What effect did this book have on you??

[Walter]

Giansar wrote: "So, how do you propose to limit corporate power?"

Not sure how this relates to libertarianism. Do you believe libertarians don't want or expect corporations to be held accountable for violating the rights of others? Limiting government power doesn't mean lawlessness.

With respect to power-lusters, Giansar, you asked:

"Again, how do you plan to stop those people from migrating from weak government to powerful business?"

If they commit crimes, you hold them accountable like any criminal. If they don't commit crimes, then there is no reason to stop them from running a business to running down the street.

"How come you think corporate power will be less corrupted than political power?"

Not sure how you concluded that from my statement. Because I didn't make this statement, nor do I make this assumption, or truth be hold, understand what you mean by corporate power, I don't know how to answer your question.

[Walter]

Marc, if the person who uses the charge of "extremist" with respect to a political philosophy goes on at length to describe what aspects they believe are extreme and, most importantly, why these extreme elements are flawed, then I don't have a problem with their use of the term. In short, they have explained the reasoning behind their conclusion.

But the way Kenneth used it (and the way I have seen it used as applied to Rand's ideas and libertarianism in non-scholarly critiques), it is thrown out there as a self-evident critique: Extreme = flawed.

[Walter]

Marc wrote:

"I knocked on the door to your group, although I must agree that Kenneth has a point, since when do Libertarians need to isolate themselves?"

Thanks for joining, Marc.

The group is open to anyone of any political persuasion. All I ask is for civility. Disagreement is welcome. For these reasons, I don't view this moderated group as a way of isolating libertarians.

Here is some background for why I started the group. I tried an unmoderated discussion of Rand's ideas on Goodreads and it failed miserably because of trolls and rudeness. Because I have appreciated the high signal-to-noise ratio of moderated groups (from psychology to hockey), I thought why not create one in Goodreads?

[Ken]

Walter wrote: "Kenneth wrote: "I'm not joining any moderated (read censored) discussion."

Kenneth, I have tried to hold discussions in Goodreads without moderation and inevitably encounter people who are rude, a..."Walter, there are rude, offensive people on Earth. I dislike the concept of moderation on political and philosophical topics because the arbiter decides what is rude and what is offensive. It can be a gray area. You decide someone is a troll. They may be a troll. They may also harbor such a wildly different view that it appears to be trolling to you. Where is the line? I stand by what I said about moderated groups.

Extreme IS flawed. All extremes are flawed, Walter. "Too much of a good thing" and all that. Is it necessary to have that discussion? Why too much sugar can kill you, or too much wine, or too much sunlight, or too much fascism? Anything in extreme lacks balance, lacks the dexterity of adaptivity. It is the narrowing of one's choices and available options toward self extermination.

So how, Walter, would you deal with crimes associated with successful businesses, such as ground water pollution due to fracking operations, deaths of ill people who cannot afford your artificially exorbitant price for pharmaceuticals, severance pay packages and a slap on the wrist for Wall Street investors who stole billions from the public?

Because money protects these individuals, the government and the private sector allow them to escape justice. You seem to consider the criminal justice system perfect, and it is not. It is strange considering your wariness of government that you appeal to government mechanisms when attempting to defend the private sector by saying the government will regulate them.

I believe in liberty. The line should be drawn as far as possible. And that point is where your liberties start stepping on the liberties of others.

[E.D.]

Walter,
It was the "bunker" thingy, wasn't it? :}

[Walter]

Kenneth, looks like you're doubling down on on your original statement that extreme = flawed. I have said all I can say about this. If I were to continue, I would only be repeating myself.

As to moderated discussion, I can relate the following experience. I am in moderated groups for my hometown (which doesn't exist anymore except online), hockey (a few groups), psychology (a professional and a casual group), local atheist group (which can get heated about politics), and a few others. Members seem to appreciate these groups because moderators keep out spammers and control for incivility (e.g., personal attacks).

All that being said, sounds like you don't trust me to be objective as a moderator. We have never met, nor have you observed how I moderate, so it seems to me that the basis of your mistrust is of your own making.

As to the strangeness of expecting justice by government institutions for criminal behavior, this would be strange--hypocritical even--if I were a proponent of market-based governance (e.g., anarcho-capitalism as defended by David Friedman), but I am a limited government libertarian.

For those interested, here is the link the moderated group again. I call it, "Objectivism: Ayn Rand and Beyond."

https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...

[Marc]

There some interesting conflicts between a moderated group and extremism. The reason for a moderated group might be extremists, yet at the same time the question exists as to whether not labeling someone as extreme is appropriate.

I think it's fair to say that a large number of the common ideas we all profess to holding today were once extreme. Women voting, people of color being included in government, child labor laws, product safety, or even environmental concerns. So which of those extremist positions should have been excluded?

There are real punishments for business criminals, not as many or as harsh as would be appropriate but the guilty at Enron or Madoff can hardly be considered having received slaps on the wrists. I happen to remember the presidential debate between Obama, McCain, and Bob Barr (libertarian candidate). The question was how would they have responded to the housing market crash and who would they have called to fix things if had they been president. From the two major candidates came long lengthy answers about investigations, oversight, and greater cooperation blah blah blah. Barr took a different approach, for starters the government wouldn't have been involved in housing creating the bubble (need to reduce government influence in that market) and his first phone call would have been to the Justice Department.

E.D. I did look at the the groups you referenced. How are they any different than the UAW or SEUI? There's always lots of conspiracy theories out there about secret societies pulling all the strings. Just as so many claim Obama to be secret agent, I only wish that was true as it would indicate a level of competence that so far has eluded him, maybe he's a sleeper agent?

[Monica]

atlas farts in air locks. 'Nuff said.

[Ken]

Walter wrote: "Kenneth, looks like you're doubling down on on your original statement that extreme = flawed. I have said all I can say about this. If I were to continue, I would only be repeating myself.

As to..."

It's not that I don't trust you. I don't trust anyone. Why should I? I am a skeptic, a scientific mind. I believe when proof demands it. A sound argument gains my trust. It is not gifted by default nor should it be. You seem to believe that some extremes are healthy. I'd like to hear about that.

Marc, some high profile magnates have been put behind bars, sure. Many more continue to operate and their operations go unchecked because of lobbying, bribes, campaign contributions. Government and business are much more closely intertwined than those like Walter are willing to credit.

[Giansar]

Walter wrote: "If they commit crimes, you hold them accountable like any criminal. If they don't commit crimes, then there is no reason to stop them from running a business to running down the street."
You want state power to be cut down in order to limit the influence of the corruptible government on business and economy and at the same time you assume the justice system, which is a function of the state will be able to properly police corporate business activities?
With all due respect - this looks like a contradiction in terms.

[E.D.]

Hi Marc,
There's no conspiracy theory behind ALEC...; it's out in the open if you want to look at it. Same with the unions. Rove and the Kochs? Some transparency issues, but their actions imply their motives. I'm definitely not being partisan, as I don't support either major party. Never have. My hope was to point out the blatant efforts of moneyed interests to manipulate for their own benefit our supposedly "all controlling anti-liberty evil power hungry humanity stifling guv'mint",...and...., ask how government designed to primarily protect personal property (from government?) would be any better than government primarily designed to protect the commons from the owners of immense amounts of personal property controlling government?

As to moderated forums...I suppose some people are too "delicate" to participate in a "free" exchange of ideas.

"...atlas farts in air locks..."
Eloquence is in the eye of the beholder. I giggled. :}

[Walter]

Kenneth, I said nothing about extremes being healthy. In fact, I see no evidence whatever in my posts (to you or to Marc) that would remotely suggest that.

[Walter]

Giansar, you wrote:

"You want state power to be cut down in order to limit the influence of the corruptible government on business and economy and at the same time you assume the justice system, which is a function of the state will be able to properly police corporate business activities?

With all due respect - this looks like a contradiction in terms."

Giansar, if I were an anarcho-capitalist (which I am sympathetic toward, mind you), I could see myself agreeing that this is a contradiction. But as a limited government libertarian, I don't view it as a contradiction. I do trust the government can do some things with a sufficient degree of competence and integrity. And more broadly, I believe that we (North Americans) have enough integrity as a culture to call out corruption and abuses by government.

As to evidence for my belief, according to the Corruption Perception Index, Canada is 9th (81/100) and the US is 20th (73/100), out of 177 nations. Top 20 is not too bad. Something I can live with in my books.

In my ideal libertarian world, I would outlaw lobbying. I think this type of relationship between organizations/businesses and government is inherently vulnerable to corruption and corporatism (which is legalized corruption, IMHO). I know there are good and decent lobbyists out there (I hear about them on NPR :-), but as a system, I believe the potential for harm outweighs the good.

[E.D.]

Giansar wrote: "Walter wrote: "If they commit crimes, you hold them accountable like any criminal. If they don't commit crimes, then there is no reason to stop them from running a business to running down the stre..."

I suppose that if one limited government from having power over one's activities, then nothing one did would be criminal.

[Marc]

Whether it's Occupy Wallstreet, MoveOn, or even George Soros- I think these are legitimate groups with an agenda they have every right to advance.

I do however start to draw the line when the DOJ is used to funnel money from Chase to ACORN, or the IRS is used to target people/groups. The right is hardly any better so it's not a partisan issue, rather a normal response that people in power have. I hardly see how making more laws and giving these same people even more power is going to correct this.

The reality is capitalism requires a moral people. The government cannot legislate or regulate for every scenario, this requires the market participants place some restraints upon themselves. The role of government is to set clear basic rules that offer no advantage to any particular faction. The more involved in the markets the government becomes the greater the potential for collusion and corruption becomes.

[E.D.]

I feel this the perfect time to say: Glass-Steagall.

Prior to the Act...The Great Depression.
Under the Act...boom, recession, boom, etc..
After the Act's repeal...The Almost As Great Depression.

I say Almost As Great because I think some New Deal hangovers (Social Security, Unemployment Compensation, FDIC, etc.) helped disguise it as a recession in argument. TARP? I personally believe in the principle of "Moral Hazard", and would have supported a J.P.Morgan-like buyout of insolvent institutions similar to the 1929-30's. Too Big to Fail is Too Big to Be Saved By Taxpayers.

I think Glass-Steagall filled what Marc characterized as "a clear basic rule that offered no advantage". I believe it's repeal in 1995 was the open floodgate that ultimately led to 2007. Not alone, but certainly the kickoff. Sometimes, the greater the lack of governmental involvement in the market (specifically financial markets) the greater the potential for corruption by immoral people.

[Marc]

I would agree that Glass-Steagall at the time it was enacted was a wise rule. At the time of repeal in the 90's however it had been outdated. To suggest that the crash could have been avoided had it been in place might be a bit wishful.

The economy over the last 20 years has really shifted, banks used to be local, then regional, national, and now are global. The largest reason for repealing Glass-Steagall was due to the restraints it was putting on US banks trying to compete in the global markets against foreign competitors that were not restrained by this act. Could this repeal have been done more intelligently, for sure but as the economy has changed so have the needs of the markets.

TARP and the whole incident surround the financial industry was about as close to Atlas Shrugged as I think we want to ever see. All the banks had to take the money regardless of whether or not they needed it, the fear was the market would destroy banks that took the money so it was decided that to prevent this all the banks would take the money.

We ended up just concentrating the finanical power of banks instead of letting some of the big giants be eaten by smaller better managed banks. Now they really are TBTF. The market was prevented from delivering the justice needed, we will pay for this delay in the future even more.

At the time I thought a better solution would have been to give the money to the people. The people would be required to deposit this money in a bank of their choosing for x number of years, before they could access it. This would have provided banks the capital they needed and at some point in the future a capital source ($3,000) that indviduals could then use to do something productive with.

We are all ill prepared for the new economy (individuals, private industry, and government). I look at Blockbuster in comparison to Netflix, there are huge cost savings involved here with even more revenue than ever. So where is the money going that was once distributed to a much larger number of people? Our taxation and governing systems are all based upon a market model that is undergoing a rapid transformation. No doubt the answer isn't to cripple Netflix so we can try to bring back the golden age but there is a real need for jobs and tax revenue.

[Ken]

Walter: You questioned my statement about extremes being bad. That led me to believe you felt some are not bad. Seems straight forward.

Corruption Perception Index? I think the key word here is Perception. It could mean we are less corrupt. It could also mean our government has done a great job making it look that way.

Ah, you would outlaw lobbying. For the first time here, we agree!

ED: Agreed about TBTF.

Marc: I've got some agreement here too. The one thing that irks me (and not about your post, but by politicians) is that they talk about creating jobs as if all jobs are equal. They are not. Some jobs have more utility than others. Instead of talking about creating 10,000 jobs, they should be working to create 2,000 jobs that are essential to the economy and will not gutter out in a year or so.

[Teresa]

Every time I see that Ayn Rand "moderated group" mentioned, I think "Amway."

[Walter]

Kenneth wrote: "Walter: You questioned my statement about extremes being bad. That led me to believe you felt some are not bad. Seems straight forward."

Kenneth, this shows a complete failure to take the time to read and understand what I wrote. Please read why I think the use of extreme is a weak criticism. Thank you.

[Walter]

Teresa, what do you think of when you see "hockey" and "moderated group"? Just curious. How about the thousands upon thousands of moderated groups in Goodreads, Facebook, and Google Groups on almost every subject imaginable? Why single out Ayn Rand and take a dig at it? The irrational responses (albeit few) I'm receiving to my promotion of the group are a little surprising. But thanks to those who are joining.

[Walter]

Your criticism about the Corruption Perception Index, Kenneth, is superficial and does take into account how it is calculated. From the website:


"The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) ranks countries and territories based on how corrupt their public sector is perceived to be. It is a composite index – a combination of polls – drawing on corruption-related data collected by a variety of reputable institutions. The CPI reflects the views of observers from around the world, including experts living and working in the countries and territories evaluated.

Also:

2. Why is the CPI based on perceptions?

Corruption generally comprises illegal activities, which are deliberately hidden and only come to light through scandals, investigations or prosecutions. There is no meaningful way to assess absolute levels of corruption in countries or territories on the basis of hard empirical data. Possible attempts to do so, such as by comparing bribes reported, the number of prosecutions brought or studying court cases directly linked to corruption, cannot be taken as definitive indicators of corruption levels. Instead, they show how effective prosecutors, the courts or the media are in investigating and exposing corruption. Capturing perceptions of corruption of those in a position to offer assessments of public sector corruption is the most reliable method of comparing relative corruption levels across countries."

4. What are the data sources for the CPI?

The 2013 CPI draws on data sources from independent institutions specialising in governance and business climate analysis. The sources of information used for the 2013 CPI are based on data gathered in the past 24 months. The CPI includes only sources that provide a score for a set of countries/territories and that measure perceptions of corruption in the public sector. Transparency International reviews the methodology of each data source in detail to ensure that the sources used meet Transparency International’s quality standards.

13 data sources were used to construct the Corruption Perceptions Index 2013:


1. African Development Bank Governance Ratings 2012
2. Bertelsmann Foundation Sustainable Governance Indicators 2014
3. Bertelsmann Foundation Transformation Index 2014
4. Economist Intelligence Unit Country Risk Ratings
5. Freedom House Nations in Transit 2013
6. Global Insight Country Risk Ratings
7. IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook 2013
8. Political and Economic Risk Consultancy Asian Intelligence 2013
9. Political Risk Services International Country Risk Guide
10. Transparency International Bribe Payers Survey 2011
11. World Bank - Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2012
12. World Economic Forum Executive Opinion Survey (EOS) 2013
13. World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2013

[E.D.]

My favorite professor (an Existentialist, but not obnoxious about it) spent an entire lecture on Kant's methodology. I stayed up late that night reading about Kant's "Meat Grinder", and declared at the next lecture that he expended a great deal of verbiage to end up where he wanted to begin--namely--"GOD". The Good Doctor replied: "I think that's what I said."

Lesson learned:

Perception is always clouded by bias and inclination. Objective analysis cannot overcome the gravitas one lends to deeply held personal convictions when one's entire being is predicated upon those convictions. It is always best to skip the jargon, avoid the excess verbosity, and get down to "the meat".

Also,...a sense of humor brings clarity. Having one..,or being able to recognize one.

[Ken]

Walter: You accuse me of failing to read your post. I disagree. I read it, and found that you side-stepped the extremism discussion entirely. You never really responded to my assertion that extreme views lead to unhealthy societies and could not provide an example contrary. Ironically, Marc did so instead, and made good defense of it.

Yeah, my dig at the CPI was superficial and underhanded. But then, your post illuminates the reasons I made my superficial jest - the entire thing is superficial and tenuous at best. There is nothing concrete about it.

I don't trust Obama, or Romney, or Bush, nor do I trust JP Morgan, or Goldman Sachs, or Exxon. Why should I trust these organizations, be they private or public, given their record? Words mean little coming from them - action is the real record.

[LESTINE]

E.D. wrote: "Lestine,
There is indeed a GR discussion of Fountainhead you might refresh. Type and click.

I'm a tad confused by your comment about capitalism not showing it's darkside until after the 50s. Does ..."

Capitalism, in my understanding, deals specifically with economics. It's a political system where a country's industries and businesses are mostly privately owned. It's a free market that allows any human being, no matter their social class, race or gender, to own a business and excel. Communism is when the State takes ownership of all industry, trade and businesses and controls every aspect society. Colonialism stems from a Monarchy, where a royal lineage rules.

I don't see the institution of slavery, whether practiced in America or Ancient Greece or in Africa as the dark side of capitalism. Slavery is the dark side of Human Nature--plain and simple.

And, yes, my 'dark side' reference referred to the manipulation of the economy by Wall Street, The Federal Reserve, the 'bankers' creating various 'financial instruments' like derivatives, etc., and big business' never-ending quest for more and more profit at the expense of everything and everyone else.

Rand had little respect for those whose wealth and glamorous life-style is derived from other people's work or creations. This is seen in the way she depicted John Reardon's wife, mother and brother as the kind of people who look down on those who work or create anything, but won't hesitate in taking money from those same people. They looked down on Reardon, remember?

[E.D.]

Hi Lestine,
By basic definition.., yes,...capitalism is free markets...., socialism is state involvement in the economy. Reality is WAY more complicated than that.

As to colonialism: Who was king in France during their time in Indochina, Algeria, Congo, Guyana, etc.? Who was king of the US during the westward expansion and when Manilla was her possession? Didn't the UK have a Prime Minister at the time of her empires collapse? Monarchy is capitalism with pomp.

As to slavery: If i want to grow cotton today, I invest in machinery. Perhaps, I hire some people. If I wanted to grow cotton in 1825, I invested in slaves. What makes one capitalism, and the other not?

The "manipulations" you note are not new and unique to our day. I appreciate your recognition of them, and your sense of justice. :}

[Marc]

I have to reluctantly agree with E.D on the slavery/capitalism matter. The product or tools used to create the product are an ethics and moral matter not defined by the system (capitalism or socialism). Prostitution can be undertaken in either a socialist or capitalist country, the difference is at what price the good is supplied, who is supplying the product, and who is receiving the product.

However the other examples that E.D. provided are good examples of crony capitalism not the free market. Neither the Spanish charters extended to Cortez or the East Indie Company are any more the free market than the Affordable Care Act is. In such cases these businesses are doing the dirty work that a government doesn't want to be implicated in, Blackwater, Haliburton, Health Care exchanges, etc...

[E.D.]

Hi Marc,
Well.., I did say it was complicated. You are correct, though. There is a tremendous difference between a free market (even one as reprehensible as the slave trade) and one manipulated for unfair advantage. Crony capitalism, however, still falls under the heading of capitalistic. A perversion, no doubt, and one that needs to be abolished just as slavery for profit was.

Say.., you're not implying that because of price controls and regulation, that consumers of prostitution benefit from socialism...are you? Hmmmm? :}

[Kate]

Awful, hackneyed, immoral, disgusting, horrid book. I hated it.

[Marc]

Come on Kate,

Hackneyed- so who was writing this kind of literature before Rand? Who did she copy?

Immoral- in what regard, the affair Darcy had or the failure to stay and be crushed by the system?

Disgusting- how so?

I can fully accept hating it but why, what made this book so repulsive to you. What is the five star polar opposite of this book?

E.D. I have little doubt consumers of socialist prostitution benefit. Cuba provides a wonderful example, as you can have your pick of beautiful doctors or engineers. As usual though in socialist systems it's the suppliers of the goods that suffer.

[E.D.]

Well.., I was thinking more along the lines of Amsterdam's store-front brothels.., but I see your point. :}

[Kate]

Hackneyed: Well, tons of pulp fiction has been pouring out of the presses since the invention of pulp.

Immoral and disgusting: The assumption that the overprivileged asses featured in this book actually make the world go 'round, when in reality, they are destroying it. The assumption that ordinary people are worth less than corporate crooks.

Even more disgusting: That people actually take this work as gospel and sell the poor for a pair of shoes.

I hate this book and all the incredibly cynical, destructive works of Ayn Rand and her acolytes with every fiber of my being.

[Ken]

I find it interesting that defenders of Rand's philosophies see the discussion as a sliding scale, linear, between Capitalism and Socialism/Communism.

Oversimplification as a description would be... oversimplifying.

[Kate]

Kenneth wrote: "I find it interesting that defenders of Rand's philosophies see the discussion as a sliding scale, linear, between Capitalism and Socialism/Communism.

Oversimplification as a description would be..."

Well, simple minds would be attracted to simple concepts.

[E.D.]

My favorite sign seen at a Tea Party gathering: " Keep your socialist hands off my Medicare"

Laugh or cry? I'm torn. :}

[Mark]

My hat off to Kate. Why f**k around the book is both ridiculous and disgusting. Ridiculous in its premise and disgusting in it's premise.

[Joanne]

Kate wrote: "Hackneyed: Well, tons of pulp fiction has been pouring out of the presses since the invention of pulp.

Immoral and disgusting: The assumption that the overprivileged asses featured in this book ac..."
Well said!

[Marc]

While it's tempting to just dismiss this as a gathering of the tin foil hat club and pray for lighting, the opportunity for repentance and conversion should also never be passed by.

The premise of the book is that there are certain unguided or undirected individuals amongst us who are responsible for a large percentage of the benefits we consume in our society. Set against these individuals are corrupt businesses and government.

Now in just what manner is that premise also not correct in real life? Did the government make the iPad, don't we have ADM pushing ethanol legislation that raises the prices of everything, who made delivered the first emergency supplies to New Orleans after Katrina- Walmart or the government? Even if this premise is incorrect it's for sure not stupid or so entirely false it can be dismissed in one sentence- now that's lack of an ability to think on a higher and deeper plane.

The term hackneyed in the case is also inappropriate, as it implies there are a large number of similar books. This would suggest there are hundreds if not thousands of these books circulating through society and it has become part of the fabric of society. I'm thinking the term is more appropriate for Vampires or the mommy porn craze that Fifty Shades of Grey has unleashed.

I'm also failing to see how this book is immoral or disgusting??? Is it the premise that some people are more capable; that we are not born with the same intelligence, drive, or abilities? If all of you had written this book would Hank Reardon have continued to support his parasitic wife and family, turned over his new metal to the government and worked with his peers in the steel industry to control production? Are these the actions you find so immoral and disgusting?

E.D.love the Medicare line, oh how the debate has shifted.

[Ken]

Marc, how would you support the concept that we are not born more or less the same? Genetics? I could see that argument. But access to education is a strong factor and one that largely depends on money. Some have it, some don't.

I think the 'disgusting' label applies when the concepts in this book are used to defend self-interest at the expense of others. You cite beneficial contributions to society from a small group of individuals. This is really interesting, because it's not what Rand is really about. It's more about a small group of individuals who each independently benefit from their own abilities at the expense of society. Their self-determination and actualization comes at the cost of the population - either in terms of labor or in terms of profit. The needs of the few over the needs of the many - and those needs being driven by ambition and sometimes greed.

Ideas which are distributed for the good of society as a whole, as a group - this is not capitalism. Not Rand. It's altruism, and Rand is not about altruism.

[Marc]

Hi Ken,

Genetics are a starting point, some of have the genetic makeup to climb 8,000 meter peaks while others of us have the ability to create mental 3-D pictures that can be a useful aid in programming. After that your parents, peers, and society probably play an even larger role. When you are girl in Afghanistan your mental genius for PHP and MySQL is unlikely to ever be tapped. Short of ever creating a homogenous society we are always going to see discrepancies in outcomes that have nothing to do with talent. Rather than making equality of outcome the ideal, equality of opportunity is a far more realistic goal to strive for.

Your comment clarifies the difference in opinion and I think it's a misinterpretation. Was Darcy a far more capable executive than her brother, was Hank a far more capable producer of steel than his competitors? Their passion for their jobs combined with their pursuit of perfection benefited society.

Reality no doubt is far less clean, let's play with a couple controversial figures. John Rockefeller and Steve Jobs. I think it's fair to say neither individual was particularly motivated by money. They may have made a lot of money but that wasn't the reason they did what they did. In the case of Rockefeller it was about organizing something and making it more efficient (in fact under his management the price of oil products dropped significantly). Steve Jobs while a truly miserable human being had a eye for beauty and knew what we wanted before we even did. Both individuals pursued their passion and greatly benefited society.

The mistake is in lumping all business together, Carlos Slim of Mexico is no Bill Gates. Ironically the cases where abuse is most rampant is where the government has allowed monopolies or failed to let the free market purge the losers (prohibition, auto industry, banking).

Rand's argument is that individuals in pursing their own interests and passions will provide direct benefits to society. In their process of either acquiring material wealth but more likely personal fulfillment they will enrich the societies they live in even more.

[Ken]

Did Jobs really know what people wanted? Or did he create a demand, a dependency, that was nonexistent before? He personally didn't do it of course, he was just the face of a company that bought out or forced out smaller competitors and think tanks to consolidate technology in a form + function (but form first!) container.

All businesses are definitely not alike, as you say. And yes, where government lets companies get away with economic murder, abuse reigns unchecked.

I disagree that the argument presented is a beneficial one. It is easily apparent that many individuals who have benefited from their exploits could do a great deal for society - and yet do not. Big pharma is a great example. Wall Street firms are another.

[E.D.]

My favorite sign seen at an Occupy gathering: "I'll believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one"

I don't think anyone here is denying an individual the "right" to be compensated for good ideas or creating a sound business. I think the problem is Rand's giving them demi-god status in the social order, and thereby justifying affording them privileges not given to others based solely on their wealth creation. Why should they pay taxes to fund social programs? That is "theft". Why should they be expected to play by the same rules as ordinary citizens when they are "clearly" exceptional? Why won't those pesky "moochers and leeches" learn to accept and "keep to their station"?

What better "philosophy" could a plutocrat cling to for a good night's sleep?

Marc, tin foil..lightening. I giggled. :}

[Dan]

This book made me willing to quit a book halfway through, even though I'd read over 500 pages. That was a first. It changed the way I read as a result. Just because I start a book, I don't commit to finishing it. The book has to earn that. That started with Atlas Shrugged. (And mind you, having loved The Fountainhead, I was inclined to like this. Unfortunately, I did not.)

[Marc]

We all know there can only be one Elton John or one John Elway or one Pele. None of us seem to think it is that unfair these individuals have these gifts. So what makes creation of a business and operation of a business different?

I'm not going to put down all the hardworking people out there who make my life possible, but the vast majority are just going through the motions. Even at the most prestigious of companies the majority are just there, I saw this the other day and think it pretty appropriate, Bat Boy Syndrome.

I'm not Oprah, and there's a reason why the new health care exchange crashed and burned (Kathleen Sebelius), just as we are not equal on the soccer field neither are we equal in leadership or mental abilities.

Is there abuse, no doubt, from Steve Jobs washing his feet in toilets, refusing to license his car, and having a preference for handicapped parking (a real loser in many respects). The far larger abuse is the millions who medicate themselves with American Idol, Jersey Shore, and still think they are owed it all.

Life is tough and mean, I have a preference for living in a society with as many exceptional individuals as possible so they can pay for the services I use.

[Ken]

You had me until the last paragraph. I like to think I'm more altruistic than that. "A rising tide raises all ships" and all that. "trickle-down" economics is a complete sham.

[Marc]

I can fully agree with trickle-down economic being a sham. The recovery we have seen so should be the final proof most reasonable people should need.

I think part of the results we are seeing lies in the taxation system. We got corn ethanol courtesy of government and Agri-business, which in turn drove the prices of all food items up. A large number of states have a tax on groceries, so as food prices increased so did tax receipts creating false economic rebound signals. On the other side of things the increase in commodity prices while decreasing the taxable income for average citizens has greatly increased the amount of taxes paid by many involved with the production of foodstuffs, creating another bump in tax revenue. It's got to be one of the cleverest taxation schemes ever created. I'll lay it out one more time.

By raising the price of food, something we all have to purchase; you have effectively created a taxation multiplier. Those who might not pay any or very little income tax are still paying more via a sales tax and a portion of their previously untaxed income is now being funneled to individuals who will now pay even more income tax then they did previously. There's nothing new being created or new value being added to account for the increase in taxable revenue, rather the pockets of the lower class are being picked.

[E.D.]

Celebrities, artists, sports figures, etc..,regardless how gifted or overpaid, fall under the heading of entertainment. They have an effect only insofar as each individual chooses. I like football. My wife says I like it too much. She likes that effeminate French guy that cooks with a lot of butter. But these diversions only effect our lives to the extent we allow them to..., if we do.

I like my MacBook. I don't need to make Jobs a celebrity to use it. He started a business. It was successful. He's dead. I like my MacBook.

Businessmen are not entertainers. Businessmen are not entitled to special privilege in the social order because they are successful. They are not entitled to run government because they can buy it. This, I cannot choose to ignore or not be effected by. I like my MacBook. I live in "my" country.

Supply Side. "Tinkled-on" economics. :}

[E.D.]

Marc,
So...., this is governments idea? Subsidize agri-business with tax dollars to get tax revenue from some grocery stores and agri-businesses that lobby government to avoid paying taxes as much as possible?

So..., ADM, Monsanto, et al...,are now in the habit of doing their bit to help government raise revenues from them...because???

Not saying you're wrong; just maybe not seeing the evil "brilliance" of government you are. :}

[Ken]

Indeed, whole-heatedly agreed with that being a major problem.

[Alger]

Atlas Shrugged's ponderous pseudo-philosophy alternately improved my sleep patterns and made me laugh hard enough that I considerably improved my abdominal tone. Thanks Ayn.