literally supported shooting at children because the mother was speeding and then violated "Contempt of cop". Jmdrake, with all due respect, you're throwing pearls at swine here.

Drop the persecution complex. I'm not treating you like anything. I asked you to stop name calling under the banner of being a Christian because it just provides unnecessary ammunition for folks to slander people of faith. Have some respect for the person for whom you claim to be a follower of as unlike your rep argument, name calling is not the essence of the Biblical writers. This type of rudeness is a popular attitude that certain folks take to act righteous when they are just living in the flesh and fooling themselves.

You should attack the thread with the posts you have at issue rather than dragging your dirty laundry around. Give people some credit for seeing through the nonsense and forming their own opinions. Unless you took over ownership of the forum, then making sweeping proclamations about another person belonging here is well...above your pay grade.

Contumacious
11-30-2013, 09:11 AM
According to the Mexican Press - which speaks Spanish - as do I - he actually refererred to "unregulated capitalism: (http://mx.noticias.yahoo.com/cr%C3%ADticas-papa-capitalismo-000000368.html)


Pope Francis shouldn't bite the hand that feeds the Catholic Church (http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/pope-francis-shouldnt-bite-the-hand-that-feeds-the-catholic-church/article/2539926)

http://cdn.washingtonexaminer.biz/cache/r620-d0845946511c3b03c725bd83a44b462c.jpg

Pope Francis doesn’t celebrate Thanksgiving. So there is no need for him today to thank capitalism, a system that has done far more to alleviate poverty, his pet crusade, than the institution he leads. But he should take a pause from railing against it — not least because it enables the very activity that he cherishes most: charity.

.