Happy Veteran's Day!

Kudos and Thank You to soldiers and their families.

The intellectual heir of Ayn Rand

http://www.peikoff.com/kira_interview.ht...

A Prime Mover: Steve Jobs

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/fort...

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

- Barry Goldwater

There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness. [George Washington, address to Congress, 8 January, 1790:]

http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/...

“Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you.”

Thomas Jefferson quotes (American 3rd US President (1801-09). Author of the Declaration of Independence) http://thinkexist.com/quotation/do_you_w...

I just finished reading the Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson. I dearly worship Mr. Jefferson. It is exceptionally wonderful to read his own words about his life. As I expected, he treasured his privacy - he said very little about his private life. He lovingly spoke of his wife in one sentence - he said he lived with her in "unchequered happiness".

Mr. Jefferson clearly admired Mr. George Washington and Dr. Benjamin Franklin. I love these:

"I served with General Washington in the lesgislature of Virginia, before the revolution, and, during it, with Dr. Franklin in Congress. I never heard either of them speak ten minutes at a time, nor to any but the main point, which was to decide the question. They laid their shoulders to the great points, knowing that the little ones would follow of themselves."

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread."

In 1769, chosen for the first time to be a member of a legislature, he "made one effort in that body for the permission of the emancipation of slaves, which was rejected..."

From Lorianne's favorite quotes:

"Those who educate children well are more to be honored than they who produce them; for these only gave them life, those the art of living well."

— Aristotle

Voltaire quotes:

"No problem can withstand the assault of sustained thinking."

"Chance is a word void of sense; nothing can exist without a cause."

"The instruction we find in books is like fire. We fetch it from our neighbours, kindle it at home, communicate it to others, and it becomes the property of all."

"To hold a pen is to be at war."

"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too."

"Stand upright, speak thy thoughts, declare The truth thou hast, that all may share; Be bold, proclaim it everywhere: They only live who dare."

"Prejudices are what fools use for reason."

"It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere."

"It is better to risk saving a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one."

"Is there anyone so wise as to learn by the experience of others?"

"Each player must accept the cards life deals him or her: but once they are in hand, he or she alone must decide how to play the cards in order to win the game."

"Never argue at the dinner table, for the one who is not hungry always gets the best of the argument."

"Ice-cream is exquisite - what a pity it isn't illegal."

"It is an infantile superstition of the human spirit that virginity would be thought a virtue and not the barrier that separates ignorance from knowledge."

"I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it."

When asked on his deathbed to forswear Satan: "This is no time to make new enemies."

From: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=324...

Marilyn Monroe: Through Your Most Grievous Fault
by Ayn Rand

This commentary by Ayn Rand, excerpted from The Voice of Reason, was originally published two weeks after Marilyn Monroe's death on August 5, 1962.

The death of Marilyn Monroe shocked people with an impact different from their reaction to the death of any other movie star or public figure. All over the world, people felt a peculiar sense of personal involvement and of protest, like a universal cry of "Oh, no!"

They felt that her death had some special significance, almost like a warning which they could not decipher--and they felt a nameless apprehension, the sense that something terribly wrong was involved.

They were right to feel it.

Marilyn Monroe on the screen was an image of pure, innocent, childlike joy in living. She projected the sense of a person born and reared in some radiant utopia untouched by suffering, unable to conceive of ugliness or evil, facing life with the confidence, the benevolence, and the joyous self-flaunting of a child or a kitten who is happy to display its own attractiveness as the best gift it can offer the world, and who expects to be admired for it, not hurt.

In real life, Marilyn Monroe's probable suicide--or worse: a death that might have been an accident, suggesting that, to her, the difference did not matter--was a declaration that we live in a world which made it impossible for her kind of spirit, and for the things she represented, to survive.

If there ever was a victim of society, Marilyn Monroe was that victim--of a society that professes dedication to the relief of the suffering, but kills the joyous.

None of the objects of the humanitarians' tender solicitude, the juvenile delinquents, could have had so sordid and horrifying a childhood as did Marilyn Monroe.

To survive it and to preserve the kind of spirit she projected on the screen--the radiantly benevolent sense of life, which cannot be faked--was an almost inconceivable psychological achievement that required a heroism of the highest order. Whatever scars her past had left were insignificant by comparison.

She preserved her vision of life through a nightmare struggle, fighting her way to the top. What broke her was the discovery, at the top, of as sordid an evil as the one she had left behind--worse, perhaps, because incomprehensible. She had expected to reach the sunlight; she found, instead, a limitless swamp of malice.

It was a malice of a very special kind. If you want to see her groping struggle to understand it, read the magnificent article in the August 17, 1962, issue of Life magazine. It is not actually an article, it is a verbatim transcript of her own words--and the most tragically revealing document published in many years. It is a cry for help, which came too late to be answered.

"When you're famous, you kind of run into human nature in a raw kind of way," she said. "It stirs up envy, fame does. People you run into feel that, well, who is she--who does she think she is, Marilyn Monroe? They feel fame gives them some kind of privilege to walk up to you and say anything to you, you know, of any kind of nature--and it won't hurt your feelings--like it's happening to your clothing. . . . I don't understand why people aren't a little more generous with each other. I don't like to say this, but I'm afraid there is a lot of envy in this business."

"Envy" is the only name she could find for the monstrous thing she faced, but it was much worse than envy: it was the profound hatred of life, of success and of all human values, felt by a certain kind of mediocrity--the kind who feels pleasure on hearing about a stranger's misfortune. It was hatred of the good for being the good--hatred of ability, of beauty, of honesty, of earnestness, of achievement and, above all, of human joy.

Read the Life article to see how it worked and what it did to her:

An eager child, who was rebuked for her eagerness--"Sometimes the [foster:] families used to worry because I used to laugh so loud and so gay; I guess they felt it was hysterical."

A spectacularly successful star, whose employers kept repeating: "Remember you're not a star," in a determined effort, apparently, not to let her discover her own importance.

A brilliantly talented actress, who was told by the alleged authorities, by Hollywood, by the press, that she could not act.

An actress, dedicated to her art with passionate earnestness--"When I was 5--I think that's when I started wanting to be an actress--I loved to play. I didn't like the world around me because it was kind of grim--but I loved to play house and it was like you could make your own boundaries"--who went through hell to make her own boundaries, to offer people the sunlit universe of her own vision--"It's almost having certain kinds of secrets for yourself that you'll let the whole world in on only for a moment, when you're acting"--but who was ridiculed for her desire to play serious parts.

A woman, the only one, who was able to project the glowingly innocent sexuality of a being from some planet uncorrupted by guilt--who found herself regarded and ballyhooed as a vulgar symbol of obscenity--and who still had the courage to declare: "We are all born sexual creatures, thank God, but it's a pity so many people despise and crush this natural gift."

A happy child who was offering her achievement to the world, with the pride of an authentic greatness and of a kitten depositing a hunting trophy at your feet--who found herself answered by concerted efforts to negate, to degrade, to ridicule, to insult, to destroy her achievement--who was unable to conceive that it was her best she was punished for, not her worst--who could only sense, in helpless terror, that she was facing some unspeakable kind of evil.

How long do you think a human being could stand it?

That hatred of values has always existed in some people, in any age or culture. But a hundred years ago, they would have been expected to hide it. Today, it is all around us; it is the style and fashion of our century.

Where would a sinking spirit find relief from it?

The evil of a cultural atmosphere is made by all those who share it. Anyone who has ever felt resentment against the good for being the good and has given voice to it, is the murderer of Marilyn Monroe.

*
Russian born American novelist Ayn Rand is author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and is originator of the philosophy of Objectivism. You can learn more about her life and philosophy at the website of the Ayn Rand Institute.

By the time Thomas Jefferson was six, he had read most of the books in his father’s library. Thomas Edison was great, as a child and as a man. From early childhood, José Rizal was advancing unheard-of political ideas of freedom and individual rights which infuriated the Spanish authorities.

At age six, Ayn Rand taught herself to read and two years later discovered her first fictional hero in a French magazine for children, thus capturing the heroic vision which sustained her throughout her life. At the age of nine, she decided to make fiction writing her career.

Ralph Teetor, a prolific inventor, invented cruise control. Teetor, BLIND since the age of five, built his first car, a one-cylinder, by the age of 12.

At age 13, Bill Gates was writing computer programs.

William Pitt the Younger, one of Britain's greatest Prime Ministers, became the youngest Prime Minister in 1783 at age 24.

Hi Jim.

I'm sad to report that Walter Block is NOT going to be a hero of mine. His book, Defending the Undefendable: The pimp, prostitute, scab, slumlord, libeler, moneylender and other scapegoats in the rogue's gallery of American society started out well, but has really hit the skids.

He started out making a pretty good case for legalizing prostitution, gambling & drugs. Then his logic started failing due to incorrect premises & ignoring large facets of the issues at hand. Still, it was readable, but he got worse & worse.

I'm about halfway through the book & very discouraged by his rant on counterfeiting. It's based on his lack of understanding the concept of money. He spends pages, with a diagram, explaining the who counterfeit money harms as it passes from person to person. He finally gets to the point:
1) The only real money is gold & silver.
2) The government debased & then replaced 'real money' so they are the original counterfeiters.
3) It's OK to counterfeit.
So we have pages & pages of diatribe based on this ridiculous premise. It's a waste of time.

I hope this gets better or I won't be able to finish.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (Speech to Parliament 1783)

- William Pitt, British Prime Minister in 1783, age 24

President George Washington quotes:

Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth.

Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God.

Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light.

I hope I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an Honest Man.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.

It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.

The administration of justice is the firmest pillar of government.

The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon.

The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments.

The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves.

The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.

There can be no greater error than to expect, or calculate, upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.

We ought not to look back, unless it is to derive useful lessons from past errors and for the purpose of profiting by dear bought experience.

Worry is the interest paid by those who borrow trouble.

Happiness and moral duty are inseparably connected.

Discipline is the soul of an army. It makes small numbers formidable; procures success to the weak, and esteem to all.

I walk on untrodden ground. There is scarcely any part of my conduct which may not hereafter be drawn into precedent.

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War.

A slender acquaintance with the world must convince every man that actions, not words, are the true criterion of the attachment of friends.

Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.

Experience teaches us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession.

Bad seed is a robbery of the worst kind: for your pocket-book not only suffers by it, but your preparations are lost and a season passes away unimproved.

Friendship is a plant of slow growth and must undergo and withstand the shocks of adversity before it is entitled to the appellation.

I will post my comment in Happy & Brainy.

Welcome back, Jim. I hope you had a wonderful vacation.

I will comment tomorrow. Have a fun day, everyone.

Although I just started it, I can tell that Walter Block is going to be a hero of mine. His book, Defending the Undefendable: The pimp, prostitute, scab, slumlord, libeler, moneylender and other scapegoats in the rogue's gallery of American society is just too full of Libertarian ideals not be a winner. Has anyone else read anything by him?

Ilyn, I posted this reply in another topic, but I'll answer them here as well, this time. Please decide on one place. I think it's redundant to have it in both.

You asked, "Please reconcile this with unalienable individual rights." my statement “… the responsibilities of government to insure the greatest good for the greatest number …”

That's the trick, isn't it? when a group accept or create a government, they're living under a social contract that limits some of their freedoms so that the group may live together. Exactly which freedoms we have to give up or should give up are the question. There is no doubt they impact our personal freedom - they restrict what we're allowed to do as a seller, but free us to eat where we want, without the need to do an extensive background check or inspection before eating at a place we're not familiar with - in the case of a restaurant.

You & I disagree about government oversight on restaurants. Personally, I'm glad they're limited in what food they can serve. I think expiration dates, health inspections & such are a good thing. Even in a world where everyone was rational, ignorance can kill. Proper food preparation, handling & such can make the difference between happy customers & dead ones. Government oversight isn't perfect & it is invasive, but I think it is needed in this case. It's an attempt to prevent health problems before they become a big issue. (An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.)

You asked, "Please reconcile - “Limiting some actions & abilities … when systems get so large” - with unalienable individual rights." in response to my statement “I don't recall saying the many should 'enslave' anyone. Limiting some actions & abilities is what I said. I pointed out that some government interference is unavoidable when systems get so large …”

I've done this several times with the example of the water system for L.A.. What's not clear?

The crux of our disagreement, as I see it, is "unalienable individual rights". What exactly does that phrase mean?

I don't think it means that an individual has the right to harm his customers through ignorance, greed or sloth & that means there needs to be some oversight by some entity. That entity happens to be the government because most businesses won't police themselves well enough. If they would have done so, there wouldn't have been a toe hold for government. Unfortunately, people went blind from bad liquor, sickened or died from poor canning techniques & tainted/spoiled food, so the government stepped in & laid out standards that they all have to follow. (Not quite that simple, but close enough.)

Supposedly, the majority of the people wanted these regulations & restrictions to be enforced. Their elected officials made these laws. Yes, it abridged some freedoms & 'rights' but it was felt to be in the best interest of the public. That's part of the democratic process - we can vote away our rights or hand over power to officials who can legislate them out of existence.

As for your assertion that "In eminent domain, the protector has turned aggressor - government has become a tyrant." I agree with you to some extent, but as the Founding Fathers realized, there are instances where the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the few. There's an interesting article on Wikipedia about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emminent_do... Without it, the infrastructure of our country would have been in real trouble. The highway system would never have been built or at least not to the current standards. Utilities would be spotty, at best.

No one ever asks for a law to make them stop doing something - it's always to stop the other guy. That can & has led to laws that are restrictive & silly. It has also led to some that have done a lot of good. Whether these laws are all needed or not, how much they've impacted our freedoms & what we can do about them is open to discussion.

Ilyn said, "It boggles my mind how one could want a master, a leash." That's exactly what people are asking for when they ask the government for favors, such as the recent bailout. FDR may have gotten us out of the Great Depression, but look at the cost - the Feds got their fingers into everything. So, I agree with you to some extent, but I disagree that it is an all or nothing proposition. Politics is compromise. We give some to get some.

Often, people don't realize what they're giving up or how much. For instance, income taxes are one of the most invasive forms of coercion our government has ever imposed. If people were rational & disciplined enough to hand over a large enough portion of their money to the government on a regular basis (the way they do to their church) we might not have a need for them. Not only are people neither, but also the government bureaucracy is a living entity. It grows & demands more fuel & power. Limiting its growth & power is something we should all be concerned with. Instead, most people seem to want to give it more of both by asking it for favors. This recent bail out is a perfect example. It's something I urged my congress critters to avoid. Unfortunately, my elected officials &, supposedly, a majority of my fellow citizens disagreed with me.

RE: message 62

a) From Jim: “… the responsibilities of government to insure the greatest good for the greatest number …”

Response: Please reconcile this with unalienable individual rights.

b) From Jim: “I don't recall saying the many should 'enslave' anyone. Limiting some actions & abilities is what I said. I pointed out that some government interference is unavoidable when systems get so large …”

Response: Please reconcile - “Limiting some actions & abilities … when systems get so large” - with unalienable individual rights.

A limit is a leash – Jim thinks that man deserves to be limited by the government, to be leashed. I presented evidence that the present financial meltdown is caused by government intervention; I posted the James Hill story. But if a person thinks freedom is not a value and a leash is, then no evidence to the contrary would spur him to check his premises.

Congress is corrupt and very powerful. In April 2001, the Bush Administration warned Congress that GSEs (government-sponsored enterprises) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are potential problems. Allan Greenspan and then Treasury Secretary John Snow repeatedly warned Congress – to no avail. The Executive branch could not persuade the Legislative branch because voters cheer universal homeownership – they do not care that the means is corrupt. Reality has caught up with the non-free housing and financial systems. Politicians blame everyone but themselves. They want more intrusions in the economy.

It boggles my mind how one could want a master, a leash. I cannot understand how one could want a corrupt master. But all masters and power-lusters are abhorrent. This is why President George Washington took affront when asked to become king.

c) Jim says: “Your questions seem a bit over the top.”

Response: Aside from those mentioned in message 55, Jim’s comments to my ideal of unalienable individual liberty include the following – “an ideal irrationally applied” - “sitting in an Ivory Tower spinning air” - “Standing on principles that are unrealistic & self-defeating is stupid & immoral.”

d) Jim: “How exactly is a law to protect citizens supposed to work if the government doesn't make sure they're following the law, which I think we both see as an abuse of the citizens' rights?”

Response: I do not consider laws and government actions that protect individual rights as infringement on such rights. Laws and government actions for purposes other than securing individual liberty are tyrannical.

e) Jim: “Rand & yourself both recognize that no man can stand alone.”

Response: Based on this statement, Jim’s concept of independence differs from Ayn Rand’s and mine.

Ayn’s: http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/in...

From Reason Reigns:

*** The next day, Ron read an entry from Lola:

“The people on this boat, the Georgia Knox, are heroes. A hero knows the power of the mind. He respects and seeks ideas. He appreciates knowledge. He lives by reason and logic.

A hero trades – he is neither a master nor a slave. He is an independent thinker – he is neither a power seeker nor a mindless follower.

A hero admires other people’s abilities. He is happy.

His morality is self-interest based on reality and reason. In such a morality, would the interests of individuals ever clash? No, because no self-respecting person would ever desire the unearned or the forced. A moral man does not loot or defraud. He is loyal to ideas and to values, not to specific men or to a group. He respects every man’s freedom. He does not rule. He cannot be ruled.

Ron speaks of a God who is all-good and all-loving. May God bless these heroes.”

*** The three boys followed Lola into the boat which flew the flag with the ‘I’. Ivan explained to Jay, “Tony owns the boats that fly the gold, silver, and black flag. Lola and I own this boat. The letter ‘I’ on our flag stands for ‘Ivan’ and for ‘the Individual’.”

“It also stands for ‘Independence’, for independent thinkers who respect individual rights,” Lola added. “People who prefer ‘WE’ over ‘I’ dread independence and feel a frantic desire to belong. Instead of using their own minds, they trust the wisdom of others; they stick to traditions; they copy or obey; they are loyal to their respective groups rather than to values; they take the unearned – they loot.”

Lola easily maneuvered her boat to the deeper end.

Jay Rahman spoke softly but proudly. “I used my own mind in deciding to follow the beacon. I chose to come here despite numerous frightening stories. I chose light over darkness. I am worthy to be on this boat.”

I advocate capitalism because it is rooted in the Declaration of Independence (DOI), which, in turn, is rooted in reality.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

These few words convey the following:

1) The only purpose of law and of government is to secure the equal rights of its citizens.

2) Independent equals delegate to the government their right to self-defense. This puts the power to use force in the hands of their protector while they pledge not to use force when dealing with their fellowmen, except in emergency self-defense.

Citizens cannot delegate a right they do not possess. It is very important to remember that what is delegated is the right to self-defense because this means that the government has no right to interfere in the intellectual and moral life of its law-abiding (see item 1) citizens. It is not the government's function to protect a citizen from himself or from nature. But the DOI has been subverted.

The realm of production and trade is an aspect of man’s intellectual life.

The DOI mandates absolute freedom in all realms not involving the use of force delegated to prevent, counteract, and punish fraud and the initiation of force.

Government functions other than the following subvert the DOI because it would involve using force against innocent citizens:

a) Police Force and Criminal Courts – to prevent criminals from
defrauding, robbing, or physically harming its citizens, and to apprehend
and prosecute criminals

b) Civil Courts – to resolve civil disputes

c) Military – to prevent, repel, and defeat foreign aggression

3) Men are independent equals and they have unalienable rights to pursue happiness. Having no slaves, each man is responsible for sustaining his own life.

The government has no right to infringe the unalienable rights of citizens who are not defrauding, robbing, physically harming other people, nor attempting to.

If a man does not work, neither he nor the government has the right to rob other citizens for his sustenance. Since a man has no right to rob, injure, or force other men, he cannot delegate such right – thus the government has no such right.

If a man does not work, the government has no right to force him to work. If a man wants to have his cake and eat it, too, the government has no right to coerce others to provide the cake. If millions of men do not sustain their own lives, neither they nor the government has the right to coerce responsible citizens to sustain their lives for them.

The government has no right to extort in order to provide goods or services for its citizens’ sustenance. It is not its task to prevent nature from harming its citizens.

4) The DOI regards man as efficacious, virtuous, and, by his nature, deserving of individual liberty. It proclaims that each man is an end in himself – that he is not the means to the ends of others.

Whereas, those who need slaves declare that there is a cause greater than the individual – they name this cause: sacrifice, patriotism, country, society, or greater good.

My response to this is: The end does not justify the means. No cause can be good if it requires the sacrifice, enslavement, or injury of one law-abiding citizen.

Some regard man as inefficacious, depraved, and undeserving of rights, yet they believe that a collection of such incompetents, when in government or supported by it, should coerce law-abiding citizens.

5) If man has no property rights, he has no right to his own life. A man is a slave if he has no rights to the fruits of his labors.

*
Preventing criminals or terrorists from contaminating or destroying sources and distribution channels of food and water is a protector function; setting standards like prices or quality is not.

If a man desires to eat in a restaurant but can’t afford its food prices, he has no right to force the owner to lower the prices – neither has the government – but such man is free to compete with such restaurant and put its owner out of business.

If a restaurant owner defrauds or attempts to defraud its patrons, or commits acts that could result in physical harm (e.g. disregarding employees’ report of contaminated food) – the police and courts step in. If a news report harming the reputation of a restaurant is libelous – its owner has recourse in the courts.

Say, a company building a railroad offers to buy the restaurant for a project that many think would benefit the entire country. The company does its best in persuading the restaurant owner to sell, but if he refuses, the company has no right to force him, not because such right has been delegated to the government – there is no such right to delegate. What has been delegated to the government is every citizen’s right to self-defense, including the restaurant owner’s, when someone tries to take his property by force.

In eminent domain, the protector has turned aggressor - government has become a tyrant.

I probably won't get around to answering anything until next Wednesday or Thursday. The wife & I are taking some time off.

Ilyn wrote: "Jims’ justification that individual liberty is NOT unalienable is: “millions of lives” might be adversely impacted if government does not violate man’s rights."

Isn't one of the responsibilities of government to insure the greatest good for the greatest number & to protect its citizens from threats both internal & external?

Your questions seem a bit over the top for what I suggested, but I'll answer what I can, one at a time.

Ilyn: "1) What gives the many the right to enslave some individuals?"

I don't recall saying the many should 'enslave' anyone. Limiting some actions & abilities is what I said. I pointed out that some government interference is unavoidable when systems get so large they affect a huge, diverse set of people & cross state boundaries. Then the government needs to insure & oversee it. Who else can secure the right-of-ways, arbitrate the disputes and, when there is a major problem (e.g. waterlines broken by an earthquake) who has fix the mess? Who makes sure the water is safe to drink? An unsupervised, private individual or company could easily let things slide, cause a disaster & wouldn't have the resources or authority to fix it.

While I agree that it is reprehensible that there are riots & looting, I'm just telling you what has often happens in cities there is a catastrophe. Who has the authority & the power to stop such things? I don't want to see that kind of power in the hands of an individual. I'm not particularly comfortable with it in the hands of the government.

In the case of something as small as a restaurant, tainted food or drink can cause widespread health problems. What if the batch of homemade beans wasn't canned right & gets botulism or a virulent disease? Again, some government interference is needed to try to keep health hazards down. Read up on some of the epidemics around the world or in this country. It's scary. Think back a couple of years to the flu or mad cow disease problems. No private citizen or company could have dealt with them. Not only states, but foreign countries were involved.

I don't see this as slavery. People are free not to live in a desert city that requires a tremendous, complex, artificial system to survive. People are free to not own a restaurant or eat at one. Yes, the government is limiting some choices, but these are cases where it has been determined that complete freedom of the individual is not in the best interest of the public. You wrote this yourself, "it [the government:] has the delegated responsibility to protect citizens from physical harm".

Now, who determined what the 'best interest of the public' is & should it be so are worth arguing over, in some cases. There are many laws that our legislature has come up with that I think are too restrictive. It's a fine line.

Ilyn: "2) Why do some individuals have no right to their own lives?"

That question reads to me as if the person's entire life is taken over by someone or something. Where did that come from? I never said or suggested any such thing.

Ilyn: "3) If no one goes to the ranks of these individuals, i.e. everyone goes to the ranks of the many who want to be babysat, how will the government choose whom to enslave?"

You'll have to elucidate. The question isn't making sense to me.

I will note that the government doesn't 'choose to enslave' - that's it's primary goal, as an entity unto itself, in my opinion. While we can set a government up with all kinds of limits & specific powers, a bureaucracy, like our government, will grow to the limit of its abilities & food supply. Ours has gotten pretty fat & will continue to grow. We do need to try to keep it under control. However, we need to do so rationally. It is not rational to remove ALL government interference from utilities or restaurants, for instance. Some, maybe, but not all.

Ilyn: "Each man is responsible for his own sustenance."

Now that would be a neat trick for an apartment dweller in L.A.. Do you expect him to dig a well & raise sheep? We're a bit beyond that stage of civilization, don't you think?

Ilyn: "it [the government:] has no right to force citizens to give up their properties and give them to others"

Of course, the government has the right to do so. Read up on 'eminent domain' (Madison, Jefferson & the 5th amendment) & taxes (the Constitution makes provision for them & FDR spread the icing on the cake.). Has this power been over used & abused? Of course it has! The bureaucracy has grown & is gobbling up more all the time. There are many programs sponsored that I completely disagree with, but there are some I do - e.g. Welfare & Highways, respectively.

Ilyn: "The government derives its power from the governed – the citizens cannot delegate a right they do not posses – this means that the government has no right to infringe the unalienable rights of its citizens."

Now there's a slippery thought. It reads prettily but when you get right down to it, what does it mean? If 'unalienable rights' are the right to "life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness" then where's the beef? I'm alive, freer than I would be in any other part of the world & pretty happy. Most people I know would say the same. My water is running, I have a backup well & generator & I know that when the pizza comes for lunch today, the restaurant supplying it & the ingredients they used were inspected to insure they're of proper quality.

That doesn't mean I'm satisfied, though. My ideals & philosophy would like to see things get a little freer rather than more restrictive, but within reason or workable limits.

I will post my full answer this weekend.

*
Jim's justification that individual liberty is NOT unalienable is: “millions of lives” might be adversely impacted if government does not violate man’s rights. He says: “riots, exodus, looting, and fires might happen in LA which could then go back to being a desert” if government does not force individuals to ensure that LA has water.

By this, Jim is saying: some individuals should be enslaved for the sake of the many who are so impotent they cannot provide for themselves.

Jim, please do tell:

1) What gives the many the right to enslave some individuals?
2) Why do some individuals have no right to their own lives?
3) If no one goes to the ranks of these individuals, i.e. everyone goes to the ranks of the many who want to be babysat, how will the government choose whom to enslave?

*
The Declaration of Independence says men are independent equals and they have unalienable rights to pursue happiness. The government is instituted to protect their equal rights. Each man is responsible for his own sustenance. He is free to act so he would have food and water, but no one, not even the government, is obligated to provide him with food, water, other goods, or services. If he riots or tries to harm law-abiding citizens, they would call the police or, in an emergency, deal with him in self-defense.

The government derives its power from the governed – the citizens cannot delegate a right they do not possess – this means that the government has no right to infringe the unalienable rights of its citizens. This is why it should not provide sustenance to its citizens – it has no right to force citizens to give up their properties and give them to others – it has no right to force citizens to serve others – it has the delegated responsibility to protect citizens from physical harm while they provide for their own sustenance.

Hello Jim and everyone. Have a good day. I will reply in full tomorrow.

Jim, please answer this: My ideals are the ideals of the Founding Fathers as evident in the Declaration of Independence. If you think the ideals are different, please explain. If they are the same, please explain what you think destructive in the Declaration of Independence, what is impractical with the principle of unalienable individual rights?

I ask for clarity because based on your posts: you are no respecter of man's rights. You use the word irrational, yet you have not explained your fundamentals - what gives you the right to violate the rights of others?

You say my fundamentals do not answer the concretes - they do because they are the same, they are not contradictory. Whereas, I cannot reconcile that you say you like the Founding Fathers and yet say that infringing individual rights is a practical necessity.

Ilyn on #55: I try to be cordial, but pieces of philosophy, improperly applied & endlessly repeated, deserve an accurate assessment.

A philosophy is an ideal to work towards, but when someone tells me that millions of lives should hang on an ideal irrationally applied, then I use the proper word to describe that ideal in that situation.

#54, "I have answered Jim’s specifics many times and have stated my fundamentals."

Your 'fundamentals' did not answer the specific questions I asked, which was why I asked them - repeatedly. It wasn't a hint, I said so.

I happen to agree with the fundamental ideas - in theory - but I don't see how they can be applied in many situations today, as I showed with a specific example with the water utilities to L.A.. I know you think that pragmatism is a cop out, but a philosophy that can't work in the real world is just so much hot air. How we can better apply the ideals that made this country great is a worthy question. Saying they should be so, without thinking through the consequences, is dangerous.

The Founding Fathers are heroes of mine, as is Rand. The questions I am asking are how do we apply their ideals today & rationally get back some of the rights we have lost? Do you have any idea how many we have lost? Read James Bovard's book, Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty. I found it very tough to read - it's too scary & infuriating. Unfortunately, I'm not always sure where there was a better choice.

Ilyn wrote, "Regulating restaurants is not a proper government function. Men should be free to patronize any restaurant, or to not eat in any, or to raise their own pigs."

Yes! You finally addressed a specific question. I'll agree with the second sentence, but not the first. Unfortunately, poor health standards at public eateries can spread diseases. 'Typhoid Mary' could be a daily occurrence & in the crowded cities of today, that would lead to huge health problems.

Do you want to take those chances? I'll bet most don't, didn't & thus we have government fingers in something that, on the surface, looks like it should be free enterprise. I see this as a choice between 2 evils; government intervention for public safety & the ideal of free enterprise with a high, horrible risk.

Do you know how often the government steps in to stop certain additives, pesticides & such? How can the CDC do their job if restaurants are completely unregulated? How would a patron be sure what they were eating? If the place is on the side of the highway, who would know if it caused sickness in a lot of people? How many could die before it was tracked down?

If you read some history on how this particular intervention got started, some of the reasons are pretty horrifying; MSG causing bad reactions, buying tainted foods, blindness/death from homemade liquor & more.

I don't like government intervention, but what is a REAL alternative to government supervision of this private enterprise?

#52, Rand opposed Vietnam &, while doing so, was criticizing our government for not jumping in to Czechoslovakia & some other places to fight Communism. She thought Vietnam was a back-water & the people not worth helping. It was a waste of our time & resources. The U.N. & U.S. fighting Communism, especially the USSR, was not only fine, but necessary. They were a major threat & should be met head on. Listen to her radio show about that. It's free on Archive.org - just search for her & look at one of the 3 Pacifica shows.

Perhaps 'sacrificing oneself' isn't the best way to put it. Anyone who goes into the military, especially during a war, knows that they may not come out alive. When you make that commitment, you do realize that you are putting your life on the line for your country & ideals. Call it what you like, but many do wind up dying for their decision. They're fighting so they, their families & others that hold their ideals can remain free. There's a chance they'll die doing so. Hmmm... sounds like self-sacrifice to me, but you can call it whatever you want.

Ilyn, #51 - How exactly is a law to protect citizens supposed to work if the government doesn't make sure they're following the law, which I think we both see as an abuse of the citizens' rights?

Put another way, if we want to make sure that water keeps flowing to L.A., then the government needs to be all over that business - horribly intrusive. They have to make sure that supply lines are big enough, maintenance is done, future planning is done & more. There are also environmental concerns - they take so much water out of rivers that they'd pump them dry if not kept in check. If water supply started in private hands, as L.A. grew, the notion of leaving it there would become unworkable. Too many people are affected, different states are involved (the rivers) & too much is at stake. The government is doing its proper job when overseeing this function.

The ideal of private enterprise has to give way to the government at times. That's what it is there for. How much "Life, Liberty or pursuit of happiness" are the folks in L.A. going to have if the water shuts down? Riots, a mass exodous, looting, fires - the place would probably be a complete loss & never recover without a lot of government intervention, including martial law, after a day or two without water. Let it go on for any length of time & it would go back to desert.

So, unfortunately, we can't have pure Capitalism. If you stop to think about what you're saying & carry it to its logical conclusion, you'll find it just won't work. The Government has to get its fingers in the pie. Once they do, getting them out is very tough, not only because they don't want to let go, but because it is very difficult to know where they're needed.

I would love to get rid of a lot of the government's influence, but I can only see a few small places, so that's what I work against. Like taxes, it's a tangled ball & the government has crept in slowly & is strangling us, but you can't just say the entire mess is wrong & 'talk the talk'. That's a cop out. That's just sitting in an Ivory Tower spinning air. I find that frustrating.

Rand & yourself both recognize that no man can stand alone. They need others with like philosophies to stand with them. When you get bunch, a group is created, someone has to lead (govern), arbitrate disputes & make decisions for the group. To do that, they need information, resources & money. All 3 can be had, but usually by ways that are distasteful, to say the least. Is there anything more repugnant than property or income taxes? Both require the government know what you have & what you make. Granted that power, keeping the government at bay is quite difficult. What other alternatives are there? If all men were rational, it would be simpler, but when most aren't, government intervention becomes draconian, which is what we have now.

I will discuss with anyone who wants to exchange information and opinions, provided the conversation is cordial.

Jim's recent posts are profuse with "complete hogwash, silly, impractical, unrealistic, ridiculous, dangerous, stupid".

I asked Jim’s understanding of this:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Jim’s response: “Your question begs a book, not something I'm prepared to write for you. There are already a bunch out there. Why don't you just answer some of my questions? They're simple & straight forward. They cover specific examples in everyday life. What would George Washington or Ayn Rand say about the questions I asked?”

*
Jim wants to discuss concretes but refuses to state his fundamentals, which is like an irrational architect designing the top floor of a skyscraper and blanking out the building’s foundations and all the other floors.

I have answered Jim’s specifics many times and have stated my fundamentals. I say again: Whatever the concretes, I am for capitalism – zero government intervention in the economy – because it respects individual rights and is in consonance with the Declaration of Independence which mandates that the government’s sole justification for being is “to secure” the equal rights of its citizens – their lives, liberty, and their pursuits of happiness.

I asked Jim’s understanding of the Declaration of Independence because he disregards that the Founding Fathers used the words “unalienable Rights” together with “- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…” Clearly, the Founding Fathers were of the conviction that any government action for the purpose of securing “unalienable Rights” is not an infringement of such rights. Jim equates such action with government intervention in the economy – paving the way to his thinking that regulating restaurants so he would be assured of a pork loin is a proper government function.

Regulating restaurants is not a proper government function. Men should be free to patronize any restaurant, or to not eat in any, or to raise their own pigs. Responsible, independent-minded, rational people find a way to seek the best that they can afford – see the Zagat Survey ( http://www.zagat.com/about ).

Check out Benjamin Franklin’s JUNTO – an association of responsible, independent-minded, rational people - From Wikipedia: “The Junto's Friday evening meetings were organized around a series of questions that Franklin devised, covering a range of intellectual, personal, business, and community topics. These questions were used as a springboard for discussion and community action. In fact, through the Junto, Franklin promoted such concepts as volunteer fire-fighting clubs, improved security (night watchmen), and a public hospital.” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junto )

On August 21, 2008, I posted this link under the topic: “Ayn Rand Quotations” (message 34):

Man’s Rights by Ayn Rand
from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?p...

On the same day, I posted in “Happy & Brainy” under the topic: “Philosophy in Everyday Life” (message 79):

Posted in: "To the Glory of Man - Ayn Rand Quotations"

Link to "Man’s Rights" by Ayn Rand
from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

Excerpts:

If one wishes to advocate a free society — that is, capitalism - one must realize that its indispensable foundation is the principle of individual rights. If one wishes to uphold individual rights, one must realize that capitalism is the only system that can uphold and protect them. ...

“Rights” are a moral concept-the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others - the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context - the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics.

Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law. ...

The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law.

The principle of man’s individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system — as a limitation on the power of the state, as man’s protection against the brute force of the collective, as the subordination of might to right. The United States was the first moral society in history.

All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself. The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary coexistence of individuals. All previous systems had held that man’s life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man’s life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights.

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self - sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action - which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive — of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values. ...

To violate man’s rights means to compel him to act against his own judgment, or to expropriate his values. Basically, there is only one way to do it: by the use of physical force. There are two potential violators of man’s rights: the criminals and the government. The great achievement of the United States was to draw a distinction between these two — by forbidding to the second the legalized version of the activities of the first.

The Declaration of Independence laid down the principle that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” This provided the only valid justification of a government and defined its only proper purpose: to protect man’s rights by protecting him from physical violence.

Thus the government’s function was changed from the role of ruler to the role of servant. The government was set to protect man from criminals—and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. The Bill of Rights was not directed against private citizens, but against the government—as an explicit declaration that individual rights supersede any public or social power. ...

*
Additional excerpts:
Remember that rights are moral principles which define and protect a man’s freedom of action, but impose no obligations on other men. Private citizens are not a threat to one another’s rights or freedom. A private citizen who resorts to physical force and violates the rights of others is a criminal-and men have legal protection against him.
Criminals are a small minority in any age or country. And the harm they have done to mankind is infinitesimal when compared to the horrors-the bloodshed, the wars, the persecutions, the confiscations, the famines, the enslavements, the wholesale destructions-perpetrated by mankind’s governments. Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims. When unlimited and unrestricted by individual rights, a government is men’s deadliest enemy. It is not as protection against private actions, but against governmental actions that the Bill of Rights was written. …

from Jim (message 47):

“… Sacrificing oneself in a war, defending your country isn't bad according to Rand's or the Founding Father's philosophy. …”

*
Ayn Rand opposed the Vietnam War. Sacrifice is not a virtue in her morality. She wrote a book: “The Virtue of Selfishness”. She honored and thanked the US military in her speech at West Point:

“… You have preserved three qualities of character which were typical at the time of America’s birth, but are virtually non-existent today: earnestness – dedication – a sense of honor. Honor is self-esteem made visible in action.

You have chosen to risk your lives in defense of your country. I will not insult you by saying that you are dedicated to selfless service – it is not a virtue in my morality. In my morality, the defense of one’s country means that one is unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic. This is an enormous virtue. …”

I did answer your questions (see message 48 again). And I did not yield:

In capitalism, the best businesses, i.e. those whose products/services have the highest quality and the cheapest prices, survive. The nature of capitalism is good for society....
President Washington and his men struggled through overwhelming odds and deprivation, the Founding Fathers and their constituents risked their lives, families, and properties, for Liberty. People, like those honored by President Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address, struggled or died for Liberty. Yet there are people who call its defense hogwash and silly, and who would have it breached for the “forlorn hope” of better utility maintenance, restaurants, or planes.

There are people like Patrick Henry who are of firm conviction that Liberty is more valuable than life and a peaceful existence. I cannot imagine the state of mind of one who would exchange Liberty for the “hope” that he might be assured of a pork loin.

*
When government intervenes in the economy, see an example of what happens in the James Hill story, and in the present financial debacle.

The role of government is the protection of rights - the lives & liberty of any of its citizens. This is NOT contrary to capitalism; it is not an intervention in the economy.

When Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other countries nationalized oil wells, the US government did not protect the property rights of its citizens.

There are books that do not obfuscate the proper role of government and government intervention in the economy.

No household needs virus, anthrax, ricin, or ICBMs. ICBMs are created as a means to carry out the proper role of government - to protect its citizens from foreign aggression.

Ilyn, it looks like we cross posted.

A man who sells an ICBM or tailored virus to a terrorist is infringing on the rights of others, so we're in agreement that he shouldn't. Unfortunately, your philosophy doesn't allow for stopping him from his actions. Zero government interference means all we can do is spank him once the damage is done - if there is any one left to do so.

This means that your philosophy does not promote racial or individual survival, hence is immoral.

While it may be repugnant to infringe on people's freedoms, it is a practical necessity. The Founding Fathers realized this. They were practical men. They compromised with each other - look at their debates on eminent domain. That's a truly repugnant idea & all agreed. They also agreed it was a necessity & came to an agreement on it.

I applaud the Libertarian party for becoming pragmatic. Standing on principles that are unrealistic & self-defeating is stupid & immoral.

Now you did yield somewhat when you wrote, "...It is the proper function of government to thwart threats to its citizens – it could pass laws 1) to limit the handling of biological hazards to authorized industries, 2) to prohibit the sharing of fully defined national-security-related data to foreign countries..." but you need to extend that thought.

If I understand you correctly, you're now saying that we can't have pure, unrestrained Capitalism, but can put some checks into place. Exactly how much can we infringe on business? This is what I was getting at with my questions about utilities & selling scary stuff. Why not just answer my specific questions?

On Archive.Org, I found some free radio programs with Ayn Rand. I was listening to one last night. She was tearing up McCarthy & RFK in Fall, 1967. It was a pleasure to listen to - timely.

Anyway, Archive.org is interesting & it's a good site to check out. Everything is free - public domain. I even got a movie or two there, along with some audio books & other stuff. I highly recommend taking a look through it.

My posts are meant for everyone, so I tend to repeat quotations, viewpoints, or related information posted elsewhere. In addition to message 34 where I replied to Jim’s what-if catastrophes: in capitalism, the best businesses, i.e. those whose products/services have the highest quality and the cheapest prices, survive. The nature of capitalism is good for society.

I have tried to explain fundamentals and that for a principled man, everything proceeds from his fundamentals. No matter what the details or concretes are, he will choose or act in consonance with those fundamentals. Also, when I judge a person, I look at his fundamentals, not his concretes. Example – The Libertarian Party seems to espouse individualism, but based on its founding principles, it is against this principle in the Declaration of Independence: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”

This is from Wikipedia: “The debate that has survived the longest is referred to by libertarians as the anarchist/minarchist debate. In 1974, anarchists and minarchists within the Party agreed to "cease fire" about the specific question of whether governments should exist at all, and focus on promoting voluntary solutions to the problems caused by government instead…. A related internal discussion concerns the philosophical divide over whether the Party should aim to be mainstream and pragmatic, or whether it should focus on being consistent and principled…. As of the 2008 convention, the debate has been settled for now with the wholesale adoption of pragmatist viewpoints in the new platform, and the nomination of Bob Barr for president.”

The philosophy of the Libertarian Party as of the 2008 convention is pragmatism. Hence, it is not based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

We have the same disagreement here - a “philosophical divide over whether one should aim to be mainstream and pragmatic, or whether one should focus on being consistent and principled.”

I think that a proper social system recognizes that the principle of unalienable individual rights is inviolate. I agree with the Declaration of Independence that the only purpose of law and of government is the protection of the equal unalienable rights of man. It is the proper function of government to thwart threats to its citizens – it could pass laws 1) to limit the handling of biological hazards to authorized industries, 2) to prohibit the sharing of fully defined national-security-related data to foreign countries --- the judicial branch should ensure that laws are in accordance with the Constitution, that they are for the protection of the individual liberty of its citizens. An example of an unconstitutional act of government is its intrusion in the housing and financial markets which caused the current debacle.

Jim thinks that capitalism, i.e. zero government intervention in the economy, is complete hogwash - that its advocates are silly, impractical, unrealistic, ridiculous, and dangerous. He thinks that utility maintenance, restaurants, or planes would be better run in a semi-statist system. He says, “Your equation that any government interference in a man's life means he is a sacrificial animal is silly…”

If a man is not free to do as he pleases without infringing the equal rights of others, as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, then his life does not belong to him – he doesn’t own his own life - hence, he is a sacrificial animal.

President Washington and his men struggled through overwhelming odds and deprivation, the Founding Fathers and their constituents risked their lives, families, and properties, for Liberty. People, like those honored by President Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address, struggled or died for Liberty. Yet there are people who call its defense hogwash and silly, and who would have it breached for the “forlorn hope” of better utility maintenance, restaurants, or planes.

There are people like Patrick Henry who are of firm conviction that Liberty is more valuable than life and a peaceful existence. I cannot imagine the state of mind of one who would exchange Liberty for the “hope” that he might be assured of a pork loin.

Ilyn, #45 - Again, you've ignored all my questions - why?

I've already asked you what you wanted to compare & you didn't bother answering - again. I personally wouldn't mind comparing 8 years of this one to 8 of any other on a specific topic. Also, the 20th century is almost beyond comparison with any other century in human history except in very discrete blocks. Too much happened & was far better documented.

Korea & all the other hot spots (Gulf, Panama, Angola, etc...) don't qualify as wars, but Vietnam does? I'm sure those who died will appreciate your consideration of their sacrifice. Remember Vietnam was also only a 'police action' until years after, while it was the 'Gulf War'. I don't think any label except 'military action' is proper. Politicians & public pressure is a shoddy way of defining anything.

Anyway, it's a whole different topic. Sacrificing oneself in a war, defending your country isn't bad according to Rand's or the Founding Father's philosophy. But that begs the question of whether or not anything was accomplished or if military action should have been started in the first place rather than other political pressure. Personally, I don't have a lot of knowledge in foreign affairs & don't want to spout ignorant opinions, so I won't argue the point.

#46 - Your question begs a book, not something I'm prepared to write for you. There are already a bunch out there. Why don't you just answer some of my questions? They're simple & straight forward. They cover specific examples in everyday life. What would George Washington or Ayn Rand say about the questions I asked?

Would they think it was OK to sell ICBM's to a terrorist group? Or would they think that trade needed to be restricted? Personally, my feeling is they would agree to the restrictions - they were sane people.

Jim, what is your understanding of this:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

I wouldn't ask one to compare the CENTURY after the founding of the USA to barely eight years of the 21st century.

From "The Founding Fathers" topic:

The result of the Founding Fathers' philosophy was capitalism, freedom, and individual rights. This brought about a century of international peace, and the rise of the business mentality, leading to the magnificent growth of industry and of prosperity.

The enemies of the Founding Fathers exhort: “Sacrifice yourself for society.” This is the basic philosophy of our culture, and it is responsible for the accelerating collapse of capitalism, and all of its symptoms: runaway government trampling on individual rights, growing economic dislocations, worldwide tribal warfare and international terrorism – with business under constant, systematic attack....

***
There were two world wars in the 20th century. In one other war: 58,159 U.S. soldiers were sacrificed. There was the Great Depression.

Ilyn: On #39, I was using the Wikipedia definition of Laissez Faire capitalism, which says there is some government control allowed. Others say there is none. I'll accept that you think there are none, but I think that's ridiculous & dangerous.

You used a lot of nifty quotes but never answered the questions I raised about utility maintenance, restaurants or planes. Please do so if you want to discuss further. If you can't make your philosophy work in a simple, practical scenario, then it isn't worth discussing further.

In #40, what does your objective reality say about a person who can create a tailored virus & sell it to the highest bidder, free from any restraints? Yeah, it isn't rational, but people aren't always. Some are greedy, stupid & short sighted. How much government restraint are you willing to put up with to TRY to see that it doesn't happen?

In #41, your equation that any government interference in a man's life means he is a sacrificial animal is silly, even if only in economic terms. Lots of people & businesses deal with other countries. One of our government's roles is dealing with them. Do you want ICBM's sold to 3d world dictators or completely unregulated items sent into this country? Get real.

You're also comparing ideas based on defunct economic, communication & transportation systems to those of today. We're not a struggling colony that needs months to send a letter across the Atlantic or takes days to travel from one city to another.

In #42 The U.S. has had some sort of draft through out its history (it's lack frustrated Washington before the Revolution) but that's another topic. You used the example when we were discussing government interference in our infrastructure & economy. It doesn't fit in the current discussion unless you want to include all wars. War can & has been used to bolster economies. Some have made a case that they are always economic in nature, but it just confuses the issue here by adding more scope when haven't even addressed several smaller issues.

In #43, I'll agree with the quote from Washington - we do need a government & it is a fearful master.

As to the rest, I think Allison got the life expectancy wrong for 1750. I've read a variety of figures, but none that low. I do agree that anyone today is living better than they did over 250 years ago (indoor plumbing, frozen food, pharmaceuticals). The industrial revolution has created freer societies. There's no doubt that technology can benefit us in a lot of ways, just as it can harm.

"Compare the USA to communist and socialist countries. Compare the century after the founding of the USA to the Dark Ages, to any period before this, to the 20th century." What & who do you want to compare? Inventions like the horse collar, circular saw or antibiotics? Alcoholism rates? Length of life? Number of TV's per household? Overall, I think the U.S. is tops, but several countries have better education & health systems than we do. Some have more money per capita. Such comparisons can lead to dangerous conclusions & you best make sure you're comparing apples to apples. I think that is best done on a case by case basis. Also, we're living in the 21st century now. The 20th is history.

President George Washington said: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

Long before Ayn Rand was born, principled men - George Washington and his men as well as the Founding Fathers and their constituents - thought that it is practical to have a social system based on individual liberty.

History has proven them right. From CEO John Allison: “Life expectancy has increased from nineteen years in 1750 to seventy years today, and practically everyone today lives better than a king in the 1700s.” Compare the USA to communist and socialist countries. Compare the century after the founding of the USA to the Dark Ages, to any period before this, to the 20th century.

I purposely mentioned the Vietnam War to highlight the power of principles. Government intervention in the economy is premised on the principle that individual liberty is not unalienable, that there is a cause greater than the individual. This very same principle was the basis for the military draft which enabled the government to sacrifice 58,159 U.S. soldiers in the Vietnam War.

A principled man has firm fundamentals, e.g. objective reality and reason, which dictate his ethics and politics. All his choices, goals, and actions proceed from his principles.

A proper philosophic system is comprehensive and integrated – a philosopher sees the forest, not just the bark of a tree.

Capitalism and unalienable individual rights are absolute:

Zero government intervention in the economy = UNALIENABLE rights = individual liberty = every man is an end in himself

Government intervention, however minimal = NOT unalienable rights = man is a sacrificial animal

Advocates of capitalism: The Declaration of Independence and President Abraham Lincoln

Since men are independent equals, there are no masters or slaves. Since government derives its power from the governed and since citizens cannot delegate powers they do not possess, the government has no mandate to infringe individual rights in any way.

Any infringement on individual liberty is tyranny:

President Thomas Jefferson said: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

President Abraham Lincoln said: "We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the PRODUCT of his LABOR; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny."

*
The Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Capitalism is the only social system that respects man’s rights, which in turn is based on the ethics of rational self-interest, which is based on reason and objective reality.

Source for the following: http://www.fee.org/publications/the-free...

“Economic life was circumscribed and controlled by the government under a system most commonly known as mercantilism. The government controlled exports and imports, gave subsidies, bounties, and grants to encourage certain undertakings, prohibited others, gave patents, charters, and other forms of monopolies to individuals and companies, enforced craft regulations, and maintained much power over the lands of the realm. Harsh penalties were imposed for every sort of offense from blasphemy to treason. Evidence abounded that government was making massive efforts to impose order. As for liberties, they had most commonly to be asserted against the grain of the prevailing system.

GEORGE WASHINGTON and his contemporaries were imbued with a strong belief in a natural order. Order, in their view, was not something that could be arbitrarily contrived and imposed by man. The foundations of order, they held, are in the frame of the universe, in the laws that govern it, in the nature of man and his faculty of REASON, and in the principles of relationships by which constructive activities can take place. At best, men can only act in accord with and imitate the order that is given. …

Newton had persuasively set forth in mathematical terms the laws governing the course of the heavenly bodies. Thinkers were getting impressive results in their searches for the laws and principles governing all sorts of relationships. What struck so many in that age was the idea of proportion, balance, harmony, and order resident in the natural tendencies of the world about them. Most marvelous of all, at least to many, this order was CONSONANT with HUMAN LIBERTY. Rather than frustrating man in the USE of his FACULTIES for his BENEFIT (and for the commonwealth as well), the natural order provided means for him to do so most effectively. The foundations of liberty in this belief in a natural order were in the natural rights doctrine.”

Source: http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Po...

"Laissez Faire" is French for "leave alone" which means that the government leaves the people alone regarding all economic activities. It is the separation of economy and state.

There are two ways that a government typically is tempted to interfere with the economy. The first is through the initiation of force, and the second is through socialized industries. Neither of these activities are aligned with the proper role of government, and are both unacceptable.

"Laissez Faire Capitalism" is actually redundant, due to the nature of Capitalism. Therefore, simply "Capitalism" is sufficient to get the point across although historically it has been misrepresented as compatible with government economic interference.

Definition of Capitalism

"Capitalism" is conventionally defined along economic terms such as the following: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. - Source: Dictionary.com

This is an example of a definition by non-essentials.

An essential definition of capitalism is a political definition: Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. - Source: Capitalism.org

In order to have an economic system in which "production and distribution are privately or corporately owned", you must have individual rights and specifically property rights. The only way to have an economic system fitting the first definition is to have a political system fitting the second definition. The first is an implication of the second. Because the second, political, definition is fundamental and the cause of the first, it is the more useful definition and is preferable.

Because people often use the term "Capitalism" loosely, "Laissez Faire Capitalism" is sometimes used to describe a true Capitalist system. But this phrase is redundant.

It is important to define "Capitalism" correctly because a proper definition is a prerequisite to a proper defense. Capitalism is the only moral political system because it is the only system dedicated to the protection of rights, which is a requirement for human survival and flourishing. This is the only proper role of a government. Capitalism should be defended vigorously on a moral basis, not an economic or utilitarian basis.

Sorry, I haven't commented on Jim's recent posts. I will, this weekend.

I had to finish "Part 3 - The US Presidential Candidates’ Declaration of Dependence and Sacrifice". I am now writing Part 4 which is on capitalism. I hope to finish it today, so I could email my blog to family and friends.

Have a good day, friends.

Hi Jim and everyone. I will reply tomorrow.

Ilyn, #32, nice poem. I agree. It's tough to fight the government, but we should all try to keep it in line.

#33 & 34 - you've quoted me this piece on Pragmatism from Rand before - the last time being in "Philosophy in Everyday Life". I am not a pure pragmatist, but do believe that philosophy isn't worth a lot if it can't be applied to the world around us. If a philosopher wants to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, that's his business, but I don't have to take him seriously. When a philosopher makes statements that are at odds with reality, they need to be called on it.

When Rand states that capitalism should be "full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated" that is complete hogwash. It's nice in her ivory tower, but in the real world, I don't want to eat at a restaurant that is uncontrolled or unregulated. I may wind up eating 'long pig' rather than 'pork loin', the price of meat being what it is & people being as greedy as they are.

What Rand should be saying is she'd like to see as little government interference as possible, which is what she is actually saying when she says, "laissez-faire capitalism". Some government control, not a complete lack. That's a practical statement that will work in the real world & now we can talk about what controls are needed. I'd certainly like to see as few as possible & work against most, when at all possible. I know that the more involved the government gets, the less efficient most businesses are.

Again, I never said that government oversight was a guarantee of success nor is it one of failure. I said, "We put that kind of power into the hands of the government & hope that the checks & balances keep it running." Note the word 'hope'. Sometimes it's a forlorn hope & many other times we shouldn't be hoping at all because the government just shouldn't be involved.

While there are numerous examples of our government failing in its duty, there are countless others where it has come through. Read McPhee's book "The Control of Nature". One example there is how the Army Corp of Engineers has kept the Mississippi on course for decades. This has kept the economy of Louisiana intact plus a lot of ports north. (Look up the Atchafalaya.) I think a lot of people are better off for this government control.

Why is the Vietnam War mixed up with capitalism in your examples? That's foreign policy, not capitalism - unless you want to spin a theory, which I don't think has a place here. Pigs & apples, again.

Edison's inventions were great, but local governments paid to put electric lines in place. An old & impure example or one that shows that some government control is needed. We could get into the wonderful area of 'eminent domain' & mandatory purchasing with that example. Truly an ugly necessity on the part of the government.

As for airplanes, do you want to fly in one that is completely unregulated? Not I, thanks. While I detest the current security & will no longer fly because of it, I like knowing that someone is checking maintenance records so they at least don't fall down on me. Another example that is mixed & speaks for some regulation, rather that against all. Yes, they started without any government interference, but it was quickly determined they couldn't go on that way.

Keep in mind that you're looking at a lot of your heroes from a long ways away through history books, which are known for spinning facts, as you've shown. Washington & company made a lot of practical compromises in their fight for & in making their beliefs work 'practically'. Jefferson & Madison both recognized the need for eminent domain, for example, although neither liked the need, I believe. Also, the world was also a lot different even 50 years ago.

Ilyn, wow, you posted a lot. I won't catch it all, but here's a few things.

To #29: As I've mentioned before, I don't get what Rand meant by "full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism". The laissez-faire system does allow for some government control. I like capitalism, but I think there are some businesses need some control, like utilities, for the example I cited. I don't see where she disagrees if she agrees with the laissez-faire system or why you bothered quoting this again. It's like the 4th time you've quoted it to me without ever explaining it.

As for Rand not accepting any compromise with government controls - she's dreaming. It's another area where I fall on the side of practicality. I'll agree with her conclusion that we do deliver ourselves into gradual enslavement. It's happened & is happening. That is the problem - which government controls should be allowed? Do you think it's OK to leave the water system for L.A. in private hands without any government controls?

To #30 & #31: I pretty much agree, with exceptions. I think there were more than a few examples where some of the great entrepenaurs got caught making deals they shouldn't have, but the country does owe them a debt. They did build a lot.

One thing to remember is most self-made rich people didn't get rich by playing it straight all the time & they often get richer by cutting even more corners when they're in a position to. I also don't like those who play the political system to make their money. There are a lot of them & most entrepenaurs are a mix.

Rockefeller, for example,(I'm going off memory here.) did do a great job of building Standard Oil. That was fine, but then he got mean & started to put his competition out of business. He one of the main reasons for the Sherman Anti-Trust act, I think. As I recall, he got a lock in with a railroad to ship his stuff a lot cheaper than his competitors & used that to put them out of business. I believe Carnegie was involved with the railroad, but I can't recall for sure. Anyway, it was a backroom deal between the big boys to squeeze out the competition. At the time, there wasn't a viable alternative for shipping their product, so the little guys were screwed. That's not good & is a time when the government needed to step in.

So Rockefeller did a lot of good, but he did some bad. Blindly saying he was one or the other is stupid. He even helped pioneer American law, much in the way Dr. Gatling promoted medical science. We should praise them for the good they did do, look at where they did bad & try to avoid it. Of course, that means trying to understand history & thinking about it.

I did not say that government meddling was always a good thing, was needed or was a guarantee against failure or screwing up. I said that if a business took a government hand out, they gave up some control. I also said it can make it more difficult for the competition & can drive them to bankruptcy. I didn't say it happened in every case. I pointed out how the USPS did get competition that worked - Fedex is a great success story. Hill is another.