tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20454547.post7749226261048363146..comments2023-09-20T04:53:44.205-04:00Comments on Stanmore Hill: The road away from SerfdomFSJLhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15803079547494458258noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20454547.post-61698275982072163602008-11-04T13:26:00.000-05:002008-11-04T13:26:00.000-05:00Ah, Randism as the One True Faith. The standard Ra...Ah, Randism as the One True Faith. The standard Randroid explanation, too: reality is flawed.FSJLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15803079547494458258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20454547.post-16943212217258722352008-11-03T00:07:00.000-05:002008-11-03T00:07:00.000-05:00"Greenspan is a disciple of Ayn Rand, one of recen..."Greenspan is a disciple of Ayn Rand, one of recent history's most eminent false prophets."<BR/><BR/>On the contrary, Greenspan was, not is, a disciple of Ayn Rand. He abandoned her ideas on taking the helm of the Federal Reserve to manage it rather than to eliminate it. And what is false about Rand's prophecy that mixing government force with the free market is a recipe for disasters like the one we are now experiencing? <BR/><BR/>Your definition of "capitalism" is so all encompassing it has no meaning at all. If you wish to treat the word as contextual, do so, but qualify it then as you flit from context to context. Rand"s capitalism is not Greenspan's or Reagan's or Thatcher's. Hers is defined with one principle with which none of them agreed:<BR/><BR/>No man may initiate the use of physical force to gain, withhold, or destroy any value created by or acquired in a voluntary exchange by another. <BR/><BR/>How is that not the politics of freedom for all? And how is it wrong to argue for each man to pursue his own rational self-interest and then to demonstrate that freedom for all is the only politics that fulfills that self-interest? In every political question, there is only one fundamental alternative: freedom or force. Rand's capitalism advocates only freedom and eschews all force for gain (as opposed to force for defense of freedom). She defined "freedom" in the political context as having but one meaning: "the absence of physical coercion" (http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/freedom.html). <BR/><BR/>All of the other so-called capitalists have compromised the two -- a compromise Rand equates with the compromise of life with death from which we get only sickness. The litany of disasters you cite were not the product of laissez-faire, but rather achieved by businessmen in collusion with your government. In Rand's capitalism, the government has no benefits to bestow on billionaires. They must earn the right to do what they do to your country one penny at a time. <BR/><BR/>As Sam Walton well knew, the masses are in command of more wealth in pennies than the billionaires are in dollars. He raised the standard of living of the poor more than all previous government and charitable programs combined, yet died the richest man in America. What moral right would anyone have to begrudge him that wealth. Rand's capitalism benefits the poorest most by taking from the government and giving to them the exclusive right to decide who will be a billionaire. Thus, in the absence of physical coercion, the only way to become one is to offer more value for fewer pennies. That is a very different capitalism from the one that is a misnomer for the politics of today.Michael Clendenin Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16581122565726095706noreply@blogger.com