Is Ayn Rands “Atlas Shrugged” a prophecy? It’s starting to look likely.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by daskakik

 

yet, you are advocating that Rand's philosophy is wrong.
are you sure you're NOT advocating anything ?

I'm not advocating one system over another.

only the government and unions have used such tactics (direct use/threat of force).
never have i been beat or threatened to shop at WalMart

never have i been disowned or stripped of citizenship for trading on the reservation.
never has anyone, that i know of, been threatened or forced to buy/trade/engage in any market activity unless we're discussing Wall Street or Obamacare.

I was talking about situations on different levels worldwide. If government is controlled by money then those who have the money are the ones using/threatening use of force through the government. This is also how everyone you know has been threatened or forced.

one of balance.
one where the market determines the outcome, not the speculators.
one that benefits the producers and providers as equally as the owners.
one which will encourage competition rather stifle it.
one that can build a nation rather a Bank.

That is really what you expected from a system where the participants are free to do whatever they want? This also answers the question in your ETA.

reply to post by daskakik

except money doesn't control governments, ppl do.
the currency being used as a method of exchange has no value.
Earth's resources do.

at this point, excessive passivity is exactly what brought us to this point, with these troubles, with no clear resolve.

a passive approach to government growth is how they got out of hand in the first place.

We the ppl, not actively removing the bad elements of government is how we got here and what's worse is rather DO something about it, we sit on our collective arses and complain ... well, whooopdedo that'll get a result (look around)

This is also how everyone you know has been threatened or forced

correction ... i said entirely the opposite and you know it. no ONE i know personally, has been beaten or forced by government authority to engage in free market commerce.

and truth is, i really should not say that anymore as i've read about several Americans (tho not known personally) who have been bull-dozed by their respective government authorities of late.
(lady out west over the pipeline, man in TN? who was forced to engage city utilities/taxes or else, man in FL who was arrested for charging his phone at a PUBLIC location, i could go on but i hope you get the point)

you asked "what other outcome did they expect" ?
don't change the question now.

i read about what the "goals" were, then ... when the system was reliant on trade and trade alone.

those goals certainly haven't remained static.
why would you assume they may have ?

i didn't state what "I" expect from a system where the participants are free to do whatever they want and that isn't exemplary of a free market system anyway.

so, why don't you ask a direct question instead of intentionally misguiding my answer to suit your agenda ?

and oh no, that answer doesn't even come close to applying to the ETA.
since we're on a new page, let's refresh ...

ETA - just out of curiosity, i wonder, as the industrial revolution transformed human labor to mechanical, why did the "costs" increase ?
if employing humans is such a drain on the economy, why is consuming mechanically crafted items more expensive in general ? (and no, i'm not talking about inflation)

so, how does your question answer either of those above ?

Free markets have nothing to do with cost increases.
besides, we gotta have free markets first.
[golden parachutes, bonuses, benefits, pensions and the like, sure, but not free markets]

and "participants who are free to do whatever they want" doesn't answer the second question at all.

you do know this entire system was built upon the concept of "buyer beware" [caveat emptor], right ? when we lost that, we lost all foundations of a free market economy.

***********************

@ Fiberx - yes and no, those years do make it evident, i agree ... however, long before then had the movement toward re-distribution begun. see the origin of the Fed Reserve for details.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by daskakik

 

except money doesn't control governments, ppl do.

Actually people with money do.

i said entirely the opposite and you know it. no ONE i know personally, has been beaten or forced by government authority to engage in free market commerce.

I know. And I didn't say they were forced to engage in free market commerce but they are forced to do other things.

you asked "what other outcome did they expect"?
are
don't change the question now.

I didn't change the question I'm just saying that expecting those things from a system where people are free to do whatever they want and can get away with is naive.

i didn't state what "I" expect from a system where the participants are free to do whatever they want and that isn't exemplary of a free market system anyway.

Actually it is and there are many who would consider the existence of any form of government to mean that a free market does not exist.

and oh no, that answer doesn't even come close to applying to the ETA.

If you understood what I was saying it might have.

you do know this entire system was built upon the concept of "buyer beware" [caveat emptor], right ? when we lost that, we lost all foundations of a free market economy.

You do know that I am not talking specifically about the US which I doubt really had a free market economy to begin with. One of the things that Washington did when in office was implement a tax on whiskey which negatively affected farmers in the western states.

reply to post by daskakik

semantics, nothing more.

Actually people with money do

well, truthfully today, ppl with excessive money avoid government like it's the plague.
[they prefer to use their funds to influence it]

which is exactly the opposite of our Founding Fathers and the principles to which they agreed so very long ago.

www.keelynet.com...
here's a portrait of the men who pledged "our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor" for liberty many years ago.

being forced by government to do other things doesn't make it OK or does it, in your mind ?

hold up there bucko ... what did 'they' expect? and what do "I" expect? ... are not the same questions.
you DID change the question and the least you could do now is apologize rather dismiss getting caught and called out

how do you figure a "free market" equals ... "a system where people are free to do whatever they want and can get away with" ??

where in the world did you get that idea ?

free markets have nothing to do with what or how the participants behave ... who gave you that idea anyway ????

actually it isn't and i am not one of those ppl anyway.
self-governed is what our goal should be, not centrally governed, which is our current failed system.

heck, i've disapproved of this government structure since the first time i read about it stealing land from 2 states to "declare" itself legitimate.
to me, it's only downhill from there.

i understood your QUESTION and your question cannot answer either of mine.
questions require answers, not more questions.

usually, only government officials, politicians, LEOs, lawyers and clergy answer questions with more questions ... so which one are you ?

You do know that I am not talking specifically about the US which I doubt really had a free market economy to begin with.

i guess i do now.
since the book was written with the US as its location and the OP presents the possibility of the story reflecting the current US economy, no, i didn't think we were discussing "other" economies. (at least in this thread)

One of the things that Washington did when in office was implement a tax on whiskey which negatively affected farmers in the western states

yes, i'm familiar but how does that fit in with this topic ??
that, i don't follow.
Sam Adams was instrumental in organizing the resistence to the Stamp Act and implementing the Boston Tea Party ... but i still don't see how either relates to this topic ?

ETA -- just an aside on Sam Adams (you know, another one of those "rich" guys) ... not all of them were the 'wealthy aristocrats' they're made out to be ...

www.boston-tea-party.org...
Adams was offered positions by royal officials that would have enriched him, but he refused and remained chronically in debt.

@ TDawgRex
what's with the disappearing act ?
as much as i enjoy discussing a topic with a variety of posters, i fully expected you be participating in this thread, what happened ?

i thought you were re-reading this material.
if so ... what are your thoughts on this discussion ?

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by daskakik

 

semantics, nothing more.

Actually people with money do

well, truthfully today, ppl with excessive money avoid government like it's the plague.
[they prefer to use their funds to influence it]

That is what I thought when I read your reply. So influencing is not a form of control?

being forced by government to do other things doesn't make it OK or does it, in your mind ?

No, but it is what happens.

hold up there bucko ... what did 'they' expect? and what do "I" expect? ... are not the same questions.
you DID change the question and the least you could do now is apologize rather dismiss getting caught and called out

I never used the word "you" so I don't know where you got that impression from.

ETA: looking back I guess I did use "you" but it was in a reply to a list that you put together to represent what "we" (I'm guessing you and other capitalists) expected.

how do you figure a "free market" equals ... "a system where people are free to do whatever they want and can get away with" ??

Without government oversight what else can it mean.

free markets have nothing to do with what or how the participants behave ... who gave you that idea anyway ????

It does in the real world.

actually it isn't and i am not one of those ppl anyway.
self-governed is what our goal should be, not centrally governed, which is our current failed system.

heck, i've disapproved of this government structure since the first time i read about it stealing land from 2 states to "declare" itself

legitimate.
to me, it's only downhill from there.

That's good but if this is true then how is it that you fail to see that a free market didn't exist even back then?

i understood your QUESTION and your question cannot answer either of mine.
questions require answers, not more questions.

usually, only government officials, politicians, LEOs, lawyers and clergy answer questions with more questions ... so which one are you ?

Actually none of the above. The answer is that wealth allowed people to influence government so that they could do what they did. It would probably be more accurate to say "continue doing what they have always done".

yes, i'm familiar but how does that fit in with this topic ??
that, i don't follow.
Sam Adams was instrumental in organizing the resistence to the Stamp Act and implementing the Boston Tea Party ... but i still don't see how either relates to this topic ?

It shows that not all founding fathers can be painted with the same broad brush.

ETA -- just an aside on Sam Adams (you know, another one of those "rich" guys) ... not all of them were the 'wealthy aristocrats' they're made out to be ...

www.boston-tea-party.org...
Adams was offered positions by royal officials that would have enriched him, but he refused and remained chronically in debt.

And Ron Paul is on the up and up (some say he isn't) but that doesn't mean the others are and it's still a game where majority vote takes all.

reply to post by daskakik

influence a form of control ? not really.
excessive influence can sway a decision but that still isn't "control".

what our government exerts over the ppl is "control". that is the problem.

the government makes no effort to "sway" the ppl to act in one manner or another, they demand, they threaten, they take liberty with a variety of control measures, that is the difference.

in this country, it is the people who are supposed to control the government, not the other way around.

do i believe a government (ours for example) can be "bought" with sufficient financial influence (money) to "control" its decisions ??
ABSOfreakinLUTELY ... see "lobbyists" for a multitude of examples.

look, for the most part, we agree on many issues related to this topic. i am not implying your opinion is right or wrong, just imbalanced and incomplete.


what i am/was talking about was your prior question ...

I agree to a point with capitalists that say "what we have isn't real capitalism", but what other outcome did they expect?

from which i snipped the "what other outcome did THEY expect?" and answered the question.

to which your reply reads ...

That is really what you expected from a system where the participants are free to do whatever they want? This also answers the question in your ETA.

now, so there is no confusion, i find the above technique extremely offensive and un-necessary. (especially conversing with a dyslexic)

i called you on it because you did it intentionally, so you could perpetuate this false representation of free markets

here's the part that i don't get.
anti-capitalists often claim capitalism is wrong but then agree that pure capitalism isn't what's being practiced ... so, why not give it a try ??

why does it seem to be the only answer offered is to have more of what we already know doesn't work?

Without government oversight what else can it mean

because what you describe ... [color=amber]a system where ppl are free to do whatever they want and can get away with ... is what we have WITH government oversight, surely WE can do Better.

how would you know ?
when or where have you experienced a "free market economy" ?

back when exactly ??
when DC was formed or when the US signed a compact of cooperation ? or even further when we were just colonies ? times changed ya know (alot back then)

we did have a time before politicians, before taxes, before government intrusions into our education, our transportation, our development, our research, our competition ... should i go on ?

i am not suggesting we turn back time, i kinda like this millenium, however, i would honestly like to see money removed from the equation but we aren't there yet either.

The answer is that wealth allowed people to influence government so that they could do what they did. It would probably be more accurate to say "continue doing what they have always done".

i'd go with a kinda and no, in that order.
imho, wealth enabled more ppl to be excluded while those excluded acquiesced rather exercise their right to life.
when the ppl are not represented in govt, it is no longer a govt OF the ppl ... that's a given.
however, when the ppl freely abort their responsibility TO the govt, that cannot be blamed ON the govt.

in our case, the ppl have been aborting their responsibility for so very long that the only thing supporting govt IS money and it's not even OURS

and the 'no' is because this is NOT what our government has always done, thank goodness for that. they have for many generations but not always.

not sure how RP fits in here either but if the elections weren't such a sham anyway, i'd likely agree.

Originally posted by Honor93
@ TDawgRex
what's with the disappearing act ?
as much as i enjoy discussing a topic with a variety of posters, i fully expected you be participating in this thread, what happened ?

i thought you were re-reading this material.
if so ... what are your thoughts on this discussion ?

Oh. I'm still checking this out. You are much more astute than I am in this debate as far as I am concerned. daskakik as well. You both seem to be well read. Might I suggest a debate between you two on the debate forum on this particular topic?

I like to keep things simple. I see the book as I said in the OP as the road we are heading down, and it will still get worse. There is always a grey area. I hate grey areas and try to see things in black and white...it's hard to tell the truth.

I also see the folk who are defending the Government (the looters) as the moochers who will end up lamenting their woes.

I see the world governments heading for war as a means to salvage the economy...but it won't work this time around.

The gov't is now griping about Californias tax hike on the rich to the tune of 52%. THAT is right out of the book.

The motor must be stopped if we are to fix things.

reply to post by TDawgRex

thanks for the vote of confidence and yes, you can suggest it but i hope you'll accept my respecful decline. life isn't flexible enough to meet the debate (time) standards.
[am dealing with a bit too much death currently - 3 unexpected, 1 terminal and another in serious decline]

however, i hang out around here when i can and am happy to participate where i can.

i was just a tad worried.
a few days, i no worry ... but it's been long enough to at least ask.
am glad you're ok and still around

yeah, i like black and white, simplicity.
i often say, it's only grey if you make it that way but some days, that's just not true anymore.

we must be peeking through the same glass ...

I see the world governments heading for war as a means to salvage the economy...but it won't work this time around.

i can't see it working out either.

reply to post by daskakik

getting back to Rand's support for free markets --> i honestly thought you'd jump all over that with "the internet" ... as it has been the best example of a free market that has ever existed
(in the early days tho, not so much these days)

in the early days of internet sales, it was almost like the wild, wild, west out there.
it was solely based on caveat emptor, it was barely regulated by anyone, it was and still is the best free market example we have to build from.

i don't understand why is everyone shying away from the idea or why the general mood is 'that's too difficult'
it's not like we haven't done it already, right ?

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by daskakik

 

influence a form of control ? not really.
excessive influence can sway a decision but that still isn't "control".

what our government exerts over the ppl is "control". that is the problem.

If the government can be influenced in how and towards who it uses that control then how is that not indirect control by those that are influencing it?

in this country, it is the people who are supposed to control the government, not the other way around.

That just proves my point.

look, for the most part, we agree on many issues related to this topic. i am not implying your opinion is right or wrong, just imbalanced and incomplete.

I could say the same thing about yours. I don't buy the communist ideal but I also don't buy the free market ideal because I can objectively see the flaws in both.

i find the above technique extremely offensive and un-necessary. (especially conversing with a dyslexic)

Already posted why the answer was posted that way.

here's the part that i don't get.
anti-capitalists often claim capitalism is wrong but then agree that pure capitalism isn't what's being practiced ... so, why not give it a try ??

That is the part of my point that you seem to be missing. It can't be done.

why does it seem to be the only answer offered is to have more of what we already know doesn't work?

It isn't a choice

Without government oversight what else can it mean because what you describe ... [color=amber]a system where ppl are free to do whatever they want and can get away with ... is what we have WITH government oversight, surely WE can do Better.

Actually what we have is some people are free to do whatever they want while the rest must answer to the government. Honestly I don't think we can do better without government. The only thing that could be better is oversight that can't be influenced.

how would you know ?
when or where have you experienced a "free market economy" ?

I have said many times that they don't exist and given the reason why.

back when exactly ??
when DC was formed or when the US signed a compact of cooperation ? or even further when we were just colonies ? times changed ya know (alot back then)

If we are talking about the US as a nation then the example I gave was from the first president's first term. There were not free markets during colonial times. That was why the colonies revolted.

i'd go with a kinda and no, in that order.
imho, wealth enabled more ppl to be excluded while those excluded acquiesced rather exercise their right to life.
when the ppl are not represented in govt, it is no longer a govt OF the ppl ... that's a given.
however, when the ppl freely abort their responsibility TO the govt, that cannot be blamed ON the govt.

Just another way of stating the same thing. In the end it is still failed free markets.

and the 'no' is because this is NOT what our government has always done, thank goodness for that. they have for many generations but not always.

Not governments but the wealthy and they have been doing it for much more than many generations.

not sure how RP fits in here either but if the elections weren't such a sham anyway, i'd likely agree.

You singled out one "good" politician among the founders and I singled one out in the present to make the point that a few good men in the bunch doesn't indicate the good intent of the rest.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by daskakik

 

in the early days of internet sales, it was almost like the wild, wild, west out there.
it was solely based on caveat emptor, it was barely regulated by anyone, it was and still is the best free market example we have to build from.

The internet is a tiny slice of life. It isn't an example of a free market because it existed within a legal framework. If anything it was an example of anonymity and it helped swindlers rip people off with less chance of being caught.

ETA: It really isn't much different that personal ads in a newspaper.

i don't understand why is everyone shying away from the idea or why the general mood is 'that's too difficult'

it's not like we haven't done it already, right ?

Wrong, it hasn't been done before at least not on that scale.