NationStates Jolt Archive

Neu Leonstien is better at this.

tl; dr

I found a rather interesting passage while reading Atlas Shrugged. Any opinions? http://compuball.com/Inquisition/AynRand/danconiaspeech.htm (the post was a little big so I decided to simply give you a link.

Typically, when creating a thread, it is customary to paste a quote of the article into the OP (original post), and for the poster making the thread to add his own thoughts and comments to kick off the discussion.

I found a rather interesting passage while reading Atlas Shrugged. Any opinions? http://compuball.com/Inquisition/AynRand/danconiaspeech.htm (the post was a little big so I decided to simply give you a link.

In a capitalist economy, money is power. And power is the ability to get people to do things that they wouldn't do normally.

That, my friend, is something to be considered bad unless proven otherise.

Neu Leonstien is better at this.
May I ask what you are speaking of? By the way that was a very fast post considering it showed up on the page before mine, and I started it.

May I ask what you are speaking of? By the way that was a very fast post considering it showed up on the page before mine, and I started it.

Neu Leonstien is a poster on this board, and there is a rational reason why CTOAN was able to make a post before yours, in that it's because the mods hate you and would prefer CTOAN to be the op.

In a capitalist economy, money is power. And power is the ability to get people to do things that they wouldn't do normally.

That, my friend, is something to be considered bad unless proven otherise.

Are you saying that without money, there can be no power?

Are you saying that without money, there can be no power?

No. Money is only one source of power. But it is one of the more effective ones, particularly in the modern world.

May I ask what you are speaking of? By the way that was a very fast post considering it showed up on the page before mine, and I started it.

I got mad stealin' skillz. Neu Leo is another 'Randroid' (I'm just doing that to tease him, let me be fair, he is an Objectivist who likes Ayn Rand) who makes threads about the benefits of free market capitalism and Gordon Gekko-like "Greed is good" posts, but he quotes the passages of things that supports his argument and then makes his own argument, usually well thought out and supported which makes the discussions actually interesting. While I disagree with him on about everything I do tend to learn something when he does it.

Instead of, for example, just posting "I like Rand, thoughts?"

Isn't money more an idea, than real power?
I thought power is more to do with who you know.
That's not to say money doesn't have power, because most people have money.
It's still an idea, a good one too, can't think of a better way for trade to work in large society. Maybe i'm being narrow minded though.
I wonder what can be defined as real power (other than a nuclear warhead).

No. Money is only one source of power. But it is one of the more effective ones, particularly in the modern world.

I'm not sure, if anyone has access to money, then anyone has access to more power (as long as they are not too restricted by the state). If power is gained by another way (say inheritance) then the balance of power will be inherently more uneven, as its far harder for normal folk to gain power.

You do realise that Ayn Rand based that character on the owner of the Anaconda mining company, right?

The same one that was involved in the overthrow of Salvador Allende and was in cahoots with the Pinochet government. (http://www.namebase.org/chile.html)

In theory, Rand makes a lot of sense. In reality, money makes people put the 'looters' and 'moochers' up against the wall.

...while reading Atlas Shrugged.

i think i found the source of your troubles

I'm not sure, if anyone has access to money, then anyone has access to more power (as long as they are not too restricted by the state). If power is gained by another way (say inheritance) then the balance of power will be inherently more uneven, as its far harder for normal folk to gain power.

In theory, if everyone was roughly equal in wealth, then there is no problem. But people aren't, because of inheritance, and corporations.

In a capitalist economy, money is power. And power is the ability to get people to do things that they wouldn't do normally.

That, my friend, is something to be considered bad unless proven otherise.

True, but only those that do not wish to earn their money would do anything for money, and it is that group of people that would use money as a weapon. Only those that wish to control by force do not understand the existence of money and would use other methods to gain power, Stalin for example. However those that use weapons to control others usually do not remain in power long. So although in a purely capitalist society money can be used to take advantage of the unsuccessful, those who work hard are still able to rise. Of course minor regulations are needed, but add to many regulations and you allow the unsuccessful to take advantage of the hard working which is in most respects even worse.

True, but only those that do not wish to earn their money would do anything for money, and it is that group of people that would use money as a weapon. Only those that wish to control by force do not understand the existence of money and would use other methods to gain power, Stalin for example. However those that use weapons to control others usually do not remain in power long. So although in a purely capitalist society money can be used to take advantage of the unsuccessful, those who work hard are still able to rise. Of course minor regulations are needed, but add to many regulations and you allow the unsuccessful to take advantage of the hard working which is in most respects even worse.

Not quite. It didn't take the Pinkerton's all that money to keep staff (read: thugs) dedicated to smashing striking workers and imposing company rule on the American frontier.

Money buys hired hands, and you can find a hired hand to do just about anything.

... can't buy me love...

True, but don't those who use Pinkerton agents 'looters' in most cases? Don't they use weapons to keep power?

Not under a schema of property rights as interpreted by Objectivists like Rand and co. Those strikers were "trespassing" on the company's property, and breaking their contracts. The company had every "legal" right to force them back to work.

The question then arises is such an understanding of property rights and "free market" economics defendable?

You do realise that Ayn Rand based that character on the owner of the Anaconda mining company, right?

The same one that was involved in the overthrow of Salvador Allende and was in cahoots with the Pinochet government. (http://www.namebase.org/chile.html)

In theory, Rand makes a lot of sense. In reality, money makes people put the 'looters' and 'moochers' up against the wall.

You do realize I have very little respect for that character (as of now started the book on Tuesday, have had a lot of stuff to do not quite finished), and that I merely found the passage interesting (and somewhat truthful). I would appreciate it if you could, through use of example, explain how exactly money "makes people put the 'looters' and 'moochers' up against the wall" with reference to the passage (refute the passage with examples, not sure how clear my request was, not a very good writer myself).

In theory, if everyone was roughly equal in wealth, then there is no problem. But people aren't, because of inheritance, and corporations.

But in a well functioning free market country, the differences in wealth wont cause too much problems because poverty will be small, and the majority of people will have good living standards with a good chance of improving on that. I believe that with a rich population, the power of the state is limited, the country will also be well educated ensuring that some crazy regime will not get elected. I question what effect corporations have specifically on economic equality, or is it more the very high wages that executives get that you're talking about?

Not quite. It didn't take the Pinkerton's all that money to keep staff (read: thugs) dedicated to smashing striking workers and imposing company rule on the American frontier.

Money buys hired hands, and you can find a hired hand to do just about anything.
True, but don't those who use Pinkerton agents classify as 'looters' in most cases? Don't they use weapons to keep power? Unless the strikers were violent, I believe that those people count as 'looters'.

You do realize I have very little respect for that character (as of now started the book on Tuesday, have had a lot of stuff to do not quite finished), and that I merely found the passage interesting (and somewhat truthful). I would appreciate it if you could, through use of example, explain how exactly money "makes people put the 'looters' and 'moochers' up against the wall" with reference to the passage (refute the passage with examples, not sure how clear my request was, not a very good writer myself).

Pinochet and the companies that supported him used the military to kill union organisers and other leftists with the express purpose of acquiring more money and power. There is a real life example of how the pursuit of money directly inspires immoral acts.

It directly refutes this particular passage:

To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except by the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more.

It's pretty easy to prove Ayn Rand wrong using real world examples.

... can't buy me love...

But money and a three hour drive to Nevada it can buy you lovin'...

But in a well functioning free market country, the differences in wealth wont cause too much problems because poverty will be small, and the majority of people will have good living standards with a good chance of improving on that. I believe that with a rich population, the power of the state is limited, the country will also be well educated ensuring that some crazy regime will not get elected. I question what effect corporations have specifically on economic equality, or is it more the very high wages that executives get that you're talking about?

Corporations breed inequality because they are immortal persons. They can continue to accumulate wealth indefinitely. Where as an individual company must be split up and taxed as part of an estate, a corporation maintains the same size and value even after it's majority shareholder dies.

Pinochet and the companies that supported him used the military to kill union organisers and other leftists with the express purpose of acquiring more money and power. There is a real life example of how the pursuit of money directly inspires immoral acts.

It directly refutes this particular passage:


I don't see what this shows. It just shows that Pinochet wanted to pursue power, not money for the sake of money, but money for the sake of power. If there were no money, he would have pursued power by some other means. If anything, if you are required to acquire money first before you have power, then that it makes it a little harder to immediately gain power, since due to inflation you can't just print money for yourself.

Corporations breed inequality because they are immortal persons. They can continue to accumulate wealth indefinitely. Where as an individual company must be split up and taxed as part of an estate, a corporation maintains the same size and value even after it's majority shareholder dies.

True, but then many free marketers are against corporations anyway. However what corporations do do is provide loads of jobs, and since lawsuits wont destroy it, it maintains its stability which in turn maintains national economic stability.

Isn't money more an idea, than real power?
I thought power is more to do with who you know.
That's not to say money doesn't have power, because most people have money.
It's still an idea, a good one too, can't think of a better way for trade to work in large society. Maybe i'm being narrow minded though.
I wonder what can be defined as real power (other than a nuclear warhead).

Money is power, because everyone wants it.

If clams were power, instead of moeny, "rich" people would have a crapload of little cotton strips, but nothing valuable, and those who own clams, they would be the ones clamming the palms.

In the same way, affluence is power, everyone desires it.

Power, and lack thereof arise from the eternal human condition of wanting.

Not under a schema of property rights as interpreted by Objectivists like Rand and co. Those strikers were "trespassing" on the company's property, and breaking their contracts. The company had every "legal" right to force them back to work.

The question then arises is such an understanding of property rights and "free market" economics defendable?
I'm not sure. It would not have been difficult for them to reason with the strikers or in extreme cases call in the police. I am not an objectivist, but I cannot refute the passage, nor has anyone else here. Not to mention that I believe that their idea of property rights is less of a schema and more of a prototype. Nevertheless if money is earned fairly, does the government have any right to give it to those who do not wish to earn it? Should one be given money for living? Can one really be happy that way?

I don't see what this shows. It just shows that Pinochet wanted to pursue power, not money for the sake of money, but money for the sake of power. If there were no money, he would have pursued power by some other means. If anything, if you are required to acquire money first before you have power, then that it makes it a little harder to immediately gain power, since due to inflation you can't just print money for yourself.

Are you aware of the history of the coup and why it occured? Perhaps you could read up on it. You might want to focus on things like the Chicago school of economics, ITT, companies like Anaconda, Kennecott and Manufacturers Hanover, and the role of Kissinger and the CIA.

To put it briefly: these companies used their economic clout to ensure that free market principles would be the guiding policies of the Chilean economy. They did this by supporting (through the US government) Pinochet's overthrow of Allende.

Socialists, unionists, communists, and other people who supported a more leftist approach to economics were tortured and killed. If Pinochet was just about personal power, why would he just kill these people? Why would he bother reducing the power of the state by liberalising the economy?

But money and a three hour drive to Nevada it can buy you lovin'...

:D:D

Corporations breed inequality because they are immortal persons. They can continue to accumulate wealth indefinitely. Where as an individual company must be split up and taxed as part of an estate, a corporation maintains the same size and value even after it's majority shareholder dies.

Corporations breed economic inequality more because they are so massive and all pervasive than because they are "immortal" (which they aren't really).

I'm not sure. It would not have been difficult for them to reason with the strikers or in extreme cases call in the police. I am not an objectivist, but I cannot refute the passage, nor has anyone else here. Not to mention that I believe that their idea of property rights is less of a schema and more of a prototype. Nevertheless if money is earned fairly, does the government have any right to give it to those who do not wish to earn it? Should one be given money for living? Can one really be happy that way?

For the record, I consider property "rights" to be illegitimate. Rand's "money is the root of all good" only makes sense if we accept property rights to be both legitimate and absolute.

Quite simply, why does the social construct of "ownership" grant an individual the absolute right to control a resource, and by extension buy the liberty of those who do not own property so that they may work for the owner's benefit?

Are you aware of the history of the coup and why it occured? Perhaps you could read up on it. You might want to focus on things like the Chicago school of economics, ITT, companies like Anaconda, Kennecott and Manufacturers Hanover, and the role of Kissinger and the CIA.

To put it briefly: these companies used their economic clout to ensure that free market principles would be the guiding policies of the Chilean economy. They did this by supporting (through the US government) Pinochet's overthrow of Allende.

Socialists, unionists, communists, and other people who supported a more leftist approach to economics were tortured and killed. If Pinochet was just about personal power, why would he just kill these people? Why would he bother reducing the power of the state by liberalising the economy?

Yes I'm aware of the history, but this is addressing what people will do with a trading ally, not money in itself. Most of these leftists wouldn't have supported an abolition of money either, so I think the problem was fear of the ideals of socialism spreading, rather than to have another country to trade with. It's not as if Chile had that much to offer the US in terms of trade anyway. The USA certainly didn't want to go to war itself with a huge number of communist countries (which is what would inevitably happen if it invaded just one) so any chance they got to support rebel forces in a coup they would thrive upon.

Yes I'm aware of the history, but this addressing what people will do with a trading ally, not money in itself. Most of these leftists wouldn't have supported an abolition of money either, so I think the problem fear of the ideals of socialism spreading, rather then to have another country to trade with. It's not as if Chile had that much to offer the US in terms of trade anyway. The USA certainly didn't want to go to war itself with a huge number of communist countries (which is what would inevitably happen if it invaded just one) so any chance they got to support rebel forces in a coup they would thrive upon.

Oh. I see. You're not aware of the history. Carry on.

Oh. I see. You're not aware of the history. Carry on.

If you feel that there is something inaccurate then point it out. It's very well established that Pinochet was put there for anti communist reasons, they even tend to refer to his regime itself as an 'anti-communist regime'. It was all part of cold war tactics, I'm not defending it, but I don't think it was 'for the money', I guess you could say it was 'for capitalism', but that's not the same.

You can't just say "you're not aware of the history", dismiss it and leave so quickly. How is anything I said untrue? The USA were fighting Communism, through covert tactics (i.e. the Cold War, heard of it?). The USA wanted communism to fall, and so readily supported any rebel forces planning to overthrow a regime, see Cuba for another example. Chile was a socialist government, the sort the USA didn't like. Why is it so hard to believe that the USA would support Pinochet to get a +1 against communism? I just don't understand how you can dismiss very simple things so easily.

Edit: I've fixed some of the terrible syntax and grammatical mistakes I made, if that makes it any clearer.

i think i found the source of your troubles

Winner.

Pinochet and the companies that supported him used the military to kill union organisers and other leftists with the express purpose of acquiring more money and power. There is a real life example of how the pursuit of money directly inspires immoral acts.

Pinochet also used weapons to keep himself in power.
Then you will see the rise of the double standard — the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money — the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law — men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims — then money becomes its creators' avenger.
He was not pursuing money but power, he was a 'looter'. He believed money was power. He cared little about money itself. He cared very little about pleasure. He was not a business man, he was a corrupt politician. That example doesn't refute the central argument of the passage. The reason he killed lefties is because he believed they would have caused a decrease in the value of money and therefore in his opinion a decrease in power.

For the record, I consider property "rights" to be illegitimate. Rand's "money is the root of all good" only makes sense if we accept property rights to be both legitimate and absolute.

Quite simply, why does the social construct of "ownership" grant an individual the absolute right to control a resource, and by extension buy the liberty of those who do not own property so that they may work for the owner's benefit?

Because the other person has a resource that they would trade with the owner, benefitting both sides. When one is granted absolute control over a resource, they typically work as hard as possible to develop that resource and make it profitable, benefitting the majority of society most of the time. (there are exceptions to that, blind greed isn't always beneficial to the greater good)

Like provide welfare? Or education? Or healthcare? Or foreign aid?

Like I said, the burden of proof is on those who have authority. They must prove that their exercise of authority is legitimate.

Neu Leonstien is better at this.

Hahaha. Perfect opening post.

In a capitalist economy, money is power. And power is the ability to get people to do things that they wouldn't do normally.

Like provide welfare? Or education? Or healthcare? Or foreign aid?

Of course minor regulations are needed, but add to many regulations and you allow the unsuccessful to take advantage of the hard working which is in most respects even worse.

Why do you think that the rich are hard working? Typically the wealth of your parents is a far more important factor than hard work.

Why do you think that the rich are hard working? Typically the wealth of your parents is a far more important factor than hard work.

Important in securing an education. Typically, those who are rich do work very hard. It's the middle class composed of well off accountants and middle managers and the like who don't work hard for their wealth.

Why do you think that the rich are hard working? Typically the wealth of your parents is a far more important factor than hard work.

Uh-huh.

Then how did my father change from a peasant with no running water or electricity to a recognised and respected lawyer? Couldn't have been hard work could it? No, it was OBVIOUSLY EXPLOITATON OF THE PROLETARIAT.

My father started off with shit all. They didn't even have a toilet. Just two years ago he designed and built his own house, on his own land, with his own money. That's called capitalism, because he rose up through his own merit and skill. Now tell me which leftist country has taken a poor peasant who owned just the clothes on his back and turned him into a well educated, well read, respected member of society and critical part of the legal process.

Oh yeah, none. After all, isn't equal misery for all better?

Important in securing an education. Typically, those who are rich do work very hard. It's the middle class composed of well off accountants and middle managers and the like who don't work hard for their wealth.

They might well work hard, all I am saying is that's not enough - we both probably know waiters who work very hard and yet aren't rich.

I think one important difference is that most of them weren't born rich and that most rich people were.

Uh-huh.

Then how did my father change from a peasant with no running water or electricity to a recognised and respected lawyer? Couldn't have been hard work could it? No, it was OBVIOUSLY EXPLOITATON OF THE PROLETARIAT.

My father started off with shit all. They didn't even have a toilet. Just two years ago he designed and built his own house, on his own land, with his own money. That's called capitalism, because he rose up through his own merit and skill. Now tell me which leftist country has taken a poor peasant who owned just the clothes on his back and turned him into a well educated, well read, respected member of society and critical part of the legal process.

Oh yeah, none. After all, isn't equal misery for all better?

It's common that when I bring up that it is the case that most rich people were born to rich parents that people respond with critisising what they presume it is that I want to do about this state of affairs. That's not logical.

I wasn't totally addressing you.

I wasn't totally addressing you.

Maybe you could totally address me then.

Now tell me which leftist country has taken a poor peasant who owned just the clothes on his back and turned him into a well educated, well read, respected member of society and critical part of the legal process.

Oh yeah, none. After all, isn't equal misery for all better?

Okay, I know I'm just being a prick with this, but this man went from dirt poor to extremely successful in a "leftist" country.

http://www.votefraud.org/joseph_stalin.jpg

Being able to change positions in a hierarchy does not justify its existence.

Oh jeez, why do I get mentioned in a thread like that? Doesn't anyone remember Melkor Unchained anymore? Now that's an objectivist - I'm just a confused little man trying to fit lots of very different perspectives into a cohesive whole that not just I could live by without hating myself, but anyone else could too.

That being said, that particular section is one of my favourites in the book. But as most things in it, it's more moral guidance and personal motivation as realistic portrayal of society. Money should leave those that can't live up to it, but often it doesn't. Once you get over a certain threshold, one can stay rich without ever having to make a good decision just by putting the money into some fund or long-term account. Granted, you've also got to not make bad decisions, but that's fairly easy to do if all you do is live off the interest. So what is written there is true for self-made men and women, but it's just not the case that every rich person is one.

Of course, for me as a person that doesn't change a thing. I don't care what other people do or where they got their money, as long as they didn't use violence to get it.

Oh, and the argument that Frisco was based on some real-world person who did something bad and therefore this section of text doesn't merit a response is made of phail.

Money is the root of all good

Can I still use this quote

Love of money is the root of all evil

Or do I have to change it :confused:

Okay, I know I'm just being a prick with this, but this man went from dirt poor to extremely successful in a "leftist" country.

Yes, by political backstabbing (admittedly a large part of politics) and mass murder. That's somewhat different from the legal profession.

Maybe you could totally address me then.

Or you could take the bits out of my post that do address you, which are quite obvious, rather than dodging the point at hand.

Yes, by political backstabbing (admittedly a large part of politics) and mass murder. That's somewhat different from the legal profession.

But you didn't ask by what means. I brought up Stalin to prove a point, which you conveniently ignored. Being able to change positions in a hierarchy does not justify the existence of hierarchy.

Oh yeah, none. After all, isn't equal misery for all better?No misery for all is (probably) better.

But you didn't ask by what means. I brought up Stalin to prove a point, which you conveniently ignored. Being able to change positions in a hierarchy does not justify the existence of hierarchy.

Erm, what? It does when a society without hierarchy is unachievable.

No misery for all is (probably) better.

Please tell me your experiences with poverty and where you have witnessed it.

Oh jeez, why do I get mentioned in a thread like that? Doesn't anyone remember Melkor Unchained anymore? Now that's an objectivist - I'm just a confused little man trying to fit lots of very different perspectives into a cohesive whole that not just I could live by without hating myself, but anyone else could too.

That being said, that particular section is one of my favourites in the book. But as most things in it, it's more moral guidance and personal motivation as realistic portrayal of society. Money should leave those that can't live up to it, but often it doesn't. Once you get over a certain threshold, one can stay rich without ever having to make a good decision just by putting the money into some fund or long-term account. Granted, you've also got to not make bad decisions, but that's fairly easy to do if all you do is live off the interest. So what is written there is true for self-made men and women, but it's just not the case that every rich person is one.

Of course, for me as a person that doesn't change a thing. I don't care what other people do or where they got their money, as long as they didn't use violence to get it.

Oh, and the argument that Frisco was based on some real-world person who did something bad and therefore this section of text doesn't merit a response is made of phail.

Sorry dude, I didn't want to give a full bio or anything. And you know I like to tease you. I complimented you, too, though, I ain't all bad...

Or you could take the bits out of my post that do address you, which are quite obvious, rather than dodging the point at hand.

I don't understand which ones they are. Is it the suggestion that I'm communist or is it the suggestion that because one man improved his position this means we should ignore all trends?

Sorry dude, I didn't want to give a full bio or anything. And you know I like to tease you. I complimented you, too, though, I ain't all bad...
:p

Don't worry, I don't get offended easily. It's part of the prerequisite for being a libertarian.

I just don't think that I can be accurately described as an objectivist. Sometimes I wish it were that easy, but I'm too honest with myself for that. There are things about it which I don't see working or I don't like, and I don't gloss them over, I see whether the gaps are plugged by something else. Which then leaves me with a patchwork to turn into a whole.

Nonetheless, I wouldn't stop defending objectivism when it's attacked. It's ridiculous, I don't think any other ideology or moral system is treated that unfairly and presumptuously. It's not just as easily dismissed as people try to make it look.

I don't understand which ones they are. Is it the suggestion that I'm communist or is it the suggestion that because one man improved his position this means we should ignore all trends?

'Trends'? Want to cite some sources or some evidence that this is the case?

But money and a three hour drive to Nevada it can buy you lovin'...

True, but if one can find one good thing that money is not the root of, the statement "money is the root of all good" is incorrect.

To quote a famous song, "Money can't buy me love." Money is not the root of love, therefore it is not the root of all good.

Please tell me your experiences with poverty and where you have witnessed it.Anecdotal evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence) is typically not used in debate, because it is not falsifiable, especially when it becomes a hasty generalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization).

Erm, what? It does when a society without hierarchy is unachievable.

The Spanish Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution) Begs to differ.

They might well work hard, all I am saying is that's not enough - we both probably know waiters who work very hard and yet aren't rich.

I think one important difference is that most of them weren't born rich and that most rich people were.

Why isn't it enough? Most corporate executives drain their lives away for their company -10, 12 hour days. Certainly more hours than many blue collar workers who check in at exactly 8 hours a day. And it is quite possible for a born poor man to become rich and a born rich man to become poor (I know one- started out with a 10 million dollar estate, tried to support his family by being an artist. He now lives in a homeless shelter in New Jersey).

Now don't get me wrong. Quite a few people work very hard and never see a cent of it and quite a few people don't work hard receive loads of money. But our system isn't based solely on hard work, it's based on a person's worth and marketability, hard work being one of many redeeming qualities. Being born rich radically increases one's capability of acquiring such skills, but it doesn't guarantee it. This is not an aristocracy. Rich people can fail. And poor people can succeed.

Oh jeez, why do I get mentioned in a thread like that? Doesn't anyone remember Melkor Unchained anymore?

I do-- what a guy. Leveled every thread with overwhelming logic. I have never met anyone with such a capacity to be always right.

The Spanish Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution) Begs to differ.

Such things tend not to last very long, including your example with the Spanish Revolution.

'Trends'? Want to cite some sources or some evidence that this is the case?

You want me to source that more rich people were born rich than born poor? Honestly?

True, but if one can find one good thing that money is not the root of, the statement "money is the root of all good" is incorrect.

To quote a famous song, "Money can't buy me love." Money is not the root of love, therefore it is not the root of all good.

Yeah, I was just fucking around...

[QUOTE=Fall of Empire;13431073]Why isn't it enough? Most corporate executives drain their lives away for their company -10, 12 hour days. Certainly more hours than many blue collar workers who check in at exactly 8 hours a day. And it is quite possible for a born poor man to become rich and a born rich man to become poor (I know one- started out with a 10 million dollar estate, tried to support his family by being an artist. He now lives in a homeless shelter in New Jersey).
[QUOTE]

"Hard work isn't enough [to become rich]" is what I meant

[QUOTE=Fall of Empire;13431073]Why isn't it enough? Most corporate executives drain their lives away for their company -10, 12 hour days. Certainly more hours than many blue collar workers who check in at exactly 8 hours a day. And it is quite possible for a born poor man to become rich and a born rich man to become poor (I know one- started out with a 10 million dollar estate, tried to support his family by being an artist. He now lives in a homeless shelter in New Jersey).
[QUOTE]

"Hard work isn't enough [to become rich]" is what I meant

Should it be? If I work my tail off as a trash collector, should I earn as much as a chemical engineer whose services are invaluable to society?

Such things tend not to last very long, including your example with the Spanish Revolution.

Fascists tend to do that to their neighbors.

Should it be? If I work my tail off as a trash collector, should I earn as much as a chemical engineer whose services are invaluable to society?

I didn't say that. I was responding orginally to a post (not yours) that characterised the rich as hard working and the poor as lazy. Hard work /= wealth.

Fascists tend to do that to their neighbors.

If a society is incapable of dealing with external threats, what is its worth? Anyway, such societies tend to collapse from within (running off the very scant historical examples) if they don't collapse from without.

I found a rather interesting passage while reading Atlas Shrugged. Any opinions?
In a word, "dated". The rise of the semiconductor has blown Rand's ideas out of the water. Mind you, nobody could have predicted the technological skyrocket of the last half-century.

Erm, what? It does when a society without hierarchy is unachievable.

a casual glance at anthropology says that it not only is achievable, but is actually the species standard.

If a society is incapable of dealing with external threats, what is its worth?

exactly how many societies living next to fascist ones have managed to survive the encounter unaided?

Paper, Paper. Get that money. Doller Doller Bills ya'll.

Sorry guys, but anyone who reads Rand for anything other than B-grade erotica is going a little too deep into the writers of such a fraud.

'Hey I am an individualist and it's a good excuse not to use social skills!!!1'

That about summarizes her life's work.

In a capitalist economy, money is power. And power is the ability to get people to do things that they wouldn't do normally.

That, my friend, is something to be considered bad unless proven otherise.

But what if you're getting them to do something good?

Money is morally neutral, merely existing as the means by which services are valued in a given society. By itself, it is nothing more than an abstraction meant to facilitate the easy exchange of goods and services. However, how I use and obtain that money does have moral overtones; I can just as easily receive payment for a contract killing or running drugs as I could establishing a new homeless shelter or research clinic.

Money, after all, is power; power in and of itself is not evil, but how we use that power can be used for good, evil, and everything in between.

But what if you're getting them to do something good?

The point still remains that the burden of proof is on the person exercising power.

I agree to an extent. Money is neither good or evil nor does it produce good nor evil. It is all up to people.

Yeah, I was just fucking around...

I know. I mostly was too.

Money is the root of all evil, and also the solution to a whole lot of problems.

If you feel that there is something inaccurate then point it out. It's very well established that Pinochet was put there for anti communist reasons, they even tend to refer to his regime itself as an 'anti-communist regime'. It was all part of cold war tactics, I'm not defending it, but I don't think it was 'for the money', I guess you could say it was 'for capitalism', but that's not the same.
....

I get so tired of this 'fighting the Cold War' meme. Allende received almost no support from the Soviet Union. There is no indication that the USSR was attempting to control the Chilean democratic process. 'Fighting communism' was, and is, just a rationalisation for taking control of the entire economy of the western hemisphere.

You could easily prove me wrong and you right by showing me how the USSR was heavily involved in Allende's government....

Pinochet also used weapons to keep himself in power.

He was not pursuing money but power, he was a 'looter'. He believed money was power. He cared little about money itself. He cared very little about pleasure. He was not a business man, he was a corrupt politician. That example doesn't refute the central argument of the passage. The reason he killed lefties is because he believed they would have caused a decrease in the value of money and therefore in his opinion a decrease in power.

To clarify my point: Objectivism fails in its application to the real world. D'Anconia's philosophy works fine in the ideal microcosm of a novel. In real life, we see that applying the same philosophy can easily result in something as horrible as Pinochet's dictatorship.

I'll tell you why: there is nothing to stop the 'looters' and 'moochers' from using the free market to 'loot and mooch' from those who have less money and power.

Money can be exchanged for goods and services :)

Money can be exchanged for goods and services :)
So that’s what it’s for!

And to think up till now I was using it as fuel...

So that’s what it’s for!

And to think up till now I was using it as fuel...

Yay! I helped someone!

I found a rather interesting passage while reading Atlas Shrugged. Any opinions? [url]
Ayn Rand is for cretins.

Like provide welfare? Or education? Or healthcare? Or foreign aid?



Or atom bombs, or machine guns, or tanks, or...


At least in the US thats where the vast majority of our money goes.

At least in the US thats where the vast majority of our money goes.
That's because you keep electing people who spend your money on bombs, machine guns and tanks. If you actually voted for some decent politicians for a change, you would probably find your taxes put to uses worth paying them for.

Should it be? If I work my tail off as a trash collector, should I earn as much as a chemical engineer whose services are invaluable to society?



Trash collectors arent valuable to socity? Really? I dont know about you, but I dont like my garbage pilling up very much.;)


And Trash Collectors, or "sanitation engineers" as they are called now, make a killing lol.

That's because you keep electing people who spend your money on bombs, machine guns and tanks. If you actually voted for some decent politicians for a change, you would probably find your taxes put to uses worth paying them for.


I vote for better politicians. Most of my countrymen however are r-tards and think we need to spend untold billion on bombs to protect us from "teh ebil moslams".

The Spanish Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution) Begs to differ.
The Spanish Revolution was crap and got utterly mauled within under five years.

You can try and say "BUT IT'S SO UNFAIR BECAUSE THE FASCISTS, ALSO COMMUNISTS BOTH ATTACKED THEM!", but that's just completely pissing into the wind.

It didn't last long enough because it didn't have enough proper cohesion to actually gain the interest of anyone on the world stage, hence it got very little support, hence it fell on its arse.
Corporations breed inequality because they are immortal persons.
Strange, I thought that it was because they usually build themselves up a majority stake (if not a monopoly) in certain sectors of service or industry, and excel at running their enterprises in such areas.
They can continue to accumulate wealth indefinitely.
Most of them don't, though. Every corporation has its ups and downs, just as every other type of enterprise does - the downs may be mitigated by their sometimes cross-sector nature (for example, the car sector is making no money, but the elastic band factories are doing a roaring trade, or whatever), but they will still exist.
Where as an individual company must be split up and taxed as part of an estate, a corporation maintains the same size and value even after it's majority shareholder dies.
Ah well.

I get so tired of this 'fighting the Cold War' meme. Allende received almost no support from the Soviet Union. There is no indication that the USSR was attempting to control the Chilean democratic process. 'Fighting communism' was, and is, just a rationalisation for taking control of the entire economy of the western hemisphere.

You could easily prove me wrong and you right by showing me how the USSR was heavily involved in Allende's government....


But the cold war wasn't just about Russia in my view, I never said it was, nor did I say that the USSR were trying to control the Chilean democratic process. I see the Cold War also as a general war between capitalism and communism (although at the time it was really just statism), even though technically it's usually referred to as the crisis between the USA and the USSR. The USA and other countries had a phobia of communism and conflicting ideologies, that they felt were gaining an alarming influence in their countries. They viewed communism as a global threat, and did whatever they could to be rid of it without going into direct conflict themselves, hence the support of Pinochet. Again, I see no evidence that it was just a plot to get more money, since the USA were already gaining a tremendous amount of money through trade with other countries, and Chile would not be able to offer anywhere near as much other countries.

But the cold war wasn't just about Russia in my view, I never said it was, nor did I say that the USSR were trying to control the Chilean democratic process. I see the Cold War also as a general war between capitalism and communism (although at the time it was really just statism), even though technically it's usually referred to as the crisis between the USA and the USSR. The USA and other countries had a phobia of communism and conflicting ideologies, that they felt were gaining an alarming influence in their countries. They viewed communism as a global threat, and did whatever they could to be rid of it without going into direct conflict themselves, hence the support of Pinochet. Again, I see no evidence that it was just a plot to get more money, since the USA were already gaining a tremendous amount of money through trade with other countries, and Chile would not be able to offer anywhere near as much other countries.

So, you're saying that the clear involvement of US corporations and government was actually based on some sort of ideological and irrational belief? And that the profits they gained from supporting Pinochet had nothing to do with it?

Are you seriously claiming this?

So, you're saying that the clear involvement of US corporations and government was actually based on some sort of ideological and irrational belief? And that the profits they gained from supporting Pinochet had nothing to do with it?

Are you seriously claiming this?

Can you show me any statistics showing how much profit any corporation actually gained from this?

So, you're saying that the clear involvement of US corporations and government was actually based on some sort of ideological and irrational belief? And that the profits they gained from supporting Pinochet had nothing to do with it?

Are you seriously claiming this?
I don't think that US corporations did anything particularly special with Pinochet, he was mainly trying to run his own economy and largely develop his own economy, instead of encouraging investment overseas, which Chilean businesses couldn't afford to do anything.

Trash collectors arent valuable to socity? Really? I dont know about you, but I dont like my garbage pilling up very much.;)


And Trash Collectors, or "sanitation engineers" as they are called now, make a killing lol.

Oh, collectively, trash collectors are worth a ton, but on an individual level... one trash collector's work is worth far less to society than one chemical engineer's work.

Can you show me any statistics showing how much profit any corporation actually gained from this?

All 323 firms that were nationalized constitutionally under Allende have been returned to private ownership. ITT, which asked for $95 million from Allende, has recovered $235 million from the junta.

Sources:

"Junta Hands Back Firms; Refugees Stream From Chile," Guardian, 27 (25 June 1975), p. 10.

Mark Day, "Terror Increases in Chile as Opposition Movement Grows," Los Angeles Free Press, 12 (7 March 1975), p. 23.

I don't think that US corporations did anything particularly special with Pinochet, he was mainly trying to run his own economy and largely develop his own economy, instead of encouraging investment overseas, which Chilean businesses couldn't afford to do anything.

And it was just an amazing coincidence that the same companies that supported him also made huge profits during the dictatorship?

To tie all this back to the OP, we can see how philosophies such as outlined in Atlas Shrugged do not work that well in real life. How many real life examples of working Objectivism have been shown in this thread? None. On the other hand, we need only look at Pinochet to see how a government run on free market principles could easily turn into a despotic one.

I am not saying that money is the root of all evil. Many capitalist countries have not rounded up leftists for torture and disappearance. Ayn Rand does not deceive us with her flowery depiction of commerce, but she does commit the sin of omission. She neglects to inform us that her capitalist world also has a dark side. We will kill for money.

I follow the OP, but I don't think money is good or evil, its just an abstraction, like Jesus.

Sources:

"Junta Hands Back Firms; Refugees Stream From Chile," Guardian, 27 (25 June 1975), p. 10.

Mark Day, "Terror Increases in Chile as Opposition Movement Grows," Los Angeles Free Press, 12 (7 March 1975), p. 23.



And it was just an amazing coincidence that the same companies that supported him also made huge profits during the dictatorship?

To tie all this back to the OP, we can see how philosophies such as outlined in Atlas Shrugged do not work that well in real life. How many real life examples of working Objectivism have been shown in this thread? None. On the other hand, we need only look at Pinochet to see how a government run on free market principles could easily turn into a despotic one.

I am not saying that money is the root of all evil. Many capitalist countries have not rounded up leftists for torture and disappearance. Ayn Rand does not deceive us with her flowery depiction of commerce, but she does commit the sin of omission. She neglects to inform us that her capitalist world also has a dark side. We will kill for money.

Those same companies/ government also failed to support Cuba, which they could've made huge profits off of (especially since Cuba originally tried to ally itself with the US). Pinochet was mainly for profits, but there was a touch of ideology in there somewhere. But I agree with your assessment of Ayn Rand. Money isn't evil or anything, but it's certainly not the root of all good.

She neglects to inform us that her capitalist world also has a dark side. We will kill for money.
And she would rightly call that immoral, the money ill-gotten and the people who do it looters.

And she would rightly call that immoral, the money ill-gotten and the people who do it looters.

She does, often. And she is more or less correct, but it would be nice if her followers would admit that the Objectivist free market would definitely give ample opportunity for the moochers and looters to acquire wealth and power at the expense of others.

She does, often. And she is more or less correct, but it would be nice if her followers would admit that the Objectivist free market would definitely give ample opportunity for the moochers and looters to acquire wealth and power at the expense of others.
No. For looters or moochers to be involved, there would need to be both a widely accepted moral norm that need creates a claim on something (which objectivists wouldn't accept but moochers need to survive) and a government that would use force and thus allow the looters to take which they don't earn.

Neither of which would exist in an objectivist free market. However, there would certainly be opportunity to acquire wealth at the expense of others, namely your competitors. And the objectivist hero character was happy to be beaten by someone who is their better, and tended to want to work for that guy afterwards. The reason is that objectivists admire skill and want to be in its presence, rather than feeling envious or wanting to keep it down for their own benefit.

No. For looters or moochers to be involved, there would need to be both a widely accepted moral norm that need creates a claim on something (which objectivists wouldn't accept but moochers need to survive) and a government that would use force and thus allow the looters to take which they don't earn.

Neither of which would exist in an objectivist free market. However, there would certainly be opportunity to acquire wealth at the expense of others, namely your competitors. And the objectivist hero character was happy to be beaten by someone who is their better, and tended to want to work for that guy afterwards. The reason is that objectivists admire skill and want to be in its presence, rather than feeling envious or wanting to keep it down for their own benefit.

Moochers may get screwed in reality, but looters definitely don't.

I must be working from a different definition of Objectivist free market than you. I was imagining a market that was pretty much based solely on economic free market principles where the only government involvement was enforcing contracts and punishing criminals.

This is what Pinochet's government did. They simply decided that socialists and other leftists (moochers, I guess) were criminals, and had them punished, i.e. killed.

In a free market, there is nothing to stop anyone from using their guns and economic clout to take advantage of those who have less guns and money.

I must be working from a different definition of Objectivist free market than you.
There is only one definition, and that would be a free market in which the norms comply with and the actors act according to objectivist morality.

I was imagining a market that was pretty much based solely on economic free market principles where the only government involvement was enforcing contracts and punishing criminals.
And I'm imagining Galt's Gulch.

This is what Pinochet's government did. They simply decided that socialists and other leftists (moochers, I guess) were criminals, and had them punished, i.e. killed.
Pinochet was not a free market man. Seriously, where do you get this stuff from? He rewarded his cronies and foreign benefactors with hand-outs in the form of pre-planned "privatisations" and he never privatised some companies at all. That was basically as far as it went - the private social security was actually a pretty good idea and worked fine. Abandoning price controls isn't particularly right-wing but simply pragmatic, since price controls rarely if ever achieve what they set out to do. His achievement was to get inflation under control, which Allende could never have done and which was tearing the country to shreds.

Really, just because Allende was really anti-market, that doesn't mean that anyone to the right of him is somehow a posterboy for capitalism (and especially not for objectivism).

And to make a rather important point on the side: with a capitalist code of ethics and morality, it's not up to the government to decide who is and isn't a criminal. There are pretty clear rules.

Nor can moocher and leftist be taken to mean the same thing. Being on the left is a question of belief, being a moocher is a question of behaviour.

In a free market, there is nothing to stop anyone from using their guns and economic clout to take advantage of those who have less guns and money.
In a free market, guns don't feature other than as a traded good. The whole idea of "free" is that people don't use force to make others do as they please.

Economic clout I grant you, but I suggest that unless there exists a monopoly, there are plenty of options to avoid such clout and just deal with someone else. So the idea of economic power is not really comparable to actual power, that is the ability to force others to do things against their will.

There is only one definition, and that would be a free market in which the norms comply with and the actors act according to objectivist morality.

Oh, I see. You are imagining an imaginary one. Okay. In Rand's imaginary world, you are completely correct.

And I'm imagining Galt's Gulch.

I was imagining what it would look like if someone tried to make Galt's Gulch in reality.

Pinochet was not a free market man. Seriously, where do you get this stuff from? He rewarded his cronies and foreign benefactors with hand-outs in the form of pre-planned "privatisations" and he never privatised some companies at all. That was basically as far as it went - the private social security was actually a pretty good idea and worked fine. Abandoning price controls isn't particularly right-wing but simply pragmatic, since price controls rarely if ever achieve what they set out to do. His achievement was to get inflation under control, which Allende could never have done and which was tearing the country to shreds.

Really, just because Allende was really anti-market, that doesn't mean that anyone to the right of him is somehow a posterboy for capitalism (and especially not for objectivism).

In 1975, two years after the military coup that toppled the government of Salvador Allende, the economy of Chile experienced a crisis. Friedman accepted the invitation of a private foundation to visit Chile and lecture on principles of economic freedom. Friedman also met with the military dictator, President Augusto Pinochet, during his visit, but he did not serve as a formal advisor to the Chilean government. Instead, Chilean graduates of The Chicago School of Economics and its new local chapters were appointed to key positions within the new government which allowed them to advise the dictator on economic policies inline with the School's economic doctrine.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman#Chile

Friedman even takes credit for Chile's 'economic miracle'. It's very clear from the history that Pinochet was all about using his power to establish a free market along Friedman's ideas.

And to make a rather important point on the side: with a capitalist code of ethics and morality, it's not up to the government to decide who is and isn't a criminal. There are pretty clear rules.

Nor can moocher and leftist be taken to mean the same thing. Being on the left is a question of belief, being a moocher is a question of behaviour.

There is a capitalist code of ethics and morality? Does anyone follow this? Are we back in Rand's fantasy land?

In a free market, guns don't feature other than as a traded good. The whole idea of "free" is that people don't use force to make others do as they please.

Economic clout I grant you, but I suggest that unless there exists a monopoly, there are plenty of options to avoid such clout and just deal with someone else. So the idea of economic power is not really comparable to actual power, that is the ability to force others to do things against their will.

I really don't know how you can write these things without including a smiley. Chile under Pinochet was a free market. Even Milton Friedman agrees to that fact. Guns figured predominantly. In fact, the free market was forced on the Chilean people by the people with guns. And who hired the people with guns? The people with the money.

Oh, I see. You are imagining an imaginary one. Okay. In Rand's imaginary world, you are completely correct.
No one made an objectivist society any more than anyone made a communist society. Of course we have to talk about an imaginary world.

Let me put this very simply: there has never been a true free market society. There have always been interventionist governments of one form or another and established elites who entrenched themselves before any market actually did its magic, as it were.

I was imagining what it would look like if someone tried to make Galt's Gulch in reality.
You're not doing a very good job. For a start, Galt's Gulch had no government.

Look, I know it's a long book, and I know you may cringe at the thought (irrationally, as it were because even if you don't like the philosophical message, it's still a dystopian hero story which carries an interest in itself) - but try and give reading Atlas Shrugged a try. If for no other reason than that it is good to know thy enemy.

Friedman even takes credit for Chile's 'economic miracle'.
Are you aware what this miracle actually was?

It's very clear from the history that Pinochet was all about using his power to establish a free market along Friedman's ideas.
Firstly, CSE arguments are probably the most amoral form of argument for capitalism that you can find. They are very much the opposite of an objectivist argument for capitalism.

Secondly, because of their amorality, they don't directly tell us anything about right or wrong of any action whatsoever. It's as close to science as you'll get in this area - it makes only predictions and leaves the value judgement of the outcomes to others.

As such Pinochet's dictatorship had in reality as much connection with free market economics as it had with the work of Isaac Newton. It made use of discovered mechanisms and processes. I don't think any predictions made by the CSE were actually shown to be wrong during this time, and on the whole the policies were quite successful at what they were meant to do.

But if you're talking about the individuals involved, then that's a different matter - and it's not one about the market or economics. I for one have always seen Friedman's initial enthusiasm with Pinochet as his greatest failing (one that was to an extend corrected in later years) and the connection of the CSE with the regime as one of the biggest problem with a purely amoral advocacy of capitalism. But that's a question about the people and either their willingness to close their eyes to the crimes committed or perhaps even their acceptance as valid parts of the fight against a system that delivers vastly inferior outcomes in the areas a Chicago Economist considers to be in the realm of serious study. Neither is acceptable, but neither discredits the findings of CSE-type economics - and especially not the free market.

There is a capitalist code of ethics and morality? Does anyone follow this? Are we back in Rand's fantasy land?
There are a bunch of them. There are classical liberal arguments for capitalism (right to body => right to produce of it, homesteading), there are amoral CSE arguments (pareto optimality, maximisation), there are objectivist arguments (rejection of need as a claim, individual reason and striving for success as highest good, trade rather than force), there are utilitarian arguments (people are happier owning things or with more aggregate wealth) and so on and so forth.

All of them imply idealised forms of behaviour that supporters would honestly attempt to adhere to. You can't dismiss capitalism by pointing at the failures of individuals to do so any more than you can dismiss communism by doing the same.

Fact of the matter is that we (as in supporters of capitalism) are not bad people. We do not set out to do something evil, we do not set out to hurt anyone. We don't lie to you when we say what we think. There is no double-think here. We can disagree, and I'm sure we do, but just as I don't think Soheran or Jello Biafra are really trying to gain a power position by making producing people slaves of "society" and becoming its personification, you shouldn't think that I'm setting out to exploit the masses by joining a malicious corporate hivemind or a vicious military junta.

In short: you can disagree with my system of ethics, but don't deny its existence.

I really don't know how you can write these things without including a smiley. Chile under Pinochet was a free market. Even Milton Friedman agrees to that fact. Guns figured predominantly.
I don't think Milton Friedman would have agreed to that. It was further towards a free market than Chile was under Allende, but that's not saying much.

But to move on: You don't think there is a link between economic- and political freedom. I think you have a point, but only to an extent. There comes a point at which you have so much economic freedom that to further increase it would mean to cut regulations, taxation, trade barriers and anything else that could impact economic activity to zero. But if you do that, you eliminate government. To achieve complete economic freedom you need to reach anarchy, which also implies complete political freedom.

Secondly, a free market has as one of its characteristics (indeed, its main characteristic) the freedom of economic agents to make decisions based on self-interest without outside interference. For example, if I threaten you with a gun it may be in your interest to give me your money, but it wouldn't actually be what you consider the optimal use of it. A government is based on the threat of violence, so its very existence is basically a violation of the freedom of the market. Most obviously since it usually exists by means of taxation.

Now, Pinochet's junta did rather more than just tax people and otherwise leave them alone. At least one major company remained in government hands - not a free market. It also threw people in jail and the secret police kept tabs on people. That caused them to spend resources at least to some degree on not getting thrown in jail.

So regardless which definition you use - one based on morality such as objectivism (that is, the non-initiation of violence) or one based on economics as a social science (that is, pareto optimality through freedom of choice), Pinochet's Chile was not a free market. It was freer, it was not free.

In fact, the free market was forced on the Chilean people by the people with guns. And who hired the people with guns? The people with the money.
Look, what do you think the "free" means in the word "free market"?

In the words of the song "money makes the world go around".

The quetion is, is that a good thing?

In the words of the song "money makes the world go around".

The quetion is, is that a good thing?

Yeah, or else one half of the world would be in permanent darkness.

In a capitalist economy, money is power. And power is the ability to get people to do things that they wouldn't do normally.

That, my friend, is something to be considered bad unless proven otherise.

In any economy, the more money you have, the more options you have. Options in terms of education, location, mates, food, etc. The more of these options you have, the better your quality of life.

Oh, and don't kid yourself, the correlation between money and power isn't exclusive to capitalism.