Recent comments

  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Yeah, it's a lot like that "sanitizing" job that happened to Oswald and at Waco and at the WTC site. How convenient that OBL will not be able to give testimony and to name names (of embarrassed allies) and to cite reasons for hating the US Gov-Co operation that has killed between 4 and 5 million people since the end of WW2. Heck, there might be some grand photos of Cheney and his ilk doing air-kisses with OBL in some tent somewhere. I can just see the frightened face of the sheep as Cheney and Dubya do the bedroom-eye thing to the poor sheep's flanks.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I understand the need to believe that something can somehow make sense of this madness. We want things to have meaning instead of just being some half-assed video sequences of stupid frat-party boys shouting and fist-pumping in NYC and in DC over the death of today's Goldstein. Someone once said that I'm a crypto-Catholic because I like some of the (admittedly few) positive aspects of some members of the Catholic faith.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Exactly what I thought when I read this article. The quote in your second to last paragraph is most telling and you nailed him for it. Well done Paul.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    This is just a little to neat and tidy for my cynical self to buy whole. I can see why the US Thugs would go ahead and shoot him, because a trial would bring up too many inconvenient truths and Osama would likely get acquitted. But why not show his body to everyone so we could verify that Goldstein is really dead? Or wasn’t already dead? The timing of Obama preempting Trump’s TV show to get hero worship face time, and in the process also throw the birther certificate BS off the front page, is just an amazing coincidence.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Well, here is an article by a guy named Bob Wallace that addresses the comment: http://personalitycafe.com/critical-thinking-philosophy/18311-secret-tea...
  • Robert Wallace's picture
    Robert Wallace 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    The article has nohing to do with Alan Greenspan, Murray Rothbard or Ludwig von Mises. The amusing thing about Randroids is the way they throw conniption fits when anyone impugns Rand and her leftist-militant-atheist (they all go together) nonsense. Objectivists in general are ignorant, not only having never heard of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, but W. H. Mallock, who eviserated socialism before Rand was even born. What is "original" in Rand is not good, and what is good in her is not original.
  • Robert Wallace's picture
    Robert Wallace 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Unfortunately I do not remember where I read Rand's comment about subhumans living in a hell, but I believe it was from Atlas Shrugged.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    "Where was his trial?" No need for grand jury investigations anymore. You'll find grand jury investigations into every other terrorist attack you can think of that in any way involved Americans, but not you-know-what. Apparently, when you're bad-ass enough, even a grand jury isn't necessary. Gosh, he really was that evil, wasn't he?
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    If 9/11 was a crime, and Bin Laden was a suspect, then Yay, we killed the suspect? What if he did nothing? Where was his trial? Ah, that process is reserved for real human beings, not for troglodytes who are dim enough to be born outside of the magic lines. It only took 10 years and a few thousand subhuman lives to get him, which was certainly worth it. Unfortunately, more than just a few real human beings from the US of A died, too. Better keep wiping those animals off the face of the Earth to teach them a lesson about how they need to treat their betters. I almost wish I believed in heaven and hell. "Begging mercies for their sins, Satan laughing spreads his wings."
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    PS: I'm waiting for some sign of intelligence in either NYC or DC, but not holding my breath.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    By the way, I've been asked why I think it is significant that Obama the Bloody uses the word "clear" so often. Here's the answer. When Dubya was Murderer in Chief, he overused adverbs such as "clearly" whenever he was saying something that was a lie or as clear as mud. It's a way to bolster up a weak talking point. He overused other adverbs as well to prop up his claims. Some brilliant genius of style within the Obama regime was hip to that, and what was his/her brilliant solution to making Obama sound un-Dubya (to use Orwellian Newspeak)? Instead of overusing adverbs (ending in "ly"), the new president simply overused adjectives such as "clear" whenever he is saying an unsupportable non sequitur.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Yes, all of the drooling morons and tax-subsidized parasites were crowing last night. It's 3rd-century Rome all over again, eh?
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Watch out, Lawrence. After all, "A man that should call everything by its right name, would hardly pass the streets without being knocked down as a common enemy ," as Lord Halifax pointed out.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    This is a perfect example of how the status quo has abolished cause-and-effect. If "mom's sloppy butt-wiping techniques" have no effect on the child's brain, then a slap across the face means nothing; a spanking on the rear end (an erogenous zone) has no effect; pushing, shoving, threatening, confiscation of property, ignoring, indoctrinating for 12 years, television, junk food; all of it NOT forming habits in tiny minds that have very little information necessary for survival and creating comfort. No, Suverans2, parents are never responsible for anything.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    "How did she end up prototyping a gulch without the need nor the interest nor the inclination of govt that some are hung up on still." That's part of what I got out of the book. I confess to only having read it once, but it was fairly recent. She wasn't driving the minarchy argument home. She was writing about gifted men and women who wanted to be left alone with their volition. The one part of the narrative where I felt that I disagreed strongly was the shrugging judge at the end, changing The Constitution as if doing so was the final requirement for a freedom revolution. That was less than one paragraph out of more than one thousand pages. Babies and bathwater, indeed.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    Greetings tzo, You wrote, "Human rights and privileges are conflated in a fuzzy ball of vague ideas." That is so true it hurts!! Human rights - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles and using this article for a summary of the key points of the subject. (June 2010) As a direct result of this intentional conflation, this mixing together of different things, natural rights, civil rights, political rights, economic rights, social rights, cultural rights, religious rights, et alii, by those who wish to have dominion over everyone, and everything, on earth, there are some who now believe that men have no rights at all, which was the intended goal of conflating, or should we say, of confusing.
  • Don Stacy's picture
    Don Stacy 3 years 34 weeks ago
    Instead of Politics
    Web link Don Stacy
    Individualist John Frederic Kosanke’s new book Instead of Politics is an intriguing addition to the literature of freedom. Logical economic arguments against a political society and for a free-market society are skillfully presented by the author. Ultimately, the comprehensive nature of the work identifies Kosanke as a noteworthy newcomer to the consequentialist camp of the libertarian movement. Instead of Politics consists of one short introduction and two long sections. Each section is divided into five chapters. Each chapter is subdivided into multiple subchapters. Each subchapter is immediately followed by several cartoons (courtesy of cartoonist Rex F. May). The anti-state cartoons are reminiscent of the cartoons effectively employed in Walter Block’s 1976 libertarian classic Defending the Undefendable. Kosanke’s Introduction quickly relates the purpose of the book: 'So in publishing this booklet, my goal is to expose politics for what it is, set the record straight, and thus permit mankind to see and prevent its own manipulation.' He then depicts his consequentialist method: 'By demonstrating the most elementary market principles, I will put the almighty state before the tribunal and jury of contemporary man.' The author concludes the Introduction with a resolute call for action: 'I will do my part to nudge my fellow bearers of light to join in my quest to forever affix this imposter—this “Caesar”—to his own Appian cross … We will be his slaves no more, for we will no longer grant him the means to compel us.' Section A, “Man versus State,” builds the foundation for a free-market society. Kosanke demonstrates, via empirical evidence, that the civilizing forces of the free-market are incompatible with and contrary to politics. The author proves that the seemingly eternal struggle between man and state is wholly unnecessary. In Section A Chapter 1, “Natural Government,” Kosanke details the self-governing character of an unobstructed market, the nature of money as a medium of exchange, the positive role of technological advancement in the evolution of society, the value of advertising, the necessity of risk for progress, and the importance of non-compulsory insurance. He also explains the inefficiency of monopoly, the danger of a distorted price system, the decivilizing philosophy of the neoLuddites, the futility of regulation, the failure of collectivism to deal with catastrophe, and the deleterious consequences of the centralization of the U.S. banking system. An especially insightful discussion links medical competition to the adoption of healthy lifestyles. In Chapter 2, “The Artifice of Monopoly,” Kosanke explicates the symbiotic relationship between monopolists and states, the reasons states pursue prohibition, the connection between foreign aid and tyranny, how licensing increases prices, and the existence of the market for the elimination of the state. He promotes the abolition of various state evils, particularly anti-trust legislation, transnational subsidies, compulsory licensing, and censorship. A comparison of Marx’s 10 planks for the communist state to current policies of the United States government reminds readers of the danger bureaucratic monopolization poses to civilization. Kosanke utilizes Chapter 3, “The Blackened Market,” to show the immediate negative effects of state legislation. He critiques prohibition, compulsory monopoly legal systems, central economic planning, and utopianism. A review of CIA/DEA involvement in international drug smuggling illustrates the inevitable hypocrisy of prohibition; discerning analysis of contracts, bribery, “fair” prices, and “equilibrium” economics is also supplied. Chapter 4, “The Faces of Tyranny,” is Kosanke’s opportunity to pan “free trade” agreements, price controls, the minimum wage, collectivist unions, and “full” employment. To replace those political policies, Kosanke supports legitimate free trade and price/wage/employment competition. A brief explanation of the difference between discrimination and slavery is illuminating. The highlight of Chapter 5, “The Heart of the Beast,” is the author’s dissection of the mechanics of global statist intellectual monopoly via a comprehensive analysis of disparate conspiracy theories. This chapter also explores free versus central banking, the causes of inflation, economic propaganda, and the interdependencies between finance and media and empire. Kosanke consistently chooses liberty. Section B, “Property and Order,” erects the superstructure of a free-market society. The author demonstrates that property rights create and maintain order. Kosanke proves, via empirical evidence, that the abolition of property rights destroys and corrupts order and must be prevented by rejecting statism. In Section B Chapter 1, “The Nature of Property,” Kosanke praises private security markets, non-state property ownership, population distribution based on cost of living rather than coercion, and the economic law of supply and demand. Conversely, he rebukes zoning, taxation, rent control, and, last but certainly not least, state-induced famine. A short discourse coupling lower property taxes to greater wildlife capacity is worth numerous readings. Chapter 2, “Pollution = Collectivism,” contains a brilliant passage challenging environmentalist dogma. The following sentence is my favorite: 'While it is inevitable that mankind will not be able to prevent the extinction of most existing species, he is their best and only hope.' Additional Kosanke targets include the substitution of criminal law for tort law, state “ownership” of property, “cap and trade” legislation, and federal control of transportation maintenance and improvement. Concepts positively reviewed by the author include conservation, for-profit hunting/game ranges/parks, strict pollution accountability, and user fees. Chapter 3, “The Mysteries of War,” condemns war, reflexive obedience to authority, tribalism, pro-war propaganda, the military draft, and the military-industrial complex. Kosanke exposes the horrifying consequences of statism to all societies by connecting, in my favorite portion of the book, Hitler’s Operation Himmler, Reichstag Fire Decree, and Enabling Act of 1933 to Operation Northwoods to the Milgram experiment to the War on Terrorism, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Transportation Security Administration. Simultaneously, the author recommends skepticism, political heresy, the marketplace of ideas, reason, a “no first strike” military policy, and the abolition of foreign aid as strategies to minimize war. Kosanke urges the adoption of private security, religious freedom, media deregulation, market-based crime prevention, and law reduction in Chapter 4, “The Elements of Security.” He slams, in no particular order, imperialism, democracy, the Federal Communications Commission, prison violence, and “gun control.” A brief examination of state and federal violations of the 4th Amendment confirms that the Founding Fathers were not as “paranoid” about state power as they should have been. In “Escape from Utopia,” the final chapter, Kosanke decimates any remaining justifications for the state by rejecting such philosophical absurdities as the social contract, democracy, elections, crony capitalism, “voluntary” taxation, political “reform,” the political line scale, and collectivism. He also furnishes a fascinating review of modern Japanese fascism, reinforcing the fact that political injustice does not vary with geography or race or nationality. To end his tome, the author posits the following non-political alternatives: individual sovereignty, free trade, free markets, voluntaryism, civil disobedience, tax resistance, Civil Order Pacts, and private security/insurance/arbitration. However, Instead of Politics is not, in my opinion, a work of perfection. My perusal of this opus (admittedly a Rothbardian deontological market anarchist perusal) unearthed three minor flaws. First, Kosanke’s preference to concentrate on cause and effect excludes presentation of a deontological justification for liberty. Second, the decision to provide empirical evidence rather than proselytize prevents the clear identification of the author’s preferred end (minarchism vs. market anarchism). Third, the statement in Section B Chapter 3 that suicide is “the purest form of selflessness” is a controversial idea disputed by many philosophers and bioethicists. In conclusion, John Kosanke’s new book Instead of Politics is a sweeping consequentialist plea for a free-market society. Kosanke expertly delineates the inevitable negative consequences of statism and the inevitable positive consequences of liberty. I recommend the purchase of this pro-freedom work, minor objections notwithstanding, and plan to use the author’s reasoning to fortify my intellect with powerful utilitarian arguments for market anarchism.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Some summing up points that come to “inquiring minds” regarding this thread and article. If Rand is as per Bob Wallace’s piece is a Leftie Proto Fascist and that her Objectivism leads probably to a police state and that she is rigid, and too methodological and therefore made up then what? I pointed out the same could be said for Mises and worse because his writings did not bear the fruit of anarchy till his students grabbed hold and yet most of those students broke away—shrugged-- from the rock of govt and mercantilism and fascism because of Rand and her prototyped Galt’s Gulch which had politics without govt. We are talking about an anarchic group of people AND they were not roughing it Thoreau style. Happily Harry Browne’s “How I Found Freedom in an UNfree World" actually innovated ways to live free and in a gulch OR NOT without group traps, govt trap, morality traps, utopia, Rights and treadmill traps. Whether the model is Mulligan’s (Galts’) Gulch…or seascapes etc And those same students with triple autodidact pedigrees of Rand, Mises and Browne are correcting the IP thicket as we speak. How could that be? The slippery slope of freedom and self rule--anarchy--has produced this. This is a big deal. See Mises.org on IP. This is the outcome OPPOSITE of what Bob supposes and asserts. If there is top down rigid made up “Leftie” thinking going on here it is Bob’s modeling of contradictory assumptions and trying to make something that is not. The Gulch model prototype is self reflecting, innovative and frictionless like. If Rand had to herself Shrug and innoculate herself by writing a book that worked out the kinks then look to that PROTO-TYPE. Not the proto fascist model. Unless you love to waste time... Rand’s peaceful “Atlantis” like legacy with Galt’s mirage force field is apparently still hidden. It is to George Reisman, and L Peikoff. But Harry Browne actually innovated a way of thinking that was influenced by Roarkes interest in TRADING with compatibles and living with such in a gulch or mobile gulch or on the net at Mises.org and lewrockwell.org What good is a baby? This is not a put down. Einstein was a kid once. Find out and re-think the gulch that seems to be in some minds still inutero. If Rand was so rigid? How did she end up prototyping a gulch without the need nor the interest nor the inclination of govt that some are hung up on still. Did she try to make that govt fit. Nope! And she did not re-write all her works. How dare she. She did not have the net. So now who is being rigid here? She read and re-read and wrote Atlas Shrugged to go there--that chapter--with her friends and went to that gulch—Picture Ouray Co--and lived there in her mind. She said that she was uninterested in teaching others. Does she need to insist that anarchic place held her interest most? The digital age has let us move there and communicate and divide and mix and learn. And some of us are free of the "drooling beast". As in literature and economics so in life.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    "If you’re unemployed or addicted to drugs, it’s somebody else’s fault. Laziness and self-indulgence have morphed into one big illness we all caught from mom’s sloppy butt-wiping techniques." ~ Mama Tried, You Failed by Gavin McInnes
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    Michael Kleen, Still waiting for your answers to these six questions.
  • Harry Felker's picture
    Harry Felker 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Ok Kids.... First off, in her own words Rand was in Konkinite terms a minarchist, so she did believe in the necessity of a small "government". This extended to protection of physical property and IP, her argument was independent contractors for protection would consistently war, this was Mises' argument as well. Roderick T. Long destroys this logic but that is another thread all together. AtlasAkido is correct in noting Rand NEVER assumed that the "producers" would rise up as ruling elite (ala Marxist Dictatorship of the Proletariat) in response to their oppression. This is where Wallace starts assuming, but again if we examine Wallace's language (use of the term exploitation) I am unsure of the sincerity of his claim. The idea that there was exploitation of the haves over the have nots was precisely what brought about the fascist regime in Italy. tzo, Rand's malfunction was not that he was overly rigid, she became a cult of personality, a victim of her own ideas and the lapdogs who surrounded her and as such stopped thinking. This was by her strict thoughts a "mortal sin" and probably was too busy debating Phil Donahue on daytime TV to realize it.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    "Sir, a secret ballot makes a secret government; and a secret government is a government by conspiracy; in which the people at large can have no rights. And that is the only government we now have. It is the government of which you are a voluntary member and supporter, and yet you claim to be an honest man. If you are an honest man, is not your honesty that of a thoughtless, ignorant man, who merely drifts with the current, instead of exercising any judgement of his own?"
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    "No man can delegate, or give to another, any right of arbitrary dominion over a third person; for that would imply a right in the first person, not only to make the third person his slave, but also a right to dispose of him as a slave to still other persons. Any contract to do this is necessarily a criminal one, and therefore invalid. To call such a contract a "constitution" does not at all lessen its criminality, or add to its validity." ~ Lysander Spooner, excerpted from his letter to [CONGRESSMAN] Thomas F. Baynard, of DELAWARE
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 34 weeks ago
    Misdefining Liberty
    Web link Michael Kleen
    "...through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you..." ~ Peter "When words lose their meaning, people will lose their liberty." ~ Confucius (c.500 B.C.) A Final Word of Caution The language of the law is ever-changing as the courts, Congress, state legislatures, and administrative agencies continue to define, redefine and expand legal words and terms. Furthermore, many legal terms are subject to variations from state to state and again can differ under federal laws. Also the type of legal issue, dispute, or transaction  involved can affect a given definition usage... That means that the entire language of man’s so-called law, often called "legalese[1]", is built upon "shifting sand", and what are we told about the foolish man who built his house upon sand? "...it fell: and great was the fall of it." _____________________________________________________________________________ [1] le·gal·ese (lē′gəl ēz′) - noun - the conventional language of legal forms, documents, etc., involving special vocabulary and formulations, often thought of as abstruse and incomprehensible to the layman Note: It is not only "incomprehensible to the layman", but it is even incomprehensible to your lawmakers, so much so that they can no longer write their own laws.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Perhaps you should read her magnum opus. It illuminates what you are missing. Takes me out of the drawing board to the prototype that can be tested and lived and emulated… Too bad Thoreau had not had "Atlas Shrugged" under his belt. More likely he would not have returned to society. Apparently you have read a small subset of Rand's works but not all...that Bob Wallace complains are too methodological and thus too made up: A is A, A acts according to A (identity causality etc etc. Objectivist Epistemology would be a good second read) Yet Rand did not make the mistake of conflating Marxism with Galt's Gulch nor Laissez faire hands off. Mises of the Austrian school also uses a methodological approach and gave rise to Reed, Rothbard, Tucker, Walter Block, DiLorenzo. http://mises.org/daily/5158/Mises-on-Mind-and-Method They refute Keynes boom bust cycle, the Fed Reserve boondoggle and Abe Lincoln... Unlike Rand, Ludwig Von Mises had no fiction work to prototype what Rand concluded. Which was a private community…..His students took his legacy and brought that to fore. In that regard she trumped even Mises. But if we follow Bob's assertion this means Mises is worse than Rand and thus no different than Marx and Keynes because Rand and Mises hold to limited govt in all of Mises work but not all of Rand’s work. The power of the imagination is more powerful than knowledge. That is not just a saying and Einstein proved that and so did Rand (Atlas Shrugging is a very counter intuitive thing to do)--it is Peaceful self ownership personal secession requiring no govt. If we follow Bob's and your premises: since Mises had still not worked out the limited govt baby in the bath water--that his contribution to boom bust cycle is kaput null and void. And what of the work of his students? Rothbard? Kinsella? Drop by the Mises.org and Lewrockwell.com I think their anarchism has integrated Rand's prototype and Thoreau's return to society. Since he returned to a society steeped in govt compared to Walden pond does that mean that he was not an anarchist? A failed anarchist? I don’t think so. And yet in Rand's prototype community of Atlas Shrugged she drops the insistence of the govt that you harp on because it does NOT WORK and and so we have what? My say so? No. You will know soon enough for yourself. Bob's piece is ridiculous. Jefferson inherited slavery. So what. Einstein worked in a govt patent office. So what. Rand was a cudmudgeon. So what? We now know that Intellectual Property (patents ad copyright) is a monopoly mine field that held back the division of labor society. There is a thread on this blog regarding IP. Kinsella has done incredible work as has McElroy. Neither Rand nor Mises knew of it yet she intuitively started to front load her book incomes. I am going to be visiting that thread pretty soon.. And the spiral continues to…progress one step as at a time. Rand and Mises cleaned out the Augean stables--but if you ever read Atlas Shrugged you will not be in stable but a portal that Thoreau would have approved of... I will leave you with this: Villains in Atlas Shrugged are very much alive and real. http://mises.org/daily/5218/The-Continued-Relevance-of-Rands-Villains Excerpt: For instance, in Atlas Shrugged, the lobbyist Wesley Mouch decries the capitalist Hank Rearden's invention of a wonderful alloy that is stronger than steel. And last week, in the real world, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. took to the house floor to declare that Steve Jobs's iPad was killing jobs. Congress must, according to Jackson, recognize that Apple is driving companies such as Barnes & Noble and Borders out of business, and the company should be stopped in the interests of fairness. Jackson decried Congress for failing to foster "protection for jobs here in America to ensure that the American people are being put to work." It's as if he wanted us to believe the printing press was harmful to the economy because it decreased the demand for scribes. Such a condemnation of a successful business and a demand for protection of failing industries could easily have been lifted directly from Rand's novel.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Rand wrote much more than just Atlas shrugged. I have "The Virtue of Selfishness," "Return of the Primitive," and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" in front of me. Are you not familiar with her nonfiction writing? She ridiculed the idea of not having government. Bob's article perhaps assumes the reader knows this. Is your position that Ayn Rand was for a voluntaryist/anarchist society that would forego a minimal but coercive central government? I have not read Atlas Shrugged (minus the "Ode to Money" part), and so if that is the only work of Rand one is familiar with then perhaps it gives the impression that she endorsed a stateless society. She did not. If you are interested in more specific references, I could provide them for you. Rand, in my opinion, put forth some great ideas but in the end was overly rigid and did not remain consistent in her arguments, something she did not tolerate from others.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Re tzo: As long as society has a government, then whatever "free markets" that may exist will eventually be captured by that government. Since Rand insisted that government was a necessity to society, then the end result of her ideal society would be a collection of captured markets, or fascism. When I read Ayn Rand I got that she wrote a novel about producers who walked away from Mercantilism / Fascism--they're making a movie about it. Ever heard of Shrugging? And that reality is mimicking that. Witness Steve Winn in Macau etc... I thought "Galt" refused to accept the post of ruling as an Economic Csar and explained why and was UNinterested in convincing controlling and forcing others via govt.... How does that play to your point that Rand "insisted" that govt ruling others is necessary? I do NOT remember there being NO Politics in Rand's Gulch. Was there politicians and police state apparatus in Galt's Gulch? Wanna live like that but figure statism is going creep in because you think Rand insisted on that? "Politics [without govt] is not necessarily force and fraud". How did Rand "insist" that govt is necessary in Galt's Gulch? If people want to talk about a prototype then look to that instead of conflating Marxism with galts' Gulch and Laissez faire. The prototype sits at your feet. Feel free to throw out her contribution... To see the farm is to live it. If she did not spell it out for you in her theory look to her speeches and fiction...and prototype it. But you know this? Or do you? Where in Bob's article did you read the point supporting your premise? By the speed of your post you skipped the links I provided which tells me much...perhaps you drop the Ragnar thing too? References: http://www.lewrockwell.com/holland/holland19.1.html
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    I interpreted the column as saying that as long as society has a government, then whatever "free markets" that may exist will eventually be captured by that government. Since Rand insisted that government was a necessity to society, then the end result of her ideal society would be a collection of captured markets, or fascism. I concur.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Bob's Proto Fascist posit on Ayn Rand reminds of the following hand sleight: Kinda funny how Greenspan now is " shocked, just shocked" that Ayn Rands ideas don't really work... After all these years of sitting at her feet! ' Yes, the publicity of a man who acquired his "free-market ideology" sitting at the feet of Ayn Rand and steeped in Objectivism is reported over and over by the media.... How "funny" is this? (Pronunciation: (fun'ē), —adj., -ni•er, -ni•est,—n., pl. -nies.3. warranting suspicion; deceitful; underhanded 5. strange; peculiar; odd. And how funny is Bob's piece? Let's see it thru a prism that is being played out right now so that we can get a bead on Bob's points… Yes indeed... For the media to suggest Greenspan did not operate from a "free-market ideology"--Ayn Rand's position--would throw open the QUESTION of why Greenspan blew up the banking and credit systems. It would introduce the possibility that he was prone to act as the large financial institutions would like him to act. It would also reveal the extent to which he – and Bernanke – say and do what Politicians want them to say and do.... The very OPPOSITE of what Rand's ideas stand for. The very things Rand presciently depicted in "Atlas Shrugged": government, companies and media colluding in the name of economic rescue at the expense of the entrepreneur. And Bob's points? Well they "Objectively" appear to be conflations. And they remind of the media. Most recently Julian Assange and Bradley Manning--NOT the "heroic" media--shone a spotlight on the STATE welfare-warfare-media-complex. There is a reason that “Atlas Shrugged” is becoming a Political “Harry Potter”. Ayn Rand SHONE a spotlight on a problem that STILL exists today: Not pre-1989 Soviet communism, but 2011-style State capitalism (Mercantilism / "Fascism")--with its own statist quo media and court appointed historians and its adoring stockholm syndrome patients... Bob Wall[a]ce's article comes across as a sleight of hand indeed: equating free-market "ideology"--Ayn Rand's position--as "Fascism" (the first and original "Proto" no less) and as "Propaganda". References: Economic Depressions: Their Cause and Cure by Murray N. Rothbard http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard183.html The Flim Flam Man An honest man cannot be cheated.... http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north138.html From Wikileaks releases, it is clear that political and military elites are over-classifying documents in order to protect their own asses. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/mason-a1.1.1.html The FED/chariman claim to stabilize the economy but actually provokes instability like the present Greatest Recession. http://www.theanarchistalternative.info/zgb/index.html 10A001: Endless War by Jim Davies, 7/31/2010 http://www.theanarchistalternative.info/zgb/10A001.htm 10A106 Victim Sanction by Jim Davies, 12/19/2010 http://www.theanarchistalternative.info/zgb/10A106.htm December 23, 2010 Interview With Julian Assange http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/73973.html How and why the press was broken and has never recovered--Tom DiLorenzo on Abraham Lincoln, US Authoritarianism Mercantilism and Manipulated History http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo186.html Amity Shlaes: Ayn Rand’s Atlas Is Shrugging with a Growing Load http://www.theatlasphere.com/metablog/820.php Grovelling at the Fed: Greenspan and Bernanke http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/sheehan-f4.1.1.html Alan Greenspan: Party Boy http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/sheehan-f5.1.1.html The Malicious Myth of the 'Libertarian' Fed http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo171.html
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 34 weeks ago
    U.S. Out Of NATO
    Web link Westernerd
    You got a problem with the French? The American government is in this war because they want to be. Because it is in their interest.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    Well said, tzo, well said! I will re-read, once more, those five common-sense-articles you have taken the time to link to your comment. Thank you.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." -- Gerald Ford I think the sick mentality represented by the regulators starts in childhood, perhaps with parents confiscating property that belongs to the child. Children are wont to interpret everything their parents do as loving, because they are terrified (and justly so) at the idea of there not being enough love about. If loving parents confiscate property to teach loving principles to "inferiors," then it's a simple loving, logical progression that other children, when you are no longer one, will benefit from loving confiscation of their property. Therefore, Happy Meals have to go, 'cause just like your loving mother long ago, you now know what's best. And just as tzo pointed out in the comments, it will come back to haunt the confiscators. Reaping, sowing... confiscating, confiscated.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    “… I have long been curious as to how the "VOLUNTARILY PARTICIPATING MEMBERS" granted a "monopoly on land" that wasn't theirs to begin with?” Just another restatement of the paradox that forms the foundation of "just government." The citizens IN FACT cannot justly delegate the right to monopoly control of 'uge tracts of land because they do not possess this right individually. The citizens IN FACT cannot justly delegate the right to tax because they do not possess this right individually. The citizens IN FACT cannot justly delegate the right to murder because they do not possess this right individually (I forgot the authority to declare war in my list.). The citizens IN FACT cannot justly delegate the right to forcibly coerce anybody to do anything because they do not posses this right individually. The unjust organization that is government (as it currently is implemented around the world) is created by the unjust acts of its citizens. The citizens arrogate to themselves superhuman rights and then foolishly give those rights to a small group to everyone's disadvantage. Why do they do this? Perhaps they like the feeling of power that they get from being a part of such a beast. The citizen is not pitted against the government, he is a part of it. And he is willingly a part when he feels that he has a hand on one of the controls that guide Leviathan. Play by Leviathan's rules, and you, too, can rule. from http://strike-the-root.com/millions-of-petty-tyrants Perhaps they have been taught that ethics is a subjective proposition in their government schools, and so cannot see the injustice of their acts. Since no one wants to admit out loud that they advocate unethical behavior, justifications must be invented. Let’s see…if we say that ethics is purely a subjective proposition, then we can always deem certain actions ethical. Oh, I know! Let’s include instituting a coercive government as being absolutely necessary, hence an ethical action! Yes! Problem solved! from http://strike-the-root.com/failed-theory-of-relativity Perhaps they don't understand that they possess innate authority over their own lives, and the default setting is not in some bureaucrat's hands. Delegated authority is always a voluntary proposition, and it can be withdrawn at any time. It is a privilege bestowed—an extension of a natural right from one individual to another. Assumed authority is thuggery. from http://strike-the-root.com/philosophy-of-authority Or perhaps they do understand the injustice at some level, but they quickly discard it to resolve the cognitive dissonance and preserve the integrity of their own egos. They are, after all, good people. It should come as no great surprise, then, that government can best be understood as an enormous act of mass self-delusionary justification. We must act in an unethical manner in order to be ethical. Therefore we are ethical. from http://strike-the-root.com/aristophanes-law After all is said and done, if government truly is an unethical organization, then let’s not forget that citizens are part of the government. Government is an organization that consists not only of those who are "given the mandate" to assume authority, but also of all the "citizens" who support the imaginary enterprise. The citizen is just as integral a part of the definition of government as is the King, President, Parliament, or whatever other fancy label some of the participating humans choose to affix to themselves. All governments must have citizens in order to exist. from http://strike-the-root.com/theory-of-natural-hierarchy-and-government It all boils down to saying the same thing twenty different ways.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    "Rand divided people into two groups: her perfect John Galtian heroes, and everyone else – whom she described as 'sub-humans' living in 'a hell.'" I believe it is confirmed that Rand was attempting to create perfection with Dagny Taggart, Hank Rearden, Francisco D'Anconia, and John Galt. That is one of her false premises: looking for perfection. But the above quote -- calling all other people "sub-human" -- is there a citation for that? I don't remember that in "Atlas Shrugged," but it was more than a thousand pages. I also don't remember any effort at all on the part of any of the heroes of the story to "rule" over anyone. They were just exceptionally good at what they did and wanted to be left alone to do it. They never initiated coercion against anyone else. I disagree with a few of Rand's premises, but not to this extent. Is there any more detailed information on Rand wanting these sorts of people to "rule"?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    Greetings tzo, Premise A: Government is an organization THAT HAS BEEN GRANTED BY VOLUNTARILY PARTICIPATING MEMBERS a monopoly on land, force, legislation, enforcement of legislation, and adjudication. I sincerely apologize for detracting from the wonderful logic of your comment, but I have long been curious as to how the "VOLUNTARILY PARTICIPATING MEMBERS" granted a "monopoly on land" that wasn't theirs to begin with? You may remember this[1], "Claims to land by human beings also cannot be arbitrary. X’s land resources are here for all human beings [all living beings] to utilize in order to survive. A human being may justly claim as much land as he himself can put to use, and no more." [Bracketed info & emphasis added] [1] http:// strike-the-root.com/theory-of-natural-hierarchy-and-government [Remove space, copy and paste link, if you wish to read the article.] Note to the developer; my comment was flagged as spam when I embedded this link.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 34 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Just more proof that the notion of Constitutional government is a joke.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    PS: Scott, thanks for your reference to the Enlightenment instead of the Renaissance, which, despite its great accomplishments in the creative arts, was a political cesspool because of its slavish devotion to Roman antiquity and Greek antiquity and the despotism and statism which that required. In contrast, the Enlightenment found its roots in the foundations laid out during the Renaissance of the 12th Century and to some extent by the assent given to observing the physical world for knowledge as laid out by Thomas Aquinas and his followers.
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    And when the police come to your house and kick in your door and point weapons of war at your children, you know what they say? "If you weren't doing something wrong, we wouldn't be here." The govenment of the United States of America is already waging war against its own citizens.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    Nice work, Scott. You not only stated your thesis well, but you supported it with some nice examples and additional interpretations. Looking forward to more.
  • ReverendDraco's picture
    ReverendDraco 3 years 34 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    As the saying goes. . . If you bought it, a truck brought it. Everything is carried by truck at some point, unless you buy produce at a roadside vendor - and even then, it may have been carried from the field in a truck. I work for a company that chops and pits or bags silage (cattle feed). . . I checked the fuel used by one harvester yesterday - and determined that the machine uses about $1,000-$1,100 of fuel a day. The company has 4 of these machines, plus a few older ones that are smaller and therefore use less fuel. I figure between $36,000-$40,000 a week (6 day work week) in fuel, just for the harvesters. Add in the fuel for 4-5 baggers (the machines which pack the feed into bags), 3 pit tractors (for pushing/packing feed in a pit), and approx. 30 trucks. . . I constantly wonder how they're able to stay in business. . . I'm glad, but I still wonder.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    G'day Scott Lazarowitz, Congratulations, you are one of the very few writers I have ever seen that has quoted this "concept w/ explanation" accurately, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness[1]. Unfortunately, I don't believe that the "Committee of Five", with particular attention to Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, ever intended that statement to include "all Americans", let alone "all humankind". I have an answer to the question you pose at the end, the answer is, it is not possible for men to "undo the damage that the State’s loyalists and apologists have wrought", it will undo itself, because those creating and sustaining that government did not adhere to the Natural Law...the Science of Justice. "It is the science which alone can tell any man what he can, and cannot, do; what he can, and cannot, have; what he can, and cannot, say, without infringing the rights of any other person [sic]. It is the science of peace; and the only science of peace; since it is the science which alone can tell us on what conditions mankind can live in peace, or ought to live in peace, with each other." _______________________________________________________________________________ [1] "[John] Locke never associated natural right with happiness, but in 1693 Locke's philosophical opponent Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz made such an association in the introduction to his Codex Iuris Gentium. ...Benjamin Franklin was in agreement with Thomas Jefferson in downplaying protection of "property" as a goal of government. It is noted that Franklin found property to be a "creature of society" and thus, he believed that it should be taxed as a way to finance civil society." (Wikipedia) The only proper goal of a de jure government, i.e. lawful government, is the protection of its voluntary members "private property", for without "private property" there can be no liberty! If someone controls your property, they control your life and your liberty, because a man's life and liberty ARE his property! "There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right [just claim] to his own justly acquired property." ~ Suverans2
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    Excellent! And a great title, too -- titles matter a lot, and this one is a powerful meme-nugget that directly opposes the pro-State propaganda that infuses our schools and media. Your last sentence is perfect. I wish I had an answer for the question you pose.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    Well, so much for 99.9% of the U.S. Code.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    The entire paragraph that contains those sentences are what I imagine to be the typical citizen formulation of "how it is and how it should be because it has always been this way." Human rights and privileges are conflated in a fuzzy ball of vague ideas. I don't believe it is a true statement either. :>
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 34 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    Your article addresses a ridiculous law that obviously should not exist. Most people who read your article would agree with this sentiment, I would imagine. My response is directed at those citizens who are outraged by such invasive government action. My point is that every human being should be outraged, but no citizen should be. Once you call yourself a citizen, you kind of give up the right to complain about your government until you break the bond and recall to yourself your own innate authority. My premises and conclusion connect like so: Premise A: Government is an organization THAT HAS BEEN GRANTED BY VOLUNTARILY PARTICIPATING MEMBERS a monopoly on land, force, legislation, enforcement of legislation, and adjudication. Premise B: Having the powers cited above, government has a de facto monopoly over every facet of every citizen's life. Conclusion: Self-ownership becomes government-ownership. The citizen becomes property of the State. Citizens complaining about unjust or unfair laws is an absurdity. Each individual has the authority to decide his own actions. Granting this authority to another simply means he allows an agent to act for him. He is saying that the agent is actually a proxy for himself and his actions. When the government disallows Citizen X from performing Action X, what is being said is that Citizen X is disallowing Citizen X from performing Action X. So who shall Citizen X complain to when he is being treated unfairly by Citizen X? Ah, but Citizen X does not have direct control over his proxy? The proxy has a superior claim to Citizen X as does Citizen X? Now what? Perhaps Citizen X can "work within the system" to change how proxy Citizen X treats Citizen X. Will proxy Citizen X give Citizen X permission to do what he wants? If he succeeds, he has been granted a permission. From himself. From the part of himself that he has no real control over. Follow? More importantly, if Citizen X fails in his quest for better treatment from his proxy, he cannot in any sane manner complain. I'm not letting myself do what I want! The part of me I can't control—because I voluntarily ceded that control—is making me do things I don't want to do! Somebody do something! The government is the proxy for the individual who voluntarily participates as a citizen. Whatever the government does, the citizen has VOLUNTARILY granted his own individual authority to those government actions. The citizen IS the government and the government IS the citizen. You wrote: "The issue, then, is ... whether it is appropriate for a state or city to make those decisions for you or your children." Of course it is, if you are a citizen. You have abdicated your personal authority to them. They are your proxy. While you keep the relationship intact, they are you, and so you are doing it to yourself.   "It is not for the State of California, the City of San Francisco, ... to make that decision for them." Premise, premise, conclusion: If you are a citizen then yes, it is. A citizen also does NOT get to pick and choose which details of government policy he voluntarily supports and which he does not. He gives his consent to ALL government action, in whatever form it presents itself. Premise, premise, conclusion. When the government outlaws Happy Meal toys, then the citizen has done it to himself. No complaints, please. When the government bombs innocent people, the citizen participates by proxy. Acknowledgment of responsibility, please. Yes, being a citizen certainly gives you some perks. But at what cost?
  • J3rBear's picture
    J3rBear 3 years 35 weeks ago
    APMEX Buying Silver
    Web link Michael Dunn
    I noticed this yesterday too. However, I decided to go ahead and sell my paper silver and take a nice profit. I think there will be additional dips over the next few months which will make good opportunities for buying more physical silver.
  • Sharon Secor's picture
    Sharon Secor 3 years 35 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    Thank you for saying what you say so well! Fabulous comment, tzo. And, of course, you, too, Suverans2. Your addition was welcome and, in my opinion, quite correct.
  • Michael Kleen's picture
    Michael Kleen 3 years 35 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    You make a good point here, Suverans2. I think that any law that attempted to erase a natural right would be illegitimate, no matter what its origin.
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 35 weeks ago
    Facebook and NSA, CIA
    Web link Michael Dunn
    I joined facebook a few years ago so I could sign a petition against police violence. Before I knew it, scattered family members and long-lost high school chums were contacting me. Cool. But I still use it to post and share political news and views. Do I know the pigs watching? Yes. Am I frightened? Certainly. But no more frightened than I was when they were tapping my phone; no more frightened than I was when they moved into the house next door and were monitering all my and my family's comings and goings; no more frightened than I was when they were gathering "information" about me from neighbors who didn't even know my last name. THEY DON'T NEED FACEBOOK TO GET A SEARCH WARRANT. They only need to write a bunch of crap on an affadafit, swear it's truth and show it to a judge. Oh, they want us to be afraid; they want us to be quiet. Well, screw them.
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 3 years 35 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    In recent years, somebody came up with the idea of 'thinking outside the box' which all too soon ended up in the library of old cliches. However, Mr. Lazarowitz, you have re-introduced this concept and applied it to the History of America as a few of us know it. Of course, the perspective you present is not how history is taught in government schools. Bravo!