Good Read

[dirkterrell]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123146363567166677.html

If you haven't read "Atlas Shrugged", now would be a very good time to do so.

Dirk

[Devaclis]

You lost me at Libertarian....:)

[Shea]

Right wing propaganda. C'mon Dirk seriously, spew your crap somewhere else man...

The collective "common good" as Rand pejoratively puts it, is during economic crises such as these, far more important then individual freedom and liberty. As such we will have to give up some freedom for economic safety and only under the auspices of government can this be achieved.

[dirkterrell]

You lost me at Libertarian....:)

There's a big difference between Libertarian and libertarian. :)

Dirk

[Devaclis]

It was a good read. I have never Read any of Ayns books tho. There are too many DragonLance and Piers Anthony books out there to distract me :)

[dirkterrell]

The collective "common good" as Rand pejoratively puts it, is during economic crises such as these, far more important then individual freedom and liberty. As such we will have to give up some freedom for economic safety and only under the auspices of government can this be achieved.

Yeah, we "paranoid" types just don't get it do we? :)

This was another excellent read:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTVhYTEyMWRmOWIyMGI0M2U0NTVhNmE0NjQ0M2JiZmQ=

Dirk

[Sortarican]

So the writer is basically saying heed Rand's warnings about the perils of big government so that they can solve problems
that were basically caused by lax regulations and laissez faire attitude toward business?:think:
(Yeah, that makes sense......not.)

Don't get me wrong, I've read Atlas, Fountainhead, Anthem, and other Rand novels.
I agree with more of her points than I disagree with.
But besides the ineptitude of goverment crushing the individual and innovation, Rand also points out the same effects being caused by the corruption and unchecked greed of big business.

Government programs worked for the last depression.
(And before anyone says it, yes, a war helped too, but we were already on our way out of it, the war just sped it up a little.)
And with intervension being history's only example it doesn't surprise me that a New-New Deal is being suggested by both parties to some extent.

The real arguement about depression era programs effectiveness compared to a "natural selection" economic approach can't be made.
There's no way to tell what another version of history may have resulted in.
And the only attempt at letting business fix business I can remember was the trickle-down/voodoo policies of Ragan that didn't work.
(Unless you call taking 15 years for things to get slighty better "working".)


..The collective "common good".... (is)... far more important then individual freedom and liberty.....

The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few.
(Unless of course I'm the few, then it's the other way around.)


Yeah, we "paranoid" types just don't get it do we? :)

The great thing about being paranoid is that when it happens you can say "I told you so" and when it doesn't you can say "just wait".

[Shea]

So the writer is basically saying heed Rand's warnings about the perils of big government so that they can solve problems
that were basically caused by lax regulations and laissez faire attitude toward business?:think:
(Yeah, that makes sense......not.)

What can the government do, more efficiently then the private sector Jeff? There is absolutely no incentive for government to be efficient. Look at the endless unbalanced budgets (and Obama is saying 1 TRILLION deficits are the NORM for the foreseeable future)



Don't get me wrong, I've read Atlas, Fountainhead, Anthem, and other Rand novels.
I agree with more of her points than I disagree with.
But besides the ineptitude of goverment crushing the individual and innovation, Rand also points out the same effects being caused by the corruption and unchecked greed of big business.

Yes you are correct in a sense. When business is corrupt and run with unchecked greed, the consumer can choose not to do business with them. In the end they fail (the market is self regulating). When government does the same thing, in conjunction with business (as we are currently experiencing) we have absolutely no recourse.



Government programs worked for the last depression.
(And before anyone says it, yes, a war helped too, but we were already on our way out of it, the war just sped it up a little.)
And with intervension being history's only example it doesn't surprise me that a New-New Deal is being suggested by both parties to some extent.

There is much debate whether or not they "worked" or in actuality prolonged the problem. At no point during his massive consolidation of power in the federal government did his programs ever get unemployment below 14% (not exactly the huge resounding success all the sycophants want us to believe). Nor was the Fed's shrinking of the monetary supply by 1/3 between '29-'33 and doubling taxes, thus completely destroying capital creation (the only sure way to get people back to work). Could go on and on about all the bills signed into law under FDR that did exactly the opposite of what you think they did.

Bottom line, government prolongs economic downturns by heavy handed interference under the guise or "helping" people. The reality is they should let the market correct itself and weed out those corrupt/bad business men/companies/practices.




The real arguement about depression era programs effectiveness compared to a "natural selection" economic approach can't be made.
There's no way to tell what another version of history may have resulted in.

Sure it can be made, in the simplest of terms. Government cannot create anything without destroying something first. Therefore in order to pay for whatever program, fix, entitlement (redistribution) or pork they see as a solution to a problem (real or imagined) they must destroy (through taxation) the labor of others. So capital that would otherwise be put to use in the economy (in the most efficient means available) is redirected to inefficient uses.




And the only attempt at letting business fix business I can remember was the trickle-down/voodoo policies of Ragan that didn't work.
(Unless you call taking 15 years for things to get slighty better "working".)

How is it so easy to demonize letting people keep the wealth that they create? Are we so easily swayed by the notion that someone is cheating us?

Jeff, as above, the more people have in their pockets (regardless of the lefts insatiable desire to define and categorize people) the more they will spend, the more jobs that creates and the more efficiently wealth is created (for all).

You have an idea, you build a company, you provide a good or service that is in demand....you should, by all moral right, be the sole owner of the fruits of that labor.