Gubmint and How Gubmint Works

Buzz Killington wrote: .....they will always look to find loopholes to gain an advantage over someone else. and then you end up right back where we are...

I think Buzz had got it right here. It is always nice to theorize and think about more "pure" forms of government, but as Buzz stated, human nature (as animalistic and cruel as it can be sometimes) will not allow it.

Some will mention how well the government worked way back when it was more pure and simple, fewer laws etc. That's just because it was a combination of not caring about some things (e.g. slavery, some human right etc.) and the fact that the loopholes had not yet been discovered and exploited (e.g. Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Morgan)

What am I saying? I think by the very nature of things we are doomed to a government similar to what it is now. You can start over, but it will only end up here eventually... sort of a regression to the mean.

Tuna:

You made an assertion that Ayn Rand was perhaps the best person around to define capitalism. Agreed, that no one has to agree with her. However, her definition is NOT the dictionary definition, and I think it is fair game for others to disagree with your assertion that her definition is correct.

tuna55 wrote: "Capitalism," in Ayn Rand's definition, "is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned." I don't know of a better person to define capitalism, whether you agree with her or not. I don't think any of us have seen real capitalism in our lifetimes...

Dictionary.com said: cap⋅i⋅tal⋅ism   /ˈkæpɪtlˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] noun- an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Note: the primary difference is that Rand said "ALL" property is privately owned, the dictionary says property (among other things) is "CHIEFLY" privately.

According to Rand's "definition", you are correct that none of us has ever seen real capitalism. Unfortunately, that is NOT the dictionary definition, and by THAT definition most of us HAVE.

Yes, I read your post.

SVreX wrote: Tuna: You made an assertion that Ayn Rand was perhaps the best person around to define capitalism. Agreed, that no one has to agree with her. However, her definition is NOT the dictionary definition, and I think it is fair game for others to disagree with your assertion that her definition is correct.

tuna55 wrote: "Capitalism," in Ayn Rand's definition, "is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned." I don't know of a better person to define capitalism, whether you agree with her or not. I don't think any of us have seen real capitalism in our lifetimes...

Dictionary.com said: cap⋅i⋅tal⋅ism   /ˈkæpɪtlˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] noun- an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Note: the primary difference is that Rand said "ALL" property is privately owned, the dictionary says property (among other things) is "CHIEFLY" privately. According to Rand's "definition", you are correct that none of us has ever seen real capitalism. Unfortunately, that is NOT the dictionary definition, and by THAT definition most of us HAVE. Yes, I read your post.

By Rands definition i dont think capitalism has ever existed.

GlennS wrote: I would still say the U.S. is a capitolist society. Maybe its not some sort of pure capitolism that runs on fairy dust and dreams but it is capitolist.

Was that misspelling intentionally ironic, or was it pure serendipity?

...in which all property is privately owned...

That would be an interesting one to pull off:

"Excuse me sir, but if you don't pay the rent I will evict you and your F22 squadron and you will have to find some place else to play Air Force"

Clearly almost as absurd as true Socialism.

"My GRM Forum kicked your Honor Students ass"

ignorant wrote: http://www.playboy.com/articles/ayn-rand-playboy-interview/index.html (NSFW just in case) bat E36 M3 crazy!

Ummmm, why?!

Agreed that it's theoretical, and there are bound to be concessions to any theoretical philosophy, like your airforce base example, or the military itself, for that matter. I will maintain, however, that for the past 100 years, at least, we have been more socialist than capitalist, and moving away from private property in general. Even aside from the ALL comment, I don't think any of us have seen capitalism in real life.

I will not concede that this is inevitable, or desirable.

I can't see the playboy linky - at work...

Duke wrote:

GlennS wrote: I would still say the U.S. is a capitolist society. Maybe its not some sort of pure capitolism that runs on fairy dust and dreams but it is capitolist.

Was that misspelling intentionally ironic, or was it pure serendipity?

Hey man, i got the first and last letters right. Who needs to remember how to spell anything when your hukd on fonix

GlennS wrote: Hey man, i got the first and last letters right. Who needs to remember how to spell anything when your hukd on fonix

I didn't mean to criticize your edumacashun. I just found it incredibly amusing that it came out CAPITOList, when 80% of the problem is created by politicians and lobbyists. Just like fraud/theft, influence peddling != capitalism, although many people also seem to think it does (look up "Aristocracy of Pull").

I honestly urge people to read a recent book called How Capitalism Will Save Us by Steve Forbes (and a co-author I forget at the moment). It's nonpartisan, pretty thorough, and gives plenty of analysis of the last few decades in the politico-financial world.

Gotta love Steve Forbes - I was in his camp when he ran for President a while back

Duke wrote:

ignorant wrote: http://www.playboy.com/articles/ayn-rand-playboy-interview/index.html (NSFW just in case) bat E36 M3 crazy!

Ummmm, why?!

These two questions in particular are insane..

Crazy lady who just needs some loving said: PLAYBOY: Should one ignore emotions altogether, rule them out of one's life entirely? RAND: Of course not. One should merely keep them in their place. An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man's value premises. An effect, not a cause. There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man's reason and his emotions—provided he observes their proper relationship. A rational man knows—or makes it a point to discover—the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In appraising a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no inner conflicts, his mind and his emotions are integrated, his consciousness is in perfect harmony. His emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind. This relationship cannot be reversed, however. If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their passive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow—then he is acting immorally, he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction—his own and that of others. PLAYBOY: According to your philosophy, work and achievement are the highest goals of life. Do you regard as immoral those who find greater fulfillment in the warmth of friendship and family ties? RAND: If they place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral. Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man's life. A man who places others first, above his own creative work, is an emotional parasite; whereas, if he places his work first, there is no conflict between his work and his enjoyment of human relationships.

1. If we all acted on emotions we understood or completely had control of Life would be dull and noone would be married/fall in love.

2. A man must place work first to enjoy human relationships second?

Yeah, that woman would have done real well in a Hispanic culture.

Come to think of it, most of the historical cultures that have existed on the planet would have had trouble with that one.

That was a long interview.

This was not intended as a discussion of objectivism.

I hold that just because you disagree doesn't make those ideas any less sane.

I am not entirely in agreement with either you (Iggy) or Mrs Rand, though. I disagree with her on two major issues:

Religion

Charity

Somewhat - Love

But again, a full discussion of objectivism this is not.

tuna55 wrote: That was a long interview. This was not intended as a discussion of objectivism. I hold that just because you disagree doesn't make those ideas any less sane. I am not entirely in agreement with either you (Iggy) or Mrs Rand, though. I disagree with her on two major issues: Religion Charity Somewhat - Love But again, a full discussion of objectivism this is not.

I believe Rand makes some good points and at a very minimum gets your wheels turning. It would be silly to not try to understand what she is saying, look at her drivers, and pull out the really good stuff for use. I still believe the woman is bat E36 M3 crazy though...

I work in a company as an accounts payable clerk (woo hoo--but I'm employed in New York, so that's nice). There are two of us that do this job. According to my boss, the industry average has four people doing my job. I agree with the industry average. We are so backlogged that it's almost comical to me now.

I believe this is the rationale. They have an ARMY of people in their accounts receivable department. This is the department that makes money, so the more people stuck in it, the more money we make, right? I am in the department that spends money. We can't hemorrhage cash if we don't have enough people to write checks, right?

Of course, they can't afford to hire another one of us because they just hired another person to manage us. Three controllers for two accounting clerks.