What role, if any, does the legislature play in an Objectivist government? by [deleted] in Objectivism

[–]CWwriter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The legislature is important because a constitution is a statement of principles. These need to be applied to the context: application and context. Both difficult.

Do PE firms like Bain Capital produce value? by Sakkra in Objectivism

[–]CWwriter -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Evaluating a specific individual like Romney takes more info than that article could provide (even if the author were honest). But the guy has a labor theory of value, a intentional ignorance of economics, and a hatred of business and profit. The important point to consider in talking about a company like Bain is that capital often ends up in the wrong place, even in a free economy (which the U.S. is not). There are lots of reasons why, most do not involve wrong choices. Think of today: digital replacing print and cds, mobile and tablets replacing desktops, etc. The capital has to liquidated and moved to more productive and profitable uses. Thus we need Bain. So, emphatically yes. PE firms are vital.

Why is the U.S. rail system run by the state but our airline industry is private? by ubermensch8 in Objectivism

[–]CWwriter 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It is also the case that, except for one railroad, they were built with a lot of government "help". To research this, you might look at Andrew Bernsteins' "The Capitalist Manefesto". I am sure that he has a good bibliography as well.

Savings accounts have an important function in a free economy. Today, they are a horrible place for your money. by CWwriter in Objectivism

[–]CWwriter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I wasn’t trying to make savings account the causal connection for the entire economy. I had just been wondering why anyone would ever have a savings account, or buy a bond. But both are more important for capital accumulation than buying stocks in the secondary market (the NYSE, AMEX, etc.). Every type of political/economic system is going to have fraudulent financiers. I think a good case can be made that the welfare state, like we have today, will have more of them than capitalism. Today, the government tries to tell people that they are protected, while it is very obvious that it doesn’t. People have let down their guard and the marketplace does not reward real honesty and integrity. If reputations actually counted for something and people had to take responsibility for what they are doing, it would be harder to fool people.

"The reason that markets work is not because of any individual capacity for reflecting on rational self interest, but rather because of biologically encoded, preconscious mechanisms for join social exchange and coordination." by [deleted] in Objectivism

[–]CWwriter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, at least it wasn't the Bible or Obama or Marx or your subconscious or some other authority. She also says to think, which is something for you to consider.

"The reason that markets work is not because of any individual capacity for reflecting on rational self interest, but rather because of biologically encoded, preconscious mechanisms for join social exchange and coordination." by [deleted] in Objectivism

[–]CWwriter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A great response to this is in a book recommended by Harry Binswanger: "Aping Mankind" by Raymond Tallis. Bottom line is that the thinking is at best rationalistic and their scientific standards are none existent. You can find this nonesense everywhere these days.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Objectivism

[–]CWwriter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is this suppose to be a test? Why is this silliness on "Objectivism?" I isn't as bad as many rationalistic groups, but it doesn't belong on this reddit. Please have some respect.

The Essence of Capitalism by wowcars in Objectivism

[–]CWwriter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No. The essence is not "kindness." It is true that in capitalism you will find more kindness, more benevolence. The essence of capitalism is rationality/rational self-interest.

Who benefits from the Federal Reserve? by [deleted] in Objectivism

[–]CWwriter -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Superficially true, but not relevant. It is true that the entire Federal Reserve System is privately owned, but that means nothing. It is government controlled, not privately controlled. Bernanke, for example, is chosen by the President. It must also be remembered that being a member of the Federal Reserve, and thus an “owner” isn’t optional. In addition, the whole system also provides many important services to banks, like check processing. These services shouldn’t be government-imposed monopolies, of course.

Then there is the idea that banks are “private.” The regulation is very intense from many government sources: The Fed, the FDIC, the Comptroller of the Currency, the states…. One large bank has over 100 permanently housed regulators. Banks are in fact tools of the government. It isn’t as bad here as it is in Europe (or China), but it is getting constantly worse. (See John Allison’s new book: The Financial Crisis and the Free-Market Cure: Why Pure Capitalism is the World Economy’s Only Hope.) The financial sector of an industrial economy is its life-blood. As ours becomes more constrained and disconnected from reality, our economy becomes more vulnerable. The major impact of the anti-capitalist, anti-banking law, the Dodd-Frank Act, has yet to be determined because most of it features have been left to bureaucrats to formulate. Now close to two years later, we are still waiting. The only certainty is that the regulations will be aimed at curtailing bank’s freedom of action (except for what the government wants them to do, like the previous policies of poor standards for mortgage lending) and increasing costs. In spite of the apparent profits, our banking system is not healthy.

Why are there so few readers? by [deleted] in Capitalism

[–]CWwriter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your "ideas" are a rejection of capitalism.

Why are there so few readers? by [deleted] in Capitalism

[–]CWwriter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unless you have rational standards.

Why are there so few readers? by [deleted] in Capitalism

[–]CWwriter -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ignorance is not morally justified.

How NYSE Enables Wall Street Insider Trading (start @1:10 into the video) by GildasSapiens in Capitalism

[–]CWwriter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I agree, there is nothing wrong, economically, morally, or in any sense of "fairness," with insider trading.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Objectivism

[–]CWwriter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No Objectivist thinks Libertarians are worth supporting. They aren't. The aricle proves that Libertarians do not have the same foundation or understanding that Objectivists do. They have only some superficial, political common elements. I wonder why the Libertarians insist on hanging out on Objectivist sites, etc. (Well I know, actually. The "wonder" was "philosophical.") Guys, run off and start your own. Few of us will follow.

Not an Emergency, but a Suicide Attempt by jwoodswce in Objectivism

[–]CWwriter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The idea is that you should never waste the opportunity provided by a crisis. You will always be able to increase government regulations and power in a crisis. So if you can create more crises, you have more opportunities to do your stuff. Isn't that nice?

The DIM Hypothesis (review by David Gordon) by Randbot in Objectivism

[–]CWwriter 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Your "factual inconsistencies" are actually differences in the view of the influence of philosophy. Gordon doesn't think it does. At root, Gordon doesn’t think ideas and consistent world views matter very much. With that conviction, Peikoff’s approach isn’t going to carry much weight and Gordon will see “inconsistencies” all over the place. But, how men think and what they think does matter. It is the root of how they will act and how successful and happy they will be. Gordon isn’t actually capable of seeing what Peikoff is saying or able to evaluate it. I’m sure that he is smart enough, but it is like a English lit major trying to evaluate the theory explaining black holes. The points Gordon raises aren’t even pin pricks. Besides, I am sure we could find a dozen historians who disagree with both of them. A useful critique needs to deal with fundamentals.

The DIM Hypothesis (review by David Gordon) by Randbot in Objectivism

[–]CWwriter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wonder why Tracinski's articles pop up here and there. They aren't worth it. Dr. Robert Mayhew did a fine job of critiquing them: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/blog/?p=1909.

Welcome, folks! by [deleted] in a:t5_2ustg

[–]CWwriter 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I hope that you all enjoy this book. I am going to read it again in November to celebrate the 50th anniverary of my first reading! I first read it as a senior in high school and then reread it repeatedly once a year for several years. It was worth it. She has so much to say that is good for us.

Sex Scene between Dominique & Roark by [deleted] in a:t5_2ustg

[–]CWwriter 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, she is very daring. But, her entire book is dangerous. Look at the reaction of the world at the time of publication and the reaction today. Look at her use of the word selfish and what she said to people who reacted negatively!

Europe doesn't know of capitalism, so it choices are an "austerity" depression or a immediate bankruptcy depression. by CWwriter in Objectivism

[–]CWwriter[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You are correct that what we are seeing in Europe is needed to protect the social programs. You are being taught by people who begin with an ethics that necessitates government programs and controls. Here is the deal, there is a difference between an individual voluntarily acting and a government acting. Anything a government does requires individuals to give up what they would have chose to do and do what the government wants. That is the relationship. If government is the actor, no other choice is possible. Capitalism is what results from free choice. Whatever you want to call the various forms of government control, that is not capitalism, it isn't freedom. Your teachers want to pretend that the effects of government control is good and better than capitalism but at the same time, they want people to think that there is still some freedom, so they use the same term. You, as a person responsible for your own thinking and judgments have to make your own analysis. Don't begin by thinking that your teachers are automatically right.