: There is a site (for those interested) specifically about capitalism which also contains a message board. Its on www.capitalism.org. Dispel those myths!: --
: McSpotlight: Is it individual liberty to kill anyone you don't like?
-----
Well I guess a couple of months have gone by and it's time once again for Ayn Rand's "objectivism" to resurface - simplistic as always.
The philosophy, descending from Locke & Co., was essentially a creation to justify and protect the accumulation of property. Thus evolved the mythic "individual", that self-hatched monad, contracting his way through life by the sheer power of reason.
The site presents a long list of "definitions" given to subjects from "abortion" to "woman". Some of them are a hoot.
Under "Poverty" we find:
"What of the poor under capitalism?
As for poverty, under capitalism, no poor man is prohibited from creating a fortune--observe that in late 19th century and early twentieth century America how hundreds of really "poor" immigrants, who could not even speak a word of English, came to America and within a
generation were America's newest elite--and they did it without the government on their backs, or on the backs of others. Even today, in semi-free America, many such immigrants come here starting with nothing and create fortunes--though this is a rarer occurrence due to the vast
weight of the volumes of incoherent and irrational regulations that punish those who have an urgent need to accumulate capital (the poor)."
(no comment)
------
Or take the following from the Q & A:
-----
"What is the source of all wealth?
Wealth is the result of man's ability to think applied to the sphere of production and trade. Reason, ultimately, is the source of all wealth.
This is a very complex issue, which my response does not do enough justice, so I refer the reader to Francisco's Money Speech in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. [The link presented leads to an empty document]
I will be writing more on this topic sometime in the future."
-----
Oh well what can you say. The simple concept that labor might be the source of wealth could lead the "objectivist" mind down paths unsuited to the refined conceptual assumptions of nobless oblige.
Then there is the following:
----
"What is Capitalism's stance towards exploitation? Capitalism is the only system that bans exploitation, for anyone or by anyone, since it regards each and every man as an end to himself, and not as a tool to be exploited by others."
[Does the writer actually believe this nonsense?]
"How does capitalism do this?
"It accomplishes this by banning the initiation of force from all relationships. Under Capitalism no businessmen can lawfully force a worker to do something against his will (and vice-versa). Capitalism is not a system of exploitation, but is the system of laissez faire-- freedom.
[By laissez faire is meant freedom to exploit without fear of troublesome labor laws like minimum wage]
----
"Don't capitalists exploit the masses by stealing their surplus as the Marxists alleged?
"If capitalists "exploited" the masses by stealing their "surplus", as the Marxists allege, where was this "surplus" before capitalists existed? If not for capitalism, many of the masses you cry about would not exist--capitalism did not create poverty it inherited it."
[A colossal failure to understand what Marx meant by "surplus labor".]
---
"Don't laborers have a right to a share of the capitalist's profits, in addition to their wages?"
"Why are the laborers who demand a share in the capitalist's profits, silent in demanding their "share" when he incurs losses? Why don't they cry out and demand that they get to receive a share in those losses? If labor is the sole cause of all profit, then is it not also the sole cause of all losses? A moments reflection will point out that
laborers are only responsible for their job description-- they are not directly responsible for the losses of a business--and that the cause of an enterprise's losses lies essentially with the owner, as do the profits. That a businessmen pays a worker less wages than the worker feels he deserves is not exploitation, as the worker is free to leave his job and look elsewhere for a higher paying one, if he thinks that someone can give him a better job for a better wage."
---
[Ahh but a furthur moments reflection would consider the idea of worker owned and and operated productive enterprises. Kinda throws a wrench into the concept of exploitation...don't it?]
bill (too late & too tired to give more to this stuff)
