I haven't read "Atlas Shrugged," but I agree the premise

I think you're a troll. But I'll give you 1 response, so shame on me.

The US was never Rand's Utopia. Not ever. Not in 1957 when the book was published, not in 1865, not in 1776, not in 1620, and not in 1492. To say US = Rand's Utopia is demonstrating massive confirmation bias.

I think you're a troll. But I'll give you 1 response, so shame on me.

The US was never Rand's Utopia. Not ever. Not in 1957 when the book was published, not in 1865, not in 1776, not in 1620, and not in 1492. To say US = Rand's Utopia is demonstrating massive confirmation bias.

Quoted for truth

Your shame is that you are hiding behind name calling while making the outrageous claim that pointing out the really big things that Rand got right is simple "confirmation bias". That's cheap. You are not making your case. There is no intellectual content in your posts.

Rand absolutely thought the US was closest to her ideal society and said so. That's why she came here. And the early days of the US were a Libertarian paradise for anyone who wanted to come here, and they did by the millions to take advantage of exactly the kind of society Rand was promoting. She understood the corrosive forces undermining the US, and she explained them, how they work, and what the result would be, and she was right.

RunningDerp wrote:

I think you're a troll. But I'll give you 1 response, so shame on me.

The US was never Rand's Utopia. Not ever. Not in 1957 when the book was published, not in 1865, not in 1776, not in 1620, and not in 1492. To say US = Rand's Utopia is demonstrating massive confirmation bias.

Quoted for truth

Spoken like a couple of Rand's intellectually vacuous one dimensional villains. You two are proving that one more element of Rand's world view was correct.

DiscoGary wrote:

RunningDerp wrote:

Quoted for truth

Spoken like a couple of Rand's intellectually vacuous one dimensional villains. You two are proving that one more element of Rand's world view was correct.

OK. If that’s what you gotta tell yourself to keep your worldview safe.

DiscoGary wrote:

Being able to see so clearly what was hidden from everyone else proves that Rand possessed an Einsteinian genius so far ahead of everyone else that her detractors still haven't caught up.

It doesn't surprise me that you would be a fan of Ayn Rand, because you are an idiot. Nor does it surprise me that you aren't even smart enough to actually understand her views. You mistakenly just see her as anti-liberal so you jump in with both stupid feet.

I hope, as a such a fan of her "genius", that you are at least not a Christian. Watching religious people explain how Ayn Rands views fit in with the existence of God is pretty awesome.

And if you are a great big understanding fan of her "genius", you can confirm that you are also against things such as child labour laws and paying any taxes? After all, taxes are just theft, right?

jamin wrote:

I basically agree with the idea that trying to limit or confiscate the wealth of society's biggest wealth producers would crash society because if they didn't create wealth then nobody else would. I mean, Bill Gates, Jess Bezos, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, etc. are rich because they are smarter than everyone else. I'm not being facetious. If someone else is smarter, then why don't they create a trillion-dollar company? Nothing is stopping them.

Read the book although it can drag in spots. Also new characters appear even late in the book.

It gets pretty scary that the government bans inventions or advancements in an effort to protect entrenched industries. Some of that has happened and happens. Established companies seek to keep innovators out (see taxi/livery v ride shares like Uber and Lyft). Some people get frustrated enough they quite innovating. In some places in the US opening a business requires so much paperwork and possibly unnecessary adherence to regulations. Even trying to provide low cost housing runs into building codes that jack up the cost of building and provide only marginal improvements in safety. One regulation I read about requires doors to have an 8 hour burn time (up from 6). Well those doors are more expensive and odds are if there is a fire the rest of the house will burn down but the door will last!

Reading Atlas Shrugged helped me crystallize my views and moved me more libertarian. There is a lot about Ayn Rand that I do not buy into, but the big points I agree on.

I am sympathetic, but how do you propose government services get paid for? The government has to provide police, fire, build roads, courts and the military (in the case of the federal government). Unless you want to have all of those services provided for a cost.

" If it moves, privatize it, if it doesn't move, privatize it; since everything either moves or doesn't move, privatize everything."-Walter Block

Meh2 wrote:

I don’t think rich people are the problem. The problem is that you have families like the Walton’s who create huge, successful companies and then hoard the wealth to a ridiculous degree while not rewarding their employees. Companies that hire the cheapest possible labor, offer no benefits, and generally have no concern for the welfare of their employees, while also raking in more profit then they could ever spend is definitely a problem. Capitalism is an exceptional system, but it has its problems just like everything else. Nothing is perfect.

The company owners pay the shareholders.

It would be dumb not to pay the least amount you can. Now an employer has to balance that with getting employees who will do the job and ideally stick around long enough to recoup the investment in training. Most of the jobs at WalMart and Target do not require lots of skill or intelligence so the pay should not be expected to be high.

We are seeing how Target and Wal Mart are having to respond to the market and increase pay.

How much is one's "fair share"? The top 1% of wage earners pay something on the order of 40% of all federal taxes. Top 5% is about 60%.

Sand Dunes wrote:

Luv2Run wrote:

I am sympathetic, but how do you propose government services get paid for? The government has to provide police, fire, build roads, courts and the military (in the case of the federal government). Unless you want to have all of those services provided for a cost.

" If it moves, privatize it, if it doesn't move, privatize it; since everything either moves or doesn't move, privatize everything."-Walter Block

So when Ted Bundy killed all those people, should their parents (or spouses) have had to pay to get him arrested and tried and then who pays for locking him up?

I think there are some areas when government is needed and law enforcement and the courts are one.

" If it moves, privatize it, if it doesn't move, privatize it; since everything either moves or doesn't move, privatize everything."-Walter Block

That is a very naive quote. It is just as bad as people who think that it is good at getting the government involved in everything.

Let’s be realistic. There is a place for the government. How much of a place there is .... now that’s the hard question. But to act as if everything should just be privatized, lol, it betrays an ignorance as to the drawbacks of the free market, and a woeful lack of understanding of human nature.

I disagree with most of your writings but you hit the nail on the head about government policies designed to protect entrenched business and squash competition. What bothers me is that politicians tap into the legitimate grievances against these kinds of regulations in order to squash policies that do the opposite! In the pockets of big businesses as usual, they just point the figure of "regulations" at any policies that would actually help small businesses, promote competition and free markets, and prevent monopolies. And voters are dumb enough to believe them (thanks to cable news).

lol I see my thread got deleted, yet this piece of trash thread remains open. At least my OP contained insightful information into Grapes of Wrath. Jamin’s OP is just intellectually vacuous.

Luv2Run wrote:

Sand Dunes wrote:

" If it moves, privatize it, if it doesn't move, privatize it; since everything either moves or doesn't move, privatize everything."-Walter Block

So when Ted Bundy killed all those people, should their parents (or spouses) have had to pay to get him arrested and tried and then who pays for locking him up?

I think there are some areas when government is needed and law enforcement and the courts are one.

So, you know I'm a Rothbardian Libertarian (Murray Rothbard), not a objectivist. I haven't looked too much into Ayn Rand philosophy other than the interviews and speeches on YouTube. Rand and Rothbard didn't like each other. For those who don't know Murray Rothbard basically founded the modern libertarian movement. Ayn Rand rejected the term libertarian, and thought of libertarians as hippies.

To your question,in a private society how we would take care of people who violate the non-aggression principle would be through private courts. Or, just eliminate those people who violate the rights of others. As Hans Herman Hoppe would say by," physical removal".

Here is a clip of Rothbard on Rand:

Video of Rothbard on how he became libertarian:

Hans Herman Hoppe on private law society:

DiscoGary wrote:

And the early days of the US were a Libertarian paradise for anyone who wanted to come here, and they did by the millions to take advantage of exactly the kind of society Rand was promoting.

Wow, there is some awful history in this thread. Try The Jungle or The Grapes of Wrath for starters, or anything at all on slavery (libertarian paradise? for plantation owners maybe). Also the idea of the political left being responsible for the downfall of Detroit sounds made up on the spot.

And what exactly are you going to be paid in without a government organising a currency?

Why we need government

This evening, a 17 year old girl hit my parked car, while I was sitting in it. She pulled in, way too fast, and her front fender scratched and dented my rear fender. She "landed" 6 inches from my car. When I squeezed out of the door, to talk to her-she wouldn't hang up her phone--waved me off and said she would straighten it out in a minute. When she finally rolled down the window, and I said, "You hit me." she replied "No I didn't--I didn't feel anything--" I showed her the damage on both her vehicle and mine-and suggested we call the police-she said , "Can't we just exchange information." I suggested she call her parents. She left the scene--and found an adult acqauintance who also encouraged me to just get a quote, and they would "pay me." Her mom finally called me--and again promised to pay me--she didn't want to involve insurance or the cops. I called the cops-they would not investigate as the accident occurred on private property, not a public highway. They would not take a statement.

We'll see how it goes--but based on past experience with similar situations, there is a good chance the little princess and her mom will tell her insurance company that it was me that hit her-and I'll either drive around with a scratched and dented car, or cough up the 1500 bucks to get it fixed, or the 500 on my deductible-and then pay higher rates for the next decade.

As long as people lie, and the system is skewed to give liars the benefit of the doubt, and insurance companies would rather settle than seek justice--we need government.