I'm an immigrant from the Soviet Union and I understand Rand's visceral reaction to communism that people who have never lived under its boot can't. I don't find her writing style particularly compelling and found her Atlas Shrugged to be too repetitive and long. I preferred "The Fountainhead". The problem with objectivism is that, tested at the limit, it's anarchy. Each individual is a sovereign nation. The drawback is that in the world of Sovereign nations might makes right. People will build alliances to become more mighty and those alliances will need government of some kind - so, we're right back to some kind of collectivization. What I don't understand, Thunder, is why you think that limiting government and maximizing the freedom of the individual is extreme? That is the core of Rand's philosophy.
EMR, Stosh, mbradley, Thank you for your input. (and everyone else) I'm sure I will finish it. Since I am enjoying it so far, there's no reason to put it down. I'm not looking to be enlightened or inspired. I just thought it was something I should read due to it's popularity among so many traders. But who knows, maybe it will have a positive effect, or maybe it will piss me off. Either way it should be worth the read. Anyway, anything that gets Thunderdog this riled up can't be all bad.
Greenspan is a bubblehead who will be regarded with the same distaste as GWB by historians. "Limited" government means different things to different people. Full and true laissez-faire economics would not work in the way that most people think. It would result in the rich getting richer, by capitalizing on their advantages, and the poor, therefore, getting poorer by default. Further, it would squeeze out the middle class in due course. And so, if you are among the socioeconomic elite, then I suppose that I understand your desire for full and true laissez-faire. On the other hand, if you reach no farther than middle class on the economic totem pole then, by your very views, you are eating your own.
Excellent post! As to your question, let me put it this way: I believe in a good and balanced diet without excesses, but not in anorexia nervosa.
I'll admit Sarah was a little naive during her debut on the national scene. But she will be polished and ready next time....and won't have to drag that RINO, McCain, around. Stosh
By the way, my compliments to those who have participated in this little debate. Disagreements have been civil.....and no calling each other idiots and shitheads. I believe Ayn Rand followers generally know that a LITTLE government is necessary, but no more that is proven to be absolutely necessary. Moral hazard is a reality. Stosh
That's the claim of every person who proposes socialist ideas. However, stating that this is what will happen doesn't make it so. So far, the only place where the rich get richer (by capitalizing on their political connections because they can buy political power by buying politicians) and the poor get poorer (because they have no means with which to buy politicians, thus the deck is permanently stacked against them) is in economies where government is strong and meddles freely in the economy. Without the ability to harness political power (and governments monopoly on violent force), the rich man can only obtain the property of the poorer man by paying a price the poorer man will accept. In a free market with a government which maintains Rule of Law (not to be confused with regulation) but is limited in its power beyond that, that is his only means of obtaining another's property. The poorer man can also capitalize on his advantages in a free market. There is nothing to stop him - no barriers to entry concocted by government regulators at the prodding of industry insiders to protect them from competition. With a government as powerful as the one in the United States and Europe, despite constitutional attempts to limit it, the rich man simply pays a bribe to politicians and the poorer mans property is confiscated under "eminent domain" laws. Thus, government aids the rich in getting richer and the poor in getting poorer because the government is nothing more than a collection of self-interested people with a lot of power to yield force and cow the population. So, it seems that the very thing that you fear happens not because of free markets but because of the very system you advocate. So, you'll have to explain to me how you come to your conclusions about free markets (laissez-faire).
Very true. Which is why proper oversight and regulation are key. And I agree, the discourse has been refreshingly civil.