Ayn Rand

[SEAM]

She was so right, in so many ways.. but ultimately squelched.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pMTDaVpBPR0#!


We need a similar voice, more than ever.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_ayn_rand_aynrand_biograp hy

[RMorgan]

One of the best writers I´ve ever read. What a mind!

[Flash]

One of the best mind I had the pleasure to listen to in a long time. Although I may not agree with everything she says, wow, she is absoltue tought provoker and thinking challenger. I did listen to video 1 in which she explains the place of love within a reasoned society and in video 3 she expand from video 2 content, which was related to the role of government, that government should only govern infrastructure and such, should never force anyone to pay from their labor (slave for them) meaning taxes collection, and nothing should be impose, complete, absolute free society. She also predicted that the US would become totalitarian (dictatorship) if the "socialistic" way of thinking and behaving was pursued.

I did not know Ayn Rand, many thanks SEAM, one of the best I have listened to.

[mojo]

I really liked the interview as well thank you SEAM. Her eyes had me riveted. There is something striking about her as if she could read the mind of the interviewer by her looks and gestures. I was fascinated and her message, just look where things in the world are now? Here is what her frontpage says on the website;

Ayn Rand was born in St. Petersburg, Russia, on February 2, 1905. At age six she 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. Thoroughly opposed to the mysticism and collectivism of Russian culture, she thought of herself as a European writer, especially after encountering Victor Hugo, the writer she most admired.

During her high school years, she was eyewitness to both the Kerensky Revolution, which she supported, and—in 1917—the Bolshevik Revolution, which she denounced from the outset. In order to escape the fighting, her family went to the Crimea, where she finished high school. The final Communist victory brought the confiscation of her father's pharmacy and periods of near-starvation. When introduced to American history in her last year of high school, she immediately took America as her model of what a nation of free men could be.

When her family returned from the Crimea, she entered the University of Petrograd to study philosophy and history. Graduating in 1924, she experienced the disintegration of free inquiry and the takeover of the university by communist thugs. Amidst the increasingly gray life, her greatest pleasures were Viennese operettas and Western films and plays. Long an admirer of cinema, she entered the State Institute for Cinema Arts in 1924 to study screenwriting. It was at this time that she was first published: a booklet on actress Pola Negri (1925) and a booklet titled “Hollywood: American Movie City” (1926), both reprinted in 1999 in Russian Writings on Hollywood.

In late 1925 she obtained permission to leave Soviet Russia for a visit to relatives in the United States. Although she told Soviet authorities that her visit would be short, she was determined never to return to Russia. She arrived in New York City in February 1926. She spent the next six months with her relatives in Chicago, obtained an extension to her visa, and then left for Hollywood to pursue a career as a screenwriter.

On Ayn Rand’s second day in Hollywood, Cecil B. DeMille saw her standing at the gate of his studio, offered her a ride to the set of his movie The King of Kings, and gave her a job, first as an extra, then as a script reader. During the next week at the studio, she met an actor, Frank O’Connor, whom she married in 1929; they were married until his death fifty years later.

After struggling for several years at various nonwriting jobs, including one in the wardrobe department at the RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., she sold her first screenplay, “Red Pawn,” to Universal Pictures in 1932 and saw her first stage play, Night of January 16th, produced in Hollywood and then on Broadway. Her first novel, We the Living, was completed in 1934 but was rejected by numerous publishers, until The Macmillan Company in the United States and Cassells and Company in England published the book in 1936. The most autobiographical of her novels, it was based on her years under Soviet tyranny.

She began writing The Fountainhead in 1935 (taking a short break in 1937 to write the anti-collectivist novelette Anthem). In the character of the architect Howard Roark, she presented for the first time the kind of hero whose depiction was the chief goal of her writing: the ideal man, man as “he could be and ought to be.” The Fountainhead was rejected by twelve publishers but finally accepted by the Bobbs-Merrill Company. When published in 1943, it made history by becoming a best-seller through word of mouth two years later, and gained for its author lasting recognition as a champion of individualism.

Ayn Rand returned to Hollywood in late 1943 to write the screenplay for The Fountainhead, but wartime restrictions delayed production until 1948. Working part time as a screenwriter for Hal Wallis Productions, she began her major novel Atlas Shrugged, in 1946. In 1951 she moved back to New York City and devoted herself full time to the completion of Atlas Shrugged.

Published in 1957, Atlas Shrugged was her greatest achievement and last work of fiction. In this novel she dramatized her unique philosophy in an intellectual mystery story that integrated ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, politics, economics and sex. Although she considered herself primarily a fiction writer, she realized that in order to create heroic fictional characters, she had to identify the philosophic principles which make such individuals possible.

Thereafter, Ayn Rand wrote and lectured on her philosophy—Objectivism, which she characterized as “a philosophy for living on earth." She published and edited her own periodicals from 1962 to 1976, her essays providing much of the material for six books on Objectivism and its application to the culture. Ayn Rand died on March 6, 1982, in her New York City apartment.

Every book by Ayn Rand published in her lifetime is still in print, and hundreds of thousands of copies are sold each year, so far totaling more than 25 million. Several new volumes have been published posthumously. Her vision of man and her philosophy for living on earth have changed the lives of thousands of readers and launched a philosophic movement with a growing impact on American culture.

[Flash]

Here some disagreements that I do find justified on Ayn Rand, lets see both side of the topic. I still think she is really brilliant though


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdtXfcRbXUE&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkhQUU4LLq8&feature=related

[ViralSpiral]

I really liked the interview as well thank you SEAM. Her eyes had me riveted. There is something striking about her as if she could read the mind of the interviewer by her looks and gestures..

I agree
I had seen this interview before and wondered the same. In fact the thought came....... not one of us....
She knows a lot of "stuff" http://www.millerfilm.com/spacelinks/wink_emoticon.bmp


For those reading this thread from their iPad, here is the You Tube link as i cant see the link to the video in Seam's original post. I think it has to do with the "video" icon


pMTDaVpBPR0

[Carmody]

She wrote from a collectivist mindset and projected that into capitalism. The result was horrific, if one has the capacity to see the very dangerous twist.

It is thus entirely obvious why she would be a poster child for capitalism, tea partiers, and republicans.

[Flash]

I really liked the interview as well thank you SEAM. Her eyes had me riveted. There is something striking about her as if she could read the mind of the interviewer by her looks and gestures. I was fascinated and her message, just look where things in the world are now? Here is what her frontpage says on the website;

During her high school years, she was eyewitness to both the Kerensky Revolution, which she supported, and—in 1917—the Bolshevik Revolution, which she denounced from the outset. In order to escape the fighting, her family went to the Crimea, where she finished high school. The final Communist victory brought the confiscation of her father's pharmacy and periods of near-starvation. When introduced to American history in her last year of high school, she immediately took America as her model of what a nation of free men could be.

When her family returned from the Crimea, she entered the University of Petrograd to study philosophy and history. Graduating in 1924,

You Avalon readers, should be aware of one thing: those from Russia who ended up in Crimea during the Lenine revolution, to avoid the fightings, were in fact taking the house of Crimean Tatars by force, having them sent to Gulags and death camps, because they were having good productive lands and good house and were "capitalists" against Lenine, in fact, they wanted to keep their belongings (land and house). I take my facts directly from the people to whom it happened (the very old ones that resisted the gulag and their descendants and some Russian descendants that are still living in Tatars houses). Lenine's or Trotsky friends given houses to survive the turmoil in a region far away from war that the party want to preserve for themselves maybe.

To me, this means it is probably what her family did: take the house of people that went houseless and then were sent to death camps. May be she considered the Crimean Tatars as she did the Palestinians? This is a question mark to me. (although later on the Tatars and central Asians constituted the main core of the Soviet scientits).

[Flash]

She wrote from a collectivist mindset and projected that into capitalism. The result was horrific, if one has the capacity to see the very dangerous twist.

It is thus entirely obvious why she would be a poster child for capitalism, tea partiers, and republicans.

Entirely agree with you, this is why she makes one thinking challenged. I do like the challenge though and still think she is bright although probably quite neurpathic or psychopatic or just plainly wrong.

[grapevine]

I have just logged into this thread and am aghast at the positive comments being levelled at this woman and all she stands for. Please . . . . just do some research here people. Ayn Rand is ON THE OTHER SIDE although she is dead - do not be taken in by her words . . . . this is as clear as daylight to me and I have read two of her books and done my research . . .

[Flash]

windmill, check at the two videos and the comments I posted, they say exactly what you say. To me, she still challenges my thinking, this is what I enjoyed. The lack of heart that I feel from her is quite disturbing though.

[ViralSpiral]

I have just logged into this thread and am aghast at the positive comments being levelled at this woman and all she stands for.

She is bold and controversial. I.m.o., her darkness limits her value as a valid messenger and yet...... to each their own inquiry.


http://www.absolutelyfengshui.com/images/yin-yang-symbol.jpg

[SEAM]

I think her message was hijacked by many.. you can't paint her with the same color as those who stole her message. I'm a Democrat.. yet, I hear what she is saying.
Anyone who has the foresight to predict with such clarity, the outcome of an entire society, is quite thought provoking to say the least... Anyone who can send that amount of energy out to the masses, and be used by both sides of good and evil, to forward there individual causes... is and of itself, quite huge.

I think if she were alive today, she would slam the tea-party, as a group who hijacked the fundamentals of Libertarianism. I think she would, in turn, slam Ron Paul, who used Libertarianism to further his own goals, and over-reach. I think she would slam Republicans, and Demacrats alike... and I think she would have a massive audience... And finally, I think her eyes tell another story as well.. Her facial expressions alone say "Mike Wallace, you aren't prepared for my mind"! (But he sure tried).. thought provoking.. nothing more, or less. Thanks All! and thanks for explaing the smart phone thingy... (I still use a flip-up car phone):o

[Curt]

Ayn Rand believed that an elite class of men have a right to rule our world- to reshape it in their own image. In her view, these men are the architects of human civilization. They are the bright and noble and competent men, who by virtue of their having more- intelligence, vision, drive, resources- deserve more.

Why do they deserve it? Because they have it. Why do they have it? Because they deserve it.

By virtue of their being richer, quicker, smarter, better equipped, they have a natural right to rule: they are the Titans who hold the world on their shoulders. She believed that- were these Nietzschean supermen to withdraw their support, and to stop holding the world on their rugged shoulders- it would fall apart.

But far from believing that those blessed with great power must also exercise great responsibility- she believed these elites shouldn’t be responsible for anyone but themselves.

In fact, to Rand, it is the highest moral virtue to be purely self-interested: not to care about what happens to anyone else. Spending one’s time and resources to look after a community is immoral as far as she is concerned.

For Rand, it is ‘irrational’ not to be selfish, and the pursuit of ‘rational self-interest’ is the highest good. Her philosophy is often summarised as: ‘rational selfishness.’

Basically, it’s the Greed is Good philosophy of Gordon Gekko from the movie Wall Street.

It should be no surprise then, that to Rand, Christ is a flawed symbol; he shirked his responsibility to achieve ‘individual greatness’ by focussing on the poor. He wasted his time supporting born losers, the weak, and those who couldn’t, or shouldn’t survive. Ditto Ghandi. Ditto MLK.

But who cares about Ayn Rand? Why mention her?

Put plainly, because her belief system is essentially a form of corporate fascism alive and well today. It’s one of the Herculean pillars of our global system. It supports the philosophy behind the gutting and destruction of sovereign nations and economies. It’s the might makes right, Social Darwinism being rolled out at present.

It is a system where the elite believe they deserve all of the benefits and none of the burdens of ruling. It is lopsided and dangerous not only to us, but ultimately to the elite themselves.

Rand's 'Titans' aren’t the wise philosopher kings of Plato’s ideal Republic. Even if they think they are. No matter how much ancient Greek mythology they appropriate for their belief system.

Their philosophy, taken to its logical, if somewhat Sci-Fi conclusion, is one that would happily send a few thousand blood bloods out into the cosmos to colonise it after flushing our planet down the toilet.

It’s particularly telling that Rand places no importance on the peons who do the actual work- on those who execute the great vision(s) of the great men. She believed in the strength of the Titans alone. The workers get no credit for holding the world up.

They do not stand tall enough. Those peons whose backs the Titans stand on don’t count. Because, if they counted, they wouldn’t be peons. And nobody would be standing on them.

The peons’ hands never make that final glorious contact with the globe, so they are unimportant in her view.

Instead, common men are a hindrance; they are objects to be overcome and resources to be used. They are the ‘petty and useless officials’ spoken of in the Georgia Guidestones. They are the 'useless eaters' and 'expendable containers' spoken about by George Green.

I don’t think it’s even necessary to make a moral argument to rebut her philosophy. Those leap out to any sane person.

The better argument against it is a far more practical one. And that is this: for a doctrine that claims to be ‘rational’ and ‘self-interested’, it is ultimately neither. It is an ideology that contains within it the seeds of its own destruction.

Here’s an analogy.

Imagine you’re playing a game of Monopoly with your kid brother. You own almost everything. He’s clutching his last 7 bucks, has one utility and two railroads to his name. He rolls the dice and lands on Park Place for the 11th straight turn. Uh oh. You see that look in his eye.

You see you’ve got a choice to make. Either slip him some cash, forgive the debt, or work out a loan. Otherwise, he’s going to flip the board onto your head, pour his Yoo-hoo in your lap and it’s Game Over for both of you.

The only thing keeping him in the game turn after miserable turn is the idea that, with a bit of luck and some grit, he can turn things around for himself. He can get lucky and scrape together some cash and maybe set up a little slum with a single house on it and get back in the game.

Take that away from him and he’s going to quit, then go outside and do something productive with his day. Then all your funny money won’t mean a thing. Back into the box it’ll go, to be stored on top of the fridge in the basement alongside old Polaroids of the cat you had when you were seven.

The ruling class seem to be adherents of a philosophy so delusional that it’s dangerous- to them and us. They no longer seem even perfunctorily interested in keeping alive notions of fair play or the American Dream- or its various equivalents.

So why are ‘Kid brothers’ the world over not dumping out their Yoo-hoos en masse and finding new games to play?

And more than that, what sort of tools do Rand's disciples have at their disposal to keep us all playing?

[TargeT]

I read Atlas Shrugged, that's the only book from A. Rand I've read.

Based on that book I disagree with your assessment.

you are taking ideas out of context, Rand was a libertarian / personal responsibility proponent, NOT supportive of some elite ruling class that is forced by laws or rules, rather a ruling class that naturally occurs due to differing levels of ability and intelligence (cream rises to the top, it's a property of physics); these are the "philosopher kings" of the working world (since when she wrote the book the idea of 100% employment was kicking STRONG! unlike the days of Greek philosophers).

Ayn would have supported a breakaway society by any who choose to break away; how is this wrong?


For Rand, it is ‘irrational’ not to be selfish, and the pursuit of ‘rational self-interest’ is the highest good. Her philosophy is often summarised as: ‘rational selfishness.’

I think it's abhorrent to function in any other way; to think otherwise is to impose yourself on others or to allow them to impose themselves on you. Self interest is what would solve all the situations of today, self interest is NOT greed.

here's a good clarifying quote:

When one speaks of man’s right to exist for his own sake, for his own rational self-interest, most people assume automatically that this means his right to sacrifice others. Such an assumption is a confession of their own belief that to injure, enslave, rob or murder others is in man’s self-interest—which he must selflessly renounce. The idea that man’s self-interest can be served only by a non-sacrificial relationship with others has never occurred to those humanitarian apostles of unselfishness, who proclaim their desire to achieve the brotherhood of men. And it will not occur to them, or to anyone, so long as the concept “rational” is omitted from the context of “values,” “desires,” “self-interest” and ethics.

Furhter:

Desires (or feelings or emotions or wishes or whims) are not tools of cognition; they are not a valid standard of value, nor a valid criterion of man’s interests. The mere fact that a man desires something does not constitute a proof that the object of his desire is good, nor that its achievement is actually to his interest.


This is a very complex lexicon, not simple greed. (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/self-interest.html)


here's another good clarifying bit:

Ayn Rand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_egoism)

The author Ayn Rand also discusses a theory that she called 'rational egoism'. She holds that it is both irrational and immoral to act against one's self-interest.[11] Thus, her view is a conjunction of both rational egoism (in the standard sense) and ethical egoism, because according to Objectivist philosophy, egoism cannot be properly justified without an epistemology based on reason:

Her book The Virtue of Selfishness (1964) explains the concept of rational egoism in depth. According to Rand, a rational man holds his own life as his highest value, rationality as his highest virtue, and his happiness as the final purpose of his life.

Conversely, Rand was sharply critical of the ethical doctrine of altruism:

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute is self-sacrifice–which means self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial self-destruction–which means the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. This is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: No. Altruism says: Yes."

the nuance of that final paragraph is the KEY to her philosophy

The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence.
this is the crux of it.

[Curt]

I read Atlas Shrugged, that's the only book from A. Rand I've read.

Based on that book I disagree with your assessment.

Target,

I agree with a good portion of what you're saying.

I believe in the individual. Very strongly. And I believe that the individual must be free to pursue his or her own rational self-interest.

Those with greater ability will get greater rewards for their efforts. No problems there. And leaders do arise organically based upon merit. Again, no problem. In fact, there's not a better way to do it.

However, what I also believe- which Rand explicitly does not- is that 'self-interest', in order for it to be 'rational', or ultimately 'self-interested', must include a fundamental awareness of other people's needs within the given system.

If not- based upon the unequal distribution of talents in our species- tyranny is virtually guaranteed. And so is the revolution that would inevitably come to 'correct' said tyranny.

[ErtheVessel]

I read Ayn Rand when I was younger, as it was fashionable at the time (early 70s), and I have always been philosophically curious. I have also read several of Nathaniel Brandon's books, who was a very close disciple of hers for many years. His books are more about personal psychology and self-esteem as opposed to Ayn Rand's focus which, if I remember correctly, is more broadly on social philosophy.

Then I spent a number of years involved in various types of cults with various types of psychologically unbalanced leaders (totally unrelated to Ayn Rand's philosophy).

Finally, most recently I read an autobiography by Nathaniel Brandon called "Judgement Day." In this book he outlines in amazing detail his relationship with Ayn Rand and his eventual break from her and her organization.

Because of my life experience with cult leaders and cult followers, I have to say that what he described in his book about his dealings with Ayn indicated nothing short of genuine sociopathy. Ayn may have been brilliant in some left brain, abstract, and purely theoretical level, but as a living, breathing human being, I have to say it sounds to me like she was completely nuts. I had an uncle who was philosophically brilliant, but he was profoundly cruel, he beat, terrorized and abused all of his six children (and wife), and he excused everything he did with his (genuinely) brilliant philosophy.

Can someone who is completely crazy develop a philosophy for mankind that is rational, workable, coherent and humane to others and to the living planet? For me, I have to say, emphatically, no.

The words that TargeT quoted above from and about Ayn Rand are words that intrigued me when I was younger, as they sound so genuinely wise and important. However, now I feel that they are hollow words, as she did not live and could not live this philosophy herself.

If information could change us, we would be wise beyond all imagining by now. Words and wise philosophies don't change us, as far as I'm concerned. I have read thousands of books by now in my life. What I understand now is that what changes me is not all the information I have accumulated, but the love, human relating, struggles, successes, tragedies, tears, and laughter. The touch of another living being is a living, visceral experience. Nothing compares to that, and nothing can change me the way that can. The more left brain we become, the more we lose our connection with all that is living.

I guess this is really slightly off topic, but for me the discussion of Ayn Rand must fundamentally be about who she was as a person. I suspect others will disagree, but that's my 2 cents. :)

[hardrock]

I'm just a simpleton. I view everyone's capacity as a pie. What you put into it is what you get out of it. Higher IQ means a slightly bigger pie circumference. I've been around many a very rich person, smart person, talented in something person. They are just like you and me in most ways.

The CEO of a huge corporation might know how to speak the language of a CEO, but he/she also might not know how to make a grilled cheese sandwich and tie their shoelaces. If all you want is material things, and you have enough capacity, you can fill your pie with the correct methods to obtain them. Our culture "rewards" this. In my opinion, this doesn't make someone overall better than you, just better than you at what they do. But look at the price they pay to fill their pie with such a narrow amount of data.

Rand's philosophy doesn't take into account our "hive" mentality. The act of self interest is self destructive to the "hive", as it places one's own needs above those of others. I agree with Curt above on the rationality behind tyranny. It will eventually succumb to the "hive" and be corrected. History has shown us this numerous times.

[TargeT]

However, what I also believe- which Rand explicitly does not- is that 'self-interest', in order for it to be 'rational', or ultimately 'self-interested', must include a fundamental awareness of other people's needs within the given system.


can you link to a quote or statement that supports that? I have not found that to be the case.




Can someone who is completely crazy develop a philosophy for mankind that is rational, workable, coherent and humane to others and to the living planet? For me, I have to say, emphatically, no.
......
I guess this is really slightly off topic, but for me the discussion of Ayn Rand must fundamentally be about who she was as a person. I suspect others will disagree, but that's my 2 cents. :)

We as a people have been purposefully undermined in or very thinking.


Can a philosophy for man kind come from a crazy person? A B S O L U T E L Y. To judge the messenger and not the message is a logical fallacy. I care not who delivers ideas, I care about the ideas (and so should you) this logical fallacy (Ad hominem) is one of the most common and is very damaging to discourse.

we are talking about Ayn Rand's doctrine of rational self-intrest not Ayn Rand.


I know little of Rand herself, except for some basic history.



Rand's philosophy doesn't take into account our "hive" mentality. The act of self interest is self destructive to the "hive", as it places one's own needs above those of others. I agree with Curt above on the rationality behind tyranny. It will eventually succumb to the "hive" and be corrected. History has shown us this numerous times.

how is it NOT in my self interest to support others?

I have two non-related people living with me right now in trade for "work" these individuals help ME, and I help THEM because I want them to help ME... this lines up perfectly with Rand's philosophy... I'm currently helping two people (maybe soon to be three) with this philosophy strongly in place. Helping others helps me.

this is EXACTLY what I took from Atlas Shrugged, this is what John Galt and his break away SOCIETY (not break away individual) was all about... it was about the rejection of tyrannical "others needs before your own" implementations from the state.. Atlas shrugged is her last written book (I think) and a great example of her philosophy.

[enfoldedblue]

I have never read a complete Ayn Rand book...so I don't have the benefit of understanding the subtleties of her work. But what strikes me is the idea of cream rising to the top... to me the problem is that when the milk (society) is contaminated ...it is actually the scum that rises to the top. In a purely objective selfish world --it would seem that a sociopath would naturally thrive. And once someone rose to the top would they not also naturally use their power to manipulate the system to ensure their ongoing domination. Isn't this the situation we are currently in?

I mean she believed that Native Americans deserved to be stripped of their land because they failed to create a 'heroically productive capitalist society'. Eesssh I know which society I would rather live in. Even science has shown that community and human bonds and connection is what allowed humanity to evolve successfully.

To me it seems like an unbalanced perspective ... yes the individual is important and should be allowed to their dreams ... but when community as a whole is sacrificed to that end .... society can become very ugly. I think an approach that balances the desires of the individual with the needs of the community as whole would be a much healthier model.

[ErtheVessel]

TargeT, I am familiar with your viewpoint but I have to most vehemently disagree. I don't appreciate you telling me what I should and should not do as you have absolutely NO idea what my experience has been or the extreme depth of my inquiry into various philosophies and their authors. I have PERSONALLY come to the conclusion, through my very own living, breathing, life experience that any philosophy that comes from an insane person is fundamentally flawed. I used to believe as you do, but my life experience has changed me.

"I care not who delivers ideas, I care about the ideas (and so should you) this logical fallacy (Ad hominem) is one of the most common and is very damaging to discourse."

This quote of yours, TargeT is insulting to me in the extreme. You have no idea what my capacity for logic is or the extent to which I have inquired into the workings of my own brain, my own life and my own sense of reason.

I have very limited time on the internet on a daily basis, so I will have to continue this discussion tomorrow.

Updated 1-28-16 - I was going to delete this entire post today, but I will let it stand. Today I see that what triggered me was what I perceived to be condescension. I took a good look at myself and I see that one of my very own shadow aspect is condescension, so I will take a deep breath and continue to work on myself. :)

[Curt]

However, what I also believe- which Rand explicitly does not- is that 'self-interest', in order for it to be 'rational', or ultimately 'self-interested', must include a fundamental awareness of other people's needs within the given system.


can you link to a quote or statement that supports that? I have not found that to be the case. .

Rand fundamentally rejected the notion that an individual should be required (morally, ethically) to consider notions of 'community' or 'the common good' when making decisions.

Instead, she believed in a strictly laissez-faire system where competing interests would balance each other out. Competing interests would check and balance each other.

From Good old Wikpedia: In ethics, Rand argued for rational and ethical egoism (rational self-interest), as the guiding moral principle. She said the individual should "exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself."[114] She referred to egoism as "the virtue of selfishness" in her book of that title,[115] in which she presented her solution to the is-ought problem by describing a meta-ethical theory that based morality in the needs of "man's survival qua man".[116] She condemned ethical altruism as incompatible with the requirements of human life and happiness,[9] and held that the initiation of force was evil and irrational, writing in Atlas Shrugged that "Force and mind are opposites."[117]

Rand's political philosophy emphasized individual rights (including property rights),[118] and she considered laissez-faire capitalism the only moral social system because in her view it was the only system based on the protection of those rights.[4] She opposed statism, which she understood to include theocracy, absolute monarchy, Nazism, fascism, communism, democratic socialism, and dictatorship.[119] Rand believed that natural rights should be enforced by a constitutionally limited government.[120] Although her political views are often classified as conservative or libertarian, she preferred the term "radical for capitalism". She worked with conservatives on political projects, but disagreed with them over issues such as religion and ethics.[121] She denounced libertarianism, which she associated with anarchism.[122] She rejected anarchism as a naïve theory based in subjectivism that could only lead to collectivism in practice.[123]

My read: she objected, quite rightly, to the tyranny of 'the collective'. The trouble is, she did so by embracing the tyranny of 'the individual' instead.

Here's a portion of an interview transcript with Ayn Rand and Phil Donahue:

PD: How do you avoid… let’s take your thesis then and accept it. Now I’m going to be selfish. You know what I’m going to do? I’m going to be real talented, and charismatic, and I’m going to develop a lot of wealth, and I’m going to have a lot of money and a lot of banks, and pretty soon nobody is going to be able to compete with me because I’ve already purchased all my competitors. And now I have dictatorial power over people and I can name the price of bacon, or the price of oil, or whatever it is the commodity I’m selling.

AR: You know I agree with you that you are very talented, and you can accomplish a great deal and already have, but you are talking about the impossible. In a free society, nobody can become a monopolist or a dictator. The system itself, the free market, will destroy you.

PD: How do you explain Mobil oil, Exxon? How do you explain the prices they’re able to charge for oil?

{Audience applause}

Here's the full video of the interview. In it she makes some admittedly good points: 3u8Jjth81_Q

[Curt]

To me it seems like an unbalanced perspective ... yes the individual is important and should be allowed to their dreams ... but when community as a whole is sacrificed to that end .... society can become very ugly. I think an approach that balances the desires of the individual with the needs of the community as whole would be a much healthier model.

Yep, balance. But I would say if we're going to err, we should still err on the side of the individual. After all, individuals are what communities are made up of.

[Daughter of Time]

To the best of my knowledge, which could be faulty, Ayn Rand was the mistress of Philip Rothschild - one of the word's most powerful elite!

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Rothschild commissioned Ms. Rand to write "Atlas Shrugged" with the promise that it would bring her recognition, fortune and fame, if she were to follow his direction. She followed his direction and reaped the rewards.

Whether Ms. Rand followed Mr. Rothschild blindly in order to receive the promised legacy, or whether she actually believed everything she expounded, is not fully known, and I don't imagine it ever will be.

Many years ago, someone sent me a calendar of famous quotes from famous women which they thought I would love. Included was one of Ms. Rand's quotes, which escapes me right now, but I do remember finding it offensive and repulsive enough to throw the calendar away. I now realize I must have really hated it! Paper calendars were useful in those days! I remember I threw it away because of Ms. Rand's quote!

However, I did see a theatrical production on Ms. Rand's life and philosophy which triggered some emotions, and definitely in a negative way. In this production, Ms. Rand was praised to High Heaven. The Playwright and Director are both hard core feminists with a heavy agenda. I recognized why they admire Ms. Rand as much as they do.

For me, her philosophy is insidious! And yet we, myself included, continue to examine these misguiding people because they sooooooo affected the thinking of sooooo many!

Btw, I have not watched the video above. I don't think I could stomach it right now. Maybe in the near future. Anyhow, thanks for the thread. It is valuable.

[enfoldedblue]

To me it seems like an unbalanced perspective ... yes the individual is important and should be allowed to their dreams ... but when community as a whole is sacrificed to that end .... society can become very ugly. I think an approach that balances the desires of the individual with the needs of the community as whole would be a much healthier model.

Yep, balance. But I would say if we're going to err, we should still err on the side of the individual. After all, individuals are what communities are made up of.

Seems like this is what we have now... I think the whole point of balance is NOT to err on one side or the other ... for that is where the problems lie. Here is a little quote from one of my recent articles:

Humans tend to go to extremes before we settle into balance. Perhaps that is where we are right now. Many of us have found and celebrated our individuality but lost a sense of connection and belonging. Fortunately there’s no reason we have to choose one or the other
With such high levels of social dissatisfaction, despondency, and disconnection form each other and the natural world we are likely currently seeing the effects of too much of an emphasis on the individual. We have been 'taught' to see individual and community in dualistic fashion ...but I believe this is part of the problem. Ultimately I don't think it is truly individual VS community... rather individual supported by and in harmony with community...an integrated balance, that benefits both.

Thanks for sharing it is indeed an interesting topic

[CelineK]

Ayan Rand has a few things right.

For many years I have pondered the 'virtue of selfishness' as a theory and think it was well thought at the time. However, no matter how we look at the picture it all comes down to understanding the meaning of Creation as opposed to Fear, and war by the same token. And from there the problem of being ruled which can only grow exponentially because the fear factor will always be the main tool of the powers that be to further control.

Fear is also an expression of the reptilian brain, thus strictly primitive. This leads us to darwin and the mindset of the survival of the fittest which has subverted everything we can think of. Man is just not an animal because of his ability to conceive a greater reality and the purpose the act of Creation if he really wants to... it is a choice that animals will never have. Moreover, man cannot even behave like an animal, instinctively, because when he does he becomes worse than animal to the point to even destroy his own environment and become a threat to his entire own species. Animals do not have the dominion over Nature.

Society has always been sociopathic because Fear has always been the name of the game, and as long as we ignore it as a species, things will get worst before they get better. There is nothing wrong with self-interest if such mechanisms and premises are understood. But self-interest can go really bad as soon as Darwinism enters the picture.

Darwin has greatly influenced academia, especially monetary science and free market theories (the fittest help society prosper), but when able to assess the facts, it is obvious that competition itself that led us to this impasse. My point is that any society that endorses competition as a framework will eventually self-destruct. There are many societies that went through this and it is kinda discombobulating that the consensus keeps embracing the same faulty paradigms always leading to the same aftermaths.

Profits are based on planned obsolescence, buy low sell high. How can you have a system that produced EXACTLY what is consumed when profits are involved? For example, today global food waste amounts to 50% of production. Morality starts first by accepting that ruling the world for the sake of profits/power is the direct result of competition. Competition will forever prompts collusion and corrupts voluntaryism in humans, people to do things they hate for the sake money. The free market theory is a mere fantasy.

Although competition breeds fears and will forever cause scarcity (result of speculation and hoarding, what capitalism is really about ) therefore, the dilemma is very deep because empathy (generosity/benevolence/etc) cannot be commanded, which is why Ayan Rand was against altruism. The business of humanitarianism is not only a failure but a deception.

Yes, Empathy is the way, the only problem is how do we get there when Darwin has already done so much damage?

My stance today, and considering the advances of robotics and computers becoming more powerful by the day, is that society should go money-free. It is hard to see how profits can be made when more than 60% of population will no longer have a job. We cannot allow WW3 to resolved that.

[risveglio]

Rand was a libertarian

I have not read any Rand yet though I do have some of her books on my shelf that I planned to read to try to understand where the differences lie but she certainly would not want to be called a libertarian.

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-11-29/ayn-rand-was-not-libertarian

Rothbard called Objectivism a cult, Rand probably said the same of libertarians.



My stance today, and considering the advances of robotics and computers becoming more powerful by the day, is that society should go money-free. It is hard to see how profits can be made when more than 60% of population will no longer have a job. We cannot allow WW3 to resolved that.

As someone very involved in robotics and computers, I don't see how you think they can lead to a money-free society.

What is money?
WfXnFJL9ldk

[TargeT]

I care not who delivers ideas, I care about the ideas (and so should you) this logical fallacy (Ad hominem) is one of the most common and is very damaging to discourse.

This quote of yours, TargetT is insulting to me in the extreme. You have no idea what my capacity for logic is or the extent to which I have inquired into the workings of my own brain, my own life and my own sense of reason.


I'm sorry you projected emotion on to my observation of logic use (a topic that is, at its best, nearly devoid of emotion). I did not intend it as an insult and my use of the word "should" is grammatically accurate (as it was a criticism of your use of the logical fallacy Ad Hominem (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Ad+homeniem) which I thought you had, perhaps, unintentionally used... I didn't know you purposefully used it.)




She said the individual should "exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself."
......
My read: she objected, quite rightly, to the tyranny of 'the collective'. The trouble is, she did so by embracing the tyranny of 'the individual' instead.

your read and her quote don't line up with me, Tyranny cannot exist with out others sacrificing to the individual.. something she does NOT support.


Here's a portion of an interview transcript with Ayn Rand and Phil Donahue:

PD: ....I have dictatorial power over people and I can name the price of bacon, or the price of oil, or whatever it is the commodity I’m selling.

AR:.... In a free society, nobody can become a monopolist or a dictator. The system itself, the free market, will destroy you.

PD: How do you explain Mobil oil, Exxon? How do you explain the prices they’re able to charge for oil?


Free market is the key word there.. Exxon and Mobil Oil do not exist in a free market.. they pay no taxes and receive huge government subsidies; that exchange proved her point even more for the discerning listener (IMO).




Think of it like construction.

you wouldn't build a house on a foundation of bundles of old beer cans and used condoms would you?

how can a society be built with out solid individuals? Look at our society today, we do NOT focus on the individual (we focus on materialism, it's completely different).

"self help" books were looked down on by a lot of people and the but of many jokes in society... yet those should be the most valued books in a society (IMO).

There's no way you are going to take what we have today (a collection of joe and jane sixpack CNN/FOX watchers) and build a society that is healthy. The individual, the FOUNDATION of a society must be solid; this is why John Galt in Atlas shrugged had a break away SOCIETY not break away individual.

the nuances of her philosophy really are found in her writings

and there's these videos (HOURS of watching, if you care to)

t-2c7Keic_A



Rand was a libertarian

I have not read any Rand yet though I do have some of her books on my shelf that I planned to read to try to understand where the differences lie but she certainly would not want to be called a libertarian.

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-11-29/ayn-rand-was-not-libertarian

Rothbard called Objectivism a cult, Rand probably said the same of libertarians.

very true, it was a bad label, but one widely understood (and frankly not too far from Rands theories)

[Curt]

I have not read any Rand yet though I do have some of her books on my shelf that I planned to read to try to understand where the differences lie but she certainly would not want to be called a libertarian.

True. In fact, here's the text from the link you've provided above:

Quoting Rand: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

[TargeT]

I have not read any Rand yet though I do have some of her books on my shelf that I planned to read to try to understand where the differences lie but she certainly would not want to be called a libertarian.

True. In fact, here's the text from the link you've provided above:


The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.[/I]

haha, maybe this is due to the movement at the time? these things seem a bit fluid. I'm comfortable with the label of anarcho-capitalist & the concept of rational self-interest seems to line up with it (at least the modern teachings).


Ayn's political thoughts (she was pro-government as long as the laws were rational and objectively applied, which I do not think is possible) and rational self-interest are two different topics however; I'll adapt her philosophy with my scummy anarchocapitialist tendencies... so far it's worked well for me ;)

here's a video JUST on objective-ism (the previous was historical context).

-3dY2K97uuI

[araucaria]

...it is actually the scum that rises to the top.
This might be no bad thing: see here: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?79735-Rich-people-have-feelings-too&p=931826&viewfull=1#post931826

[Curt]

Thanks, Target-

I will check out the videos you've posted.

There is some wisdom in her thinking, I can't deny it.

Many thanks for bringing your perspective to the party. It's much appreciated.

Likewise, everyone else who's contributed. I've really enjoyed the discussion.

I hope others have as well.

[TargeT]

Thanks, Target-

I will check out the videos you've posted.

There is some wisdom in her thinking, I can't deny it.

Many thanks for bringing your perspective to the party. It's much appreciated.

Likewise, everyone else who's contributed. I've really enjoyed the discussion.

I hope others have as well.

she's been systematically attacked through out the years & I don't know why (but my conspiratorial mind twitches!)

Rand is basically a rerun of Aristotle, look up Aristotle's philosophies on objective-ism... Rand focuses a bit more on the individual, Aristotle focuses a bit more on community but they are both speaking the same thing.

it seems that Rand was used as a proxy to attack Aristotle's ideals ( because it's almost impossible to attack Aristotle and be taken seriously).

That's my take on the Rand situation... she's been scooped up into the LEFT / RIGHT paradigm due to her popularity as a writer & her philosophy skewed in an attempt to smear...


Unless you're REALLY interested in Rand's motivation I'd skip the first video (it's just historical context, though it CLEARLY shows the motivation for Ayn's writings) the second is a good one for this thread.... I'm a big fan of Stefan Molyneux (https://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot) and his "the truth about" videos... he does amazing research (stay at home dad's can do that, I'm jealous).

[Mike]

self interest vs the 'collective' is often a circular debate that finds its participants feeling misrepresented and lost in semantics.

in my opinion, its the usual one dimensional approach that fosters this dynamic. when the dimension of spirituality is involved, it gets a little more coherent. i don't believe this discussion can evolve in an authentic way if it is only discussed intellectually.

i truly believe that we are one...not as some woo woo new age thing, but as a very real, concrete, scientific concept. 'the holographic universe' helped me see the practicality in this idea, and took all the mystery out of it. the universe is one giant interference pattern. we are all whirls or eddies in the stream, so to speak...but we are all still the stream.

viewed from this perspective, self interest and the interest of the collective are always going to be the same. it may not always be readily apparent, but this truism always reveals itself eventually (karma, anyone?)

one may argue that a stock broker stealing millions or billions from his clients disproves my point. and here we may get lost in semantics...as notions of 'good' and 'bad' differ greatly when considered from a spiritual viewpoint vs a 1 dimensional viewpoint. i would counter that what the stockbroker did did not benefit him spiritually..or at the deepest level..and therefore no paradox occurs.

at the deeper levels, one cannot hurt oneself without hurting the collective; one cannot benefit oneself without benefiting the collective. seen from our very limited view this doesnt seem to make sense, but it really does. at least thats my view..

ive never read Rand. frankly, atlas shrugged is way too long. 1000 pages is just obnoxious. i/m not intellectually lazy, i'm intellectually practical. nothing against Rand...i have read some very long books (crime n punishment/ brother kazermerov etc) and have basically felt the same way about them. my feeling is that if you can't get it in in under 250 pages, youve bloated and smothered the point of the thing in too much mayonnaise. the true 'art' is taking a complex idea and making it as simple as possible...my 2 cents anyway

hey cool thread Curt!

[Daughter of Time]

However, what I also believe- which Rand explicitly does not- is that 'self-interest', in order for it to be 'rational', or ultimately 'self-interested', must include a fundamental awareness of other people's needs within the given system.


can you link to a quote or statement that supports that? I have not found that to be the case. .

Rand fundamentally rejected the notion that an individual should be required (morally, ethically) to consider notions of 'community' or 'the common good' when making decisions.

Instead, she believed in a strictly laissez-faire system where competing interests would balance each other out. Competing interests would check and balance each other.

From Good old Wikpedia: In ethics, Rand argued for rational and ethical egoism (rational self-interest), as the guiding moral principle. She said the individual should "exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself."[114] She referred to egoism as "the virtue of selfishness" in her book of that title,[115] in which she presented her solution to the is-ought problem by describing a meta-ethical theory that based morality in the needs of "man's survival qua man".[116] She condemned ethical altruism as incompatible with the requirements of human life and happiness,[9] and held that the initiation of force was evil and irrational, writing in Atlas Shrugged that "Force and mind are opposites."[117]

Rand's political philosophy emphasized individual rights (including property rights),[118] and she considered laissez-faire capitalism the only moral social system because in her view it was the only system based on the protection of those rights.[4] She opposed statism, which she understood to include theocracy, absolute monarchy, Nazism, fascism, communism, democratic socialism, and dictatorship.[119] Rand believed that natural rights should be enforced by a constitutionally limited government.[120] Although her political views are often classified as conservative or libertarian, she preferred the term "radical for capitalism". She worked with conservatives on political projects, but disagreed with them over issues such as religion and ethics.[121] She denounced libertarianism, which she associated with anarchism.[122] She rejected anarchism as a naïve theory based in subjectivism that could only lead to collectivism in practice.[123]

My read: she objected, quite rightly, to the tyranny of 'the collective'. The trouble is, she did so by embracing the tyranny of 'the individual' instead.

Here's a portion of an interview transcript with Ayn Rand and Phil Donahue:

PD: How do you avoid… let’s take your thesis then and accept it. Now I’m going to be selfish. You know what I’m going to do? I’m going to be real talented, and charismatic, and I’m going to develop a lot of wealth, and I’m going to have a lot of money and a lot of banks, and pretty soon nobody is going to be able to compete with me because I’ve already purchased all my competitors. And now I have dictatorial power over people and I can name the price of bacon, or the price of oil, or whatever it is the commodity I’m selling.

AR: You know I agree with you that you are very talented, and you can accomplish a great deal and already have, but you are talking about the impossible. In a free society, nobody can become a monopolist or a dictator. The system itself, the free market, will destroy you.

PD: How do you explain Mobil oil, Exxon? How do you explain the prices they’re able to charge for oil?

{Audience applause}

Here's the full video of the interview. In it she makes some admittedly good points: 3u8Jjth81_Q

That was a very good interview! And she does make some excellent points!

While I do agree with her views on religion, it is not quite as simple as she makes it to be. While we are not born with any original sin, we are born with a great deal of conditioning, implanting and imprinting, which is not mentioned at all. How could it be, in a philosophy such as Ms. Rand's?

And she does not tolerate being criticized nor disagreed with. That is a sign of a dictator.

She's kind of like communism - it works in theory, but not in practice! Mind you, our current system is not working, but it's sort of throwing a wrench in the elitists' agenda, whereas her system, I feel, feeds the elitists' agenda, with absolutely no compassion for any suffering being.

And while I do agree that self sacrifice is not a quality to aspire to, it is human to be humane - a quality which she completely lacks! I wonder if she's human at all!

There's a small part of me that somewhat admires a small part of her. But I still don't like her and I certainly don't trust her.

[ozmirage]

Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” suffered from a fatal flaw - attacking the “Left” and its dehumanizing subservience to the State - without recognizing the “other gang.”

What is the nature of the “other gang?”

Like socialist slavers and slave owners of the past, they seek to enjoy the benefits of other people’s labor without equitable trade.

Contrary to widespread belief, the “Capitalists” (bankers and stock corporations) are NOT truly capitalism. They prey upon capitalism. In fact, under America’s definition of private property, the true capitalists are those who absolutely own themselves, their lands, and their enterprises, that they use to harmlessly support their endowed right to life. A farmer who absolutely owns his farm is a capitalist by right. A corporation that has qualified ownership (a privilege) of a farm is not capitalism.

Capitalism can never be a government granted privilege. For if it was, there could not be “FREE” enterprise. It would forever be constrained and delimited by government - and those who surreptitiously control it.

The real capitalists are victims of twin forces : money madness and usury. Those who use money madness and usury to compel others to work and pay a skim are predators that are part of the “other gang.”

The entrepreneur or businessman who takes a skim of his laborers, as profit, is not in the same category as the usurers who take a skim of their debtors. A business operates by generating a profit from the creation and trade of usable goods and services. A usurer gains profit from loaning / investing his money tokens, and endlessly skimming interest until repaid. The two are widely different.

A business can operate outside of money madness, whereas usury can not. Unless there is a need for money, imposed by government or custom, money madness cannot operate. And without scarcity of money and demand, the usurers cannot prosper at our expense. That is the crucial element missing from the narrative of the anti-left.

And based on the world supply of gold, approx. 5.6 billion ounces, when divided among 7 billion people, it's obvious that "gold money" is a dead end, unless you're content with an annual median salary of $16.53.

[TargeT]

She's kind of like communism - it works in theory,

so far as I can tell, this is true of ALL philosphy.. and Im pretty sure you comparing her to communisim just made her roll over in her grave... did you know she grew up in "communist" russia as a persecuted jew?



And based on the world supply of gold, approx. 5.6 billion ounces, when divided among 7 billion people, it's obvious that "gold money" is a dead end, unless you're content with an annual median salary of $16.53.

if $16.53 bought you a 6,000 sqFt house, I'd say that's a DAMN fine salary.

You see the "number" is meaningless, a currency for a country could have literally 10 "dollars" per 100,000,000 people you would simply then divide it into fractions (this is how bit coin is working now)... 16.53 annually indicates a VERY strong currency, not a weak one, not a bad one.


I think that Rand's too corrupted by prejudice based on what I have seen on this thread... I am seeing a lot of typed conjecture and baseless (as far as facts go) pejorative comments.



If you disagree with aristotle, that's fine; that means you agree with the left and collectivism at least to some degree and you will abhor Rand's philosophy.


welcome to an indoctrinated world I suppose.

[Curt]

Here's another good interview with Ayn Rand and PD.

Apologies for my vid selections being Donahue-heavy, but these interviews are easy to listen to and aren't too heavy.

rydsea_Y8xI

[Ernie Nemeth]

I have read all of Rand's books, like I always do with any good writer I run Across. Her Atlas Shrugged was a fantastic book. "Who is John Galt?"...

Her work is intriguing from many perspectives, not only philosophical. Her philosophy is no earth-shattering revelation. It has the markings of many earlier philosophers like Goethe, Nietche and Marx. Her rational self-interest is the model of today's oligarchs. And her breakaway society (that's where John Galt is) is an analogy for the breakaway society we actually have today, as we are all learning here at Avalon.

Her philosophy cannot work in our debt-ridden society, where there is no true free market but only regions of economic self-interest and monopoly propped up by guns and bombs.

That's the essence of it. That is also the true reason for the breakaway society. In order for the elite of any area of endeavor to have rational self-interest work for them, there must be unfettered competition. That cannot happen in our society where vested interests will force the issue to unravel before it can start.

Although Rand comes down hard on the worker, she acknowledges the need for them. And this is where she errs. For although she understands that rational self-interest is the only way forward she fails to recognize that the worker is a product of his environment. The worker learns what he is taught. If what he is taught is incorrect, his thinking will be flawed (be careful how much emphasis you put on logic and rationality for this very reason). In a truly just society of truly sentient beings, well, we wouldn't even be having this discussion because we'd be too caught up in our own healthily selfish lives.

So remember the context of her philosophy. And remember that we are not yet civilized, and we are not yet fully sentient. Then her words will make more sense. But unlike her, remember to keep the context straight throughout your argument. We are talking within the context of our society, which is evil to its core, full of childish self interests of a few very powerful men, and based on scarcity and debt.

[ozmirage]

And based on the world supply of gold, approx. 5.6 billion ounces, when divided among 7 billion people, it's obvious that "gold money" is a dead end, unless you're content with an annual median salary of $16.53.

if $16.53 bought you a 6,000 sqFt house, I'd say that's a DAMN fine salary.
I forgot to mention that the dollar value is based on the Coinage Act of 1792.

Double Eagle = coin containing 0.9675 ounce (troy) of gold bullion and other alloys. Equivalent to 20 unit dollars.

World supply of gold bullion (est) 5.6 billion ounces.
If coined, pursuant to the Coinage Act of 1792, would compute to
$115,762,273,901.81
$115.7 billion dollars
divided among 7 billion people, computes to
$16.53 per capita

- - - -
But the REAL PROBLEM with "hard money" is that it is finite and scarce. Though one might subdivide it into tiny units, it acts to STRANGLE trade. Worse, people become accustomed to using it as a yardstick to measure all trade.

Barter is infinite, not constrained by money.
Population growth means increase in labor pool.
Labor multiplied by tools and machinery means ever greater output of goods and services.

SO WHY ARE WE GROWING POORER?

[head smack]
Because we are being STRANGLED by scarcity of money - 'tis madness.

Due to money madness, there is an inexplicable situation :
[] Unmet need / demand,
[] unemployed / underemployed people,
[] closed factories, retailers, industries.

If one inquires as to the cause of this dilemma, most would answer: “Not enough money!”

Contrary to widespread indoctrination, money is not prosperity, and poverty is not caused by a lack of money. If money was the cure for poverty, simply crediting everyone with 22 billion billion quatloos would eliminate the “need” for money, ever again. Wealth equality! But if no one “needs” money, who will labor, sweat, work, manufacture, transport, and trade? Obviously, our society is corrupted by the “need” for money - deliberately controlled in value and volume - that strangles trade by its scarcity.

Our civilization must GROW beyond the madness of "needing money" to facilitate trade and generate prosperity.

We must realize that we all must work, trade equitably and contribute because that is what CIVILIZED PEOPLES do.

[risveglio]

EDIT 4:22



But the REAL PROBLEM with "hard money" is that it is finite and scarce. Though one might subdivide it into tiny units, it acts to STRANGLE trade. Worse, people become accustomed to using it as a yardstick to measure all trade.

Barter is infinite, not constrained by money.
Population growth means increase in labor pool.
Labor multiplied by tools and machinery means ever greater output of goods and services.

SO WHY ARE WE GROWING POORER?

[head smack]
Because we are being STRANGLED by scarcity of money - 'tis madness.


Maybe but it is constrained by need. If I make the food and you make the shoes and I don't need anymore shoes, do you starve? Money is just a tool, why can't we get that?

Now, the reason for the edit is I don't understand what you are trying to say here. You say the problem with "hard money" is that it is finite and scarce and that it hinders trade (not sure I get that). Then you talk about barter which is still legal in the US except in the case of sex and drugs 'I think'. And then you leap to the problem is we have "scarcity of money"?

Maybe we would have a scarcity of "money" (not sure we are talking about the same thing) if we had hard money, but we do not have hard money. Closest thing we have is converting your us dollar to tax free metal.

So, we definitely do not have a "scarcity of money", Believe me if we had a scarcity of money, Italian grandmothers would be very rich.


SO WHY ARE WE GROWING POORER?

Fact is, the big WE is not growing poorer. Global poverty is at an all time low.




Contrary to widespread indoctrination, money is not prosperity, and poverty is not caused by a lack of money. If money was the cure for poverty, simply crediting everyone with 22 billion billion quatloos would eliminate the “need” for money, ever again. Wealth equality! But if no one “needs” money, who will labor, sweat, work, manufacture, transport, and trade? Obviously, our society is corrupted by the “need” for money - deliberately controlled in value and volume - that strangles trade by its scarcity.

Our civilization must GROW beyond the madness of "needing money" to facilitate trade and generate prosperity.

We must realize that we all must work, trade equitably and contribute because that is what CIVILIZED PEOPLES do.



Ok, this now makes a little sense, I am pretty sure we are not talking about the same thing. "MONEY" is really just a tool but you think just because we are civilized you will get people working without money? Why?

Who does the dirty jobs, the dangerous jobs, the jobs that require decisions that could save a life or lives, the jobs that require ridiculous hours, how do you do this without money unless you create some authoritarian world? For the most part, the market has been good about making our lives better and over time, it reaches even the poorest of the poor.

[ozmirage]

"MONEY" is really just a tool but you think just because we are civilized you will get people working without money? Why?

Widespread indoctrination teaches us to believe that money is 'just a tool'.
It is - but a tool to dominate and conquer.

Let me illustrate the dilemma.

As often stated, money is a means to ACCOUNT for trade. We evaluate different items and services to MONEY, as a convenience.

OKAY.

Imaginary situation where a shepherd wants to 'account' for his sheep with official shekels, which are borrowed into existence, at usury, and are finite.
Can he make a count that is HIGHER than the sum of all shekels?

No.

That is the paradox inherent in making any "thing" a representation (abstract) for the whole set of real goods and services. No one-to-one correlation. And since money is static, while the marketplace changes, the money scarcity CHOKES trade, forcing some to lower prices (lose) in order to get some scarce money.

Now, to your other issue about facilitating trade when barter (which is unbound) is insufficient, consider private money tokens (aka promissory notes) denominated in goods and services (not money).

Only producers (laborers and enterprises) can emit private money with which to 'buy' their goods and services. In essence, everything for sale has equivalent private money with which to buy it. As to the relative value of said notes, that is up to the marketplace. No government nor bankers can meddle.

A laborer issues a note denominated in 8 hours of labor and trades it for groceries, pays bills, etc.
An employer might buy / trade for that note and tender it to the laborer, thus 'hiring' him to do labor. When discharged, the note is extinguished... unless the obligated party issues it again.

An entrepreneur may issue notes denominated in his business's product to buy raw materials, and pay labor. Every holder of his note is a prospective customer - no advertising needed. When he discharges all his notes, any further sales are pure profit, since his costs were embodied in the original outlay of notes. He can buy more raw materials with his profits or issue more notes, but his potential for growth is not constrained by a fight for "a piece of the pie."

You can't have unemployment due to insufficient money, when the unemployed have issued their promises to work into circulation. You want more stuff, you promise to work more. You discharge your obligations - i.e., work more, you have more stuff. No need for public charity.

And once people are able to be productive, equitably trade and enjoy their surplus usable goods and services, prosperity is unleashed.

Best of all, private money is not a revenue taxable government privilege, and thus cannot be hit with an excise tax nor an "income" tax.

[ozmirage]

Fact is, the big WE is not growing poorer. Global poverty is at an all time low.

By what measure?
Money?
LOL
Full bellies?
Nope.
Satisfied people NOT emigrating / invading other countries?
Nope.
Lack of homeless people, living in the streets?
NOPE.

Reality is based on goods and services, not abstract representations of "value" (price) denominated in yellow metal coins or paper with pictures of presidents on them.

Prosperity is not based on money tokens, no matter what their form is.

Prosperity is based on production, trade and enjoyment of surplus usable goods and services. Doing more with less so more can enjoy is superior to doing less with more so few can enjoy.

Moneyless societies (aka "primitive cultures") are not fooled by money madness.

If money was the cure for poverty, simply crediting everyone with 22 billion billion quatloos would eliminate the “need” for money, ever again. Wealth equality! But if no one “needs” money, who will labor, sweat, work, manufacture, transport, and trade? Obviously, our society is corrupted by the “need” for money - deliberately controlled in value and volume - that strangles trade by its scarcity.

Ironically, the wealthiest rely on our madness to be able to acquire all they want without offering equitable trade in labor / property.

<MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL>
Frankly, try to imagine crime and vice where money does not exist. Thieves can't fence stolen property at a discount - because there is no anonymous money. Prostitutes can't "sell" their services - no money. They might become concubines (provided food, shelter, raiment) but without money, they can't be prostitutes.

Can you gamble away a fortune, when there is no money? Nor can a gambling house take a "cut" of the action. Nor can you have usury, charging a fee, in money, for the loan of money.

ATLAS SHRUGGED - but you shouldn't.

Ayn Rand's philosophy, in "Atlas Shrugged" embraced money madness (gold coin) and usury (banking and stock corporations) which voided all her attempts to remedy the economic nightmare in her fictional world as well as the real world.

[ozmirage]

So, we definitely do not have a "scarcity of money", Believe me if we had a scarcity of money, Italian grandmothers would be very rich.

I do not believe you.
Here are the facts.

Based on the Coinage Act of 1792 - - -
Double Eagle = coin containing 0.9675 ounce (troy) of gold bullion and other alloys. Equivalent to 20 unit dollars.

World supply of gold bullion (est) 5.9 billion ounces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold
183,600 tonnes x 32151 =5,902,923,600 troy ounces
If coined, pursuant to the Coinage Act of 1792, would compute to
● 122,024,260,465.11
● $122 billion dollars
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
As of 1/29/2015, there are 7,398,289,733 people (est)
Thus when divided among 7.4 billion people, computes to
● $16.49 per capita

Remember, dollars are not "dollar bills" (I.O.U.s denominated in dollars).
Federal Reserve Notes have no par value (worthless).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_position_of_the_United_States

". . . The financial position of the United States includes assets of at least $269.6 trillion and debts of $145.8 trillion to produce a net worth of at least $123.8 trillion."

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12773.htm
Q: How much U.S. currency is in circulation?
A: There was approximately $1.39 trillion in circulation as of September 30, 2015, of which $1.34 trillion was in Federal Reserve notes.
● per capita share of “dollar bills” is $4,158.76

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
● 2014 Federal Deficit : $1,086 billion
● 2014 Debt Service : $229 billion
(approx. 18% of all circulating money is paid to the creditor, yearly)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_States_federal_budget
● 2015 Federal Budget $3.58 trillion (expenditures)
● 2015 Federal Deficit $ 438.9 billion (borrowed)
● . . . versus . . .
● $1.34 trillion in circulation.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2015-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2015-BUD.pdf
● 2015 Federal Deficit $312 billion (estimate)
● 2015 Debt Service $252 billion (estimate)
● 2015 Unified budget deficit $564 billion (estimate)
● 2015 Gross Domestic Product $18,454 billion (estimate)
● . . . versus . . .
● $1.34 trillion in circulation.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 21 Jan 2016 at 03:35:36 AM GMT is:
$18,943,579,060,629.66
● The estimated population of the United States is 322,211,477
● per capita share of this debt is $58,792.38.

>> The amount of "legal tender" in circulation is $1.34 trillion.
>> The Federal government spends $3.6 trillion.
>> It borrowed $312 billion and paid $0.25 trillion in interest.
>> The National Debt is 102% of the GDP
>> $18+ trillion owed (public debt), $1.34 trillion in circulation
>> $145.8 trillion owed (private debt), $1.34 trillion in circulation
>> Dollar bills are worthless I.O.U.s
>> No more than $112 billion real dollars are possible.

SOMETHING.DOES.NOT.COMPUTE.

LEGAL TENDER STATUS
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

". . .Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves..."

Since new FRNs are borrowed, at interest, into existence, more "money" is need to pay interest owed. Which means Congress has to borrow MORE to create the IOUs needed to pay outstanding debt. (Congress is in effect borrowing more than it pays in interest, just like Bernie Madoff did in the private sector.)

WE DEFINITELY DO HAVE A "SCARCITY OF MONEY" PROBLEM.

If / when "all debts are called due," just about every debtor is TOAST.
When this music stops, there are not enough chairs.

[Insert favorite expletive here]

[Tangri]

I read Atlas Shrugged, that's the only book from A. Rand I've read.

Based on that book I disagree with your assessment.

Target,

I agree with a good portion of what you're saying.

I believe in the individual. Very strongly. And I believe that the individual must be free to pursue his or her own rational self-interest.

Those with greater ability will get greater rewards for their efforts. No problems there. And leaders do arise organically based upon merit. Again, no problem. In fact, there's not a better way to do it.

However, what I also believe- which Rand explicitly does not- is that 'self-interest', in order for it to be 'rational', or ultimately 'self-interested', must include a fundamental awareness of other people's needs within the given system.

If not- based upon the unequal distribution of talents in our species- tyranny is virtually guaranteed. And so is the revolution that would inevitably come to 'correct' said tyranny.

I would really like to see this (your) comment on Denmark's new law thread. It definitely deserves its quotation there.

[risveglio]

So, we definitely do not have a "scarcity of money", Believe me if we had a scarcity of money, Italian grandmothers would be very rich.

I do not believe you.
Here are the facts.

Based on the Coinage Act of 1792 - - -
Double Eagle = coin containing 0.9675 ounce (troy) of gold bullion and other alloys. Equivalent to 20 unit dollars.

World supply of gold bullion (est) 5.9 billion ounces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold
183,600 tonnes x 32151 =5,902,923,600 troy ounces
If coined, pursuant to the Coinage Act of 1792, would compute to
● 122,024,260,465.11
● $122 billion dollars
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
As of 1/29/2015, there are 7,398,289,733 people (est)
Thus when divided among 7.4 billion people, computes to
● $16.49 per capita

Remember, dollars are not "dollar bills" (I.O.U.s denominated in dollars).
Federal Reserve Notes have no par value (worthless).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_position_of_the_United_States

". . . The financial position of the United States includes assets of at least $269.6 trillion and debts of $145.8 trillion to produce a net worth of at least $123.8 trillion."

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12773.htm
Q: How much U.S. currency is in circulation?
A: There was approximately $1.39 trillion in circulation as of September 30, 2015, of which $1.34 trillion was in Federal Reserve notes.
● per capita share of “dollar bills” is $4,158.76

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
● 2014 Federal Deficit : $1,086 billion
● 2014 Debt Service : $229 billion
(approx. 18% of all circulating money is paid to the creditor, yearly)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_States_federal_budget
● 2015 Federal Budget $3.58 trillion (expenditures)
● 2015 Federal Deficit $ 438.9 billion (borrowed)
● . . . versus . . .
● $1.34 trillion in circulation.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2015-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2015-BUD.pdf
● 2015 Federal Deficit $312 billion (estimate)
● 2015 Debt Service $252 billion (estimate)
● 2015 Unified budget deficit $564 billion (estimate)
● 2015 Gross Domestic Product $18,454 billion (estimate)
● . . . versus . . .
● $1.34 trillion in circulation.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 21 Jan 2016 at 03:35:36 AM GMT is:
$18,943,579,060,629.66
● The estimated population of the United States is 322,211,477
● per capita share of this debt is $58,792.38.

>> The amount of "legal tender" in circulation is $1.34 trillion.
>> The Federal government spends $3.6 trillion.
>> It borrowed $312 billion and paid $0.25 trillion in interest.
>> The National Debt is 102% of the GDP
>> $18+ trillion owed (public debt), $1.34 trillion in circulation
>> $145.8 trillion owed (private debt), $1.34 trillion in circulation
>> Dollar bills are worthless I.O.U.s
>> No more than $112 billion real dollars are possible.

SOMETHING.DOES.NOT.COMPUTE.

LEGAL TENDER STATUS
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

". . .Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves..."

Since new FRNs are borrowed, at interest, into existence, more "money" is need to pay interest owed. Which means Congress has to borrow MORE to create the IOUs needed to pay outstanding debt. (Congress is in effect borrowing more than it pays in interest, just like Bernie Madoff did in the private sector.)

WE DEFINITELY DO HAVE A "SCARCITY OF MONEY" PROBLEM.

If / when "all debts are called due," just about every debtor is TOAST.
When this music stops, there are not enough chairs.

[Insert favorite expletive here]

The dollar you describe above stopped being "money" in '71. This entire post makes no sense, your entire argument makes no sense. I'm done.

[ozmirage]

The dollar you describe above stopped being "money" in '71. This entire post makes no sense, your entire argument makes no sense. I'm done.
We're all victims of the world's greatest propaganda ministry, so this material may be distressing. Perhaps you were unaware of the definitions of money, real money and debt.

= = = "Dollar bills" = = =


TITLE 12, USC sec. 411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption
" Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in LAWFUL MONEY on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."


The dollar bill (FRN) is an IOU, issued on the authority of Congress to BORROW money.
Ahem - where's the lawful money lent to the Congress?


LAWFUL MONEY - "The terms 'lawful money' and 'lawful money of the United States' shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States..."
Title 12 United States Code, Sec. 152.

"Dollars, or units; each to be of the value of a Spanish milled as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four-sixteenths parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard, silver."

"Eagles each to be of the value of ten dollars or units, and to contain two hundred and forty-seven grains and four eighths of a grain of pure, or two hundred and seventy grains of standard gold."
--- Sec. 9, Coinage Act of 1792, January 1792

REAL MONEY - Money which has real metallic, intrinsic value as distinguished from paper currency, checks and drafts.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p. 1264

MONEY - In usual and ordinary acceptation it means coins and paper currency used as a circulating medium of exchange, and does not embrace notes, bonds, evidences of debt, or other personal or real estate. Lane v. Railey, 280 Ky. 319, 133 S.W. 2d 74, 79, 81.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p. 1005

NOTE - An instrument containing an express and absolute promise of signer (i.e. maker) to pay to a specified person or order, or bearer, a definite sum of money at a specified time. An instrument that is a promise to pay other than a certificate of deposit. U.C.C. 3-104(2)(d)
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p. 1060

TENDER - An offer of money ... Legal tender is that kind of coin, money, or circulating medium which the law compels a creditor to accept in payment of his debt, when tendered by the debtor in the right amount.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p. 1467

As you can plainly read - dollar bills - being NOTES - are NOT MONEY.
They are only legal tender on the obligated party of those notes - the Federal government. . . AND the 313 million enumerated socialists.
Real paper currency are certificates (silver or gold).


"Federal reserve notes are legal tender in absence of objection thereto."
MacLeod v. Hoover (1925) 159 La 244, 105 So. 305


All duly enumerated American socialists cannot object to the tender of the notes that THEY are obligated parties to. (thanks to FICA)


Recapping:
* Lawful money = gold / silver coin (aka real money)
* Money = lawful money or currency (i.e., certificates which are receipts for real money in the vault)
* Notes are not money, by law.
* Notes were never "backed" by precious metal. If they were, they'd be certificates (receipts).

Since 1933, no dollars have circulated, no one has "paid debt", no one has alienated property, everyone is presumed to be a bankrupt.

STATE OF EMERGENCY
. . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_emergency#United_States

As of October 2014, thirty states of emergency remain in effect, one reaching as far back as the Roosevelt Administration.

United States, Senate Report 93-549 states: "That since March 09, 1933 the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." Proclamation No. 2039 declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 9, 1933. This declared national emergency has never been revoked and has been codified into the US Code (12 U.S.C. 95a and b).
. . . .

Senate Report 93-549
https://archive.org/stream/senate-report-93-549/senate-report-93-549_djvu.txt
War and Emergency Powers Acts
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (as of the report 1933-1973), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."

FREEDOMS ... GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION ... HAVE BEEN ABRIDGED BY LAWS ... UNDER EMERGENCY RULE ...

Constitutional U.S.A. (1787 - 1933) R.I.P.

. . .
Americans have lived under a two party perpetually indebted benevolent communist totalitarian police state dictatorship* using emergency rules for 83 years (as of 2016) ... and still haven't a clue that the constitutional government has been dead since 1933.

(* Title 12 USC sec. 95(a), 95(b) grants pre-approved powers to the president and the secretary of treasury during this “emergency.” BTW - the secretary of treasury is also the U.S. governor of the World Bank, IMF, etc, etc, and shall not be paid by the U.S. government. Title 22 USC Sec. 286a(d)1. He is paid by the fiduciary agent - the Federal Reserve corporation. Connect the dots?)

You'll have to read law for yourself, because if I told you all the details, you would not believe me. How could Americans fall for such scoundrels and sell themselves and their children into slavery?

[Ewan]

Well this was a great thread, thoroughly enjoyed it, though it seems to have skewed off onto other, (equally interesting), paths now.

My personal feeling is always seeking towards a balance. Advocating the collective or the individual in an ascending scale is going to result in errors, the further up or down the scales you go the more obvious the errors will become. This has been apparent in every civilisation, or political system, that has been encountered to date.

Even if another Rand came along tomorrow with the perfect system it would be highly unlikely to work. For it to work everyone would have to have 100% understanding of every nuance of the philosophy, and that is never going to happen.

Until we realise that collectively we are one species, with one home, and that all other divisions, be they cultural, religious or political, takes a remote second place to that fact, we will not rise above our constant ability to self-destruct. Even once achieved the road will be fraught with danger.

I will say this, as my pet subject of musings ongoing for over a decade now, I am utterly convinced there is ZERO need for any form of currency or exchange, not even barter. If that single fact could be thoroughly realised and understood the world would change overnight.

[risveglio]

Your numbers are wonderful and show the corruption of money by government. But, it doesn't seem like it should fit. You really wanted to get in there what you learned, awesome.

What I was asking, which you rambled off on a different topic was how you would have a society without money. I don't think you can without the creation of truly free energy and even then its hard for me to visualize without completely eliminating freedom. I will agree with you that the constitutional definition of "money" does not exist but "money" has been tulips before. Money really is just a tool.

https://mises.org/system/tdf/What%20Has%20Government%20Done%20to%20Our%20Money_3.pdf?file=1&type=document

[awakeningmom]

First, thanks, Curt for the interesting thread – and for your wonderful analogy to the Monopoly game with Little Brother. I loved the visuals – particularly with putting the forsaken Monopoly game in the basement on top of the fridge with the old Polaroids – I know that fridge! We had those Polaroids!

Second, I have to agree with Erthevessel (Post #4) about Ayn Rand and whether her personal craziness/nastiness as a human being should be considered in judging (or trying to interpret) her dense philosophy. While ad hominem attacks on the person ARE used to discredit a person’s otherwise solid ideas and information, I still think it’s natural –and properly self-interested – to consider the source of all ideas and information. For example, if Ayn Rand was truly Rothschild’s mistress – as Daughter of Time (post #11) indicated above, then surely this piece of background information on Rand is relevant to analyzing her ideas for an Uber-Elite society governed by self-interest and to also consider what she (and/or others behind the curtain) meant to achieve by its dissemination. Ideas are put out there for a reason – to influence society. Aren’t the source’s background/personal dealings/personal connections relevant?

The video clip of her first interview with Donahue at the 35:45 mark has Rand encouraging support for a “civilized” Israel over the “savage Arabs.” Now, if she weren’t Rothschild’s mistress, I might have chalked that up to her simply reacting to the main stream media’s version of what was supposedly happening in the Middle East at that time (late 70’s) with the “Arab” plane hijackings, assassinations, kidnappings, etc. But if Rand was truly Rothschild’s mistress, well, that paints a totally different picture about her stated opinions.

I know that’s what an Ad Hominem attack is supposed to do – get people diverted into thinking about the person instead of the ideas – but it seems to me that sometimes the person’s background etc. IS germane to the ideas.

To use another example: this whole call for a cash-less society. It’s often offered by those who are against the current corrupt and fake money system as the solution to many of our problems. But many claim that this idea for a cash-less society actually originates from those who want ultimate control in the first place. If true, is this relevant to whether the idea is a “good” idea for society or not?

[Ernie Nemeth]

Cashless society is not the same as abolishing money outright and supplying people with their needs because they deserve it just like you do.

A cashless society as is being promulgated by the power structure is one where paper money, tangible money, is eliminated and only electronic money is allowed. Money in a computer that cannot be given to your dealer in the alley, or a tip to your doorman to let you into your favorite club.

Electronic money is easier to track and take away from you, that's why they want it implemented.

[ozmirage]

Contrary to popular belief, the government has no power to create money nor give that power to anyone else.
Congress has the power to coin money (stamp bullion) and borrow money. It cannot create bullion. And if it could create money, why need to borrow it?

As to the issue of "needing money," that's part of money madness.

What is needed, when barter is insufficient, is something to "pass value" to a future trade. It could be a private promissory note (i.e., "free coupon"), an entry in a database, or a plastic token. All that matters is that it passes value. . . and is then extinguished. If it exists AFTER passing value, that creates a paradox. Like having your cake -and- eating it. Either you eat your cake (consume it) or you have your cake (hold value).

The important points are:
[] Governments and usurers (bankers) should never be allowed the power to create money, or control its volume and value. They'll skin you alive and demand your gratitude for letting you grow back your skin before they do it again.

[] Only producers (laborers and businesses) should have the power to create the medium of exchange needed to trade / buy their output. No parasite nor predator should ever have that power.

[] Optimally, all goods and services available in the marketplace, should have a corresponding medium of exchange with which to trade/buy, so no one is forced to "fight for a bigger slice of the money pie." As the marketplace grows, so should the available money tokens for equitable trade.

[] Obviously, our society is not set up to handle "Liberty money" on a large scale at this time. Most likely, it will be limited to small communities - who are the most cash poor, anyway. And it is important to know "creditworthiness" of the note issuers. Those who's word is bond, will prosper, as they can spend and work as much as they want. Those who are disreputable will be stuck using the flawed scarce money issued by the government, with all the problems that come with it.

There are consequences to unleashing prosperity. The Powers That Be will not take kindly to being financially ruined. So do not be surprised by their opposition to any attempt at money freedom.

[Bill Ryan]

:bump::bump::bump:

[avid]

I’ve noticed lately some of our local shops and pubs are ‘cash only’, and as the banks are closing, we have ‘banking hubs’ that deal with customers of the major banks for cash, cheques, savings etc. Very popular now, and so helpful.

[HopSan]

I’ve noticed lately some of our local shops and pubs are ‘cash only’, and as the banks are closing, we have ‘banking hubs’ that deal with customers of the major banks for cash, cheques, savings etc. Very popular now, and so helpful.

Not quite 'cash only' here, but in every shop I visit, cash is now again natural.
Only a year or three ago, cashiers sometimes wondered what to do.
In our neighbours Sweden and Norway the trend is similar.

Wonderful! I don't know how conscious this all is -- but it is!