What is your view of Libertarianism and Ayn Rand?

[ParkCungHee]

I'm beginning to believe she doesn't know what force is either.

 

[Antilogic]

Actually, philosophy of science puts very little emphasis on the existence of existence. This is why science isn't interested in "truth" but on "confirmable predictions." Non-belief in existence is totally 100% compatible with science, but materialism runs into trouble.

Yup. Science is, and always has been, our best understanding of how the natural world works (the truth). It's a terrific system, probably closest to the truth, but it is still not perfect.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Yup. Science is, and always has been, our best understanding of how the natural world works (the truth).

No see Science has always been based on the principle that understanding of the natural world and truth can function unrelated to each other.
This is the origin of the statement "Not even wrong".

 

[Antilogic]

No see Science has always been based on the principle that understanding of the natural world and truth can function unrelated to each other.
This is the origin of the statement "Not even wrong".

Just to be clear--you are objecting to the parenthetical and not the body of the statement?

 

[Leoreth]

Those who are "non-productive" [disability, accident, bad luck, low skills etc] are going to be in the same situation they are in our current society - they will suffer a varying array of comparative disadvantages which may be serious enough to threaten their well-being in a serious way. There will also be those in a state of complete dependency - people born with incurable illnesses etc.

Objectivism's answer to this problem is private charity - which critics say is far from sufficient. A lot of people think that more certain guarantees [a welfare system] are necessary to look after people who are hopelessly dependent on others for their welfare.

Personally I think private charity is the best option if it can work, but if doesn't work and you have starving orphans or somesuch, then an intelligent society has no choice but to find some other solution as [IMO] a society fails if it can't solve this problem. So yes, at that point it would be in their interests to take steps to get food or welfare etc, as it is possible that people could be left behind in a cold way and unnecessary suffering is not desirable.

Well first off, I wanna make sure you don't get the feeling I'm trying to corner you or guide you into contradiction. I'm seriously trying to understand the implications of Objectivism and therefore I'm happy you're staying in this thread and try to explain it despite the sizeable opposition over here.

So anyway, I think it's good that you admit the possibility that there are circumstances where an optimal (or even sufficient) outcome for everyone can't be guaranteed and measures need to be taken against it. However, you're only looking at it from the "outside" perspective of how the system should be. I was going more for the perspective of the individual: what if I'm a convinced Objectivist but realize I don't have the ability to benefit from a free society? What course of action does Objectivism imply for these people?

 

[Ayn Rand]

I understand it hasn't been tried and so we can't discuss it as we can with, say, communism in all it's varying forms or feudalism etc. etc. but my intent and questions are not to discuss how Objectivists would 'start' to affect change, but, say, down the road after several windfall elections and support and just change in general, the country gladly embraces Objectivism, how would this Objectivist society look like, in theory then if we can't draw upon practicesed examples?

It would be a society where individuals had maximum freedom to pursue their economic and other interests. If we assume that the society as a whole is stable and peaceful, then there would be rapid progress in industry, culture, science and the wider market economy. If you want to get sci-fi, you might see things like corporations pushing out into space and colonising other Planets. Humanity would be unbound - freed from regulations and the constant slow bleeding of the strongest and best which holds back progress in more socialistic systems.

But keep in mind also that society is extremely complex, and there are all sorts of unintended consequences and unexpected future events ahead of us. As one poster pointed out, it might go haywire and end up looking like bioshock

But if not ruled by Philosopher Kings, how and who would run the government that enforced the laws and courts? How would they attain these positions and based on what? For instance, as for the laws, is it democracy? So a certain company doesn't like this law but another does, who and how is it decided?

They would doubtless be appointed the way civil servants are trained and appointed today. The courts would be run according to legal principles - if people had a problem with the law, they would sort it out in court or through lawsuits, much as they do today.

But who makes these contracts if the Government is not to interfere in business? What if my Contract says you're tied in forever and can't come out? Who decides what my business can and cannot put in the contracts I have for my employees? My contract states business policies may change, and I change them so that my company doesn't allow quitting? What government authority has that kind of authority over how I run my business? And my business doesn't allow or hire union members. And I don't care about negative feedback in the media because my business empire is solid and people will buy my products regardless. Keep in mind sweatshops exist all around the world, so it's not like I'm making up extremes here. But right now I'm trying to see what the line between completely unregulated capitalism and government regulation is. Just what does the government regulate besides what I can and cannot put in my businesses contract?

Just as in our current society, contracts would be made by the interested parties. It is for the people engaged in the trade, transaction or agreement to sit down and negotiate a contract that suits them best. Government in our current society does not "create" contracts - it might regulate them, but mostly it just enforces the terms through the court system on those occasions when there is a problem.

People would be more or less able to contract in any way they wished with other parties, provided it was mutually voluntary. If people agreed a contract that put them at a disadvantage, it would be too bad for them. People have to look after their own interests - so if you wanted to run a sweatshop and I wanted to work in your sweatshop, we would be allowed to do that. If I wanted to walk away from your sweatshop, you wouldn't be able to physically stop me - all you could do is potentially take me to court and sue me for breach of contract. That's how it works in a society of laws.

2) What if I allow them to quit if they want but also happen to be the biggest company in the country and the only one hiring? The masses have the choice of trying to get work at these other companies to limited success, unemployment, or work at my massive conglomerate. Since they freely chose to work for me, I am free to just give them room and board in my company lodgings (not the best kept because it makes no financial sense to provide decent housing and with my market monopoly and the demand for employment I have no need to 'entice' people to work for me) and they should be happy that I provide this in return for their work, right? I also don't provide any benefits, vacation days, or any of the like because that hurts production value and I'm really not too concerned with turnover. In other words I run my factories like China and India. Since the employees have the choice to work for me or not, (even though the demand is in my favor) how does Objectivism treat this scenario?

Conditions like that represent an extreme economic condition, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it. The economy of China is growing rapidly precisely because people are free to do business in that way - what people in poverty need is the freedom to do business, build enterprises, save money and increase their prosperity. There is no short-cut into it, so if the market conditions are like that due to background economic conditions, people have no choice but to suck it up and deal with it - work hard to get richer in the future.

3) Again, for charity taking care of the not-so-gifted, isn't charity against what Objectivism is about, if self-interest and rational selfishness is the moral correct way to proceed and if selfishness is a virtue, that produces profit and doesn't harm others, why should that profit be shared via charities and why should ANY charity be expected in an Objectivist society? Would it make the most sense that there is NO charity as charity goes against the Objectivist PoV?

Perhaps you have listened to too many people telling you that selfishness is evil. But we believe that selfishness is morally good - therefore, why should we refuse to give charity just because we are selfish? We are not selfish because we are bad people who want to do bad things.

Of course, we reject the morality of altruism - we don't see it as our highest goal in life to sacrifice ourselves for the good of others. But we've nothing against charity, so long as it's freely given, the individual wants to give, and it is not held up as a moral value to sacrifice oneself for others.

**I am honestly curious and want to discuss this issue,

I know - difficult questions and criticism are fine, that is not what is meant by trolling anyway.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Just to be clear--you are objecting to the parenthetical and not the body of the statement?

Both. It's a wonderful system, but not one particularly useful on it's own for getting close to truth, because it's really not it's purpose.

 

[JollyRoger]

If you want to get sci-fi, you might see things like corporations pushing out into space and colonising other Planets.

Why would you even need an entity created under the laws of the state that has privileges and liabilities that are distinct from those of its members? Why does a gifted free marketer need the privilege of state-enforced limited liability?

 

[Ayn Rand]

However, you're only looking at it from the "outside" perspective of how the system should be. I was going more for the perspective of the individual: what if I'm a convinced Objectivist but realize I don't have the ability to benefit from a free society? What course of action does Objectivism imply for these people?

Rationality is the primary virtue so the first thing you will do is have a think about it, and then you will discuss the problem with your friends - you are an Objectivist so you will have Objectivist friends, who are the most intelligent and loving people on Earth

That ought to sort you out, but if it doesn't work then there is some kind of contradiction or inconsistency in your idea system somewhere that you will need to resolve. The problem will either be with you, or with Objectivist theory. Once you have found the contradiction/inconsistency, the next step is to resolve it in some way. How you do this will depend on what it is - it could be purely intellectual, or emotional, or some physical problem.

You will then either realise that your self-interest is served by Objectivism, or you will realise that you no longer believe in Objectivism and are no longer an Objectivist. If the latter, then you will be in opposition to Objectivism and, if the problem is sufficiently serious, you will have to bring it to the attention of others and try to do something about it. But like all problems, you can look forward to some hard work and heroic struggle as you struggle manfully to solve it

Why would you even need an entity created under the laws of the state that has privileges and liabilities that are distinct from those of its members? Why does a gifted free marketer need the privilege of state-enforced limited liability?

This is because we [as in you and I] have a different understanding of what a free market is. I [like all Objectivists] am a minarchist, and I simply don't believe that your definition of free markets is correct, or that your rejection of the State in all its aspects is workable.

 

[JonBonham]

It would be a society where individuals had maximum freedom to pursue their economic and other interests. If we assume that the society as a whole is stable and peaceful, then there would be rapid progress in industry, culture, science and the wider market economy. If you want to get sci-fi, you might see things like corporations pushing out into space and colonising other Planets. Humanity would be unbound - freed from regulations and the constant slow bleeding of the strongest and best which holds back progress in more socialistic systems.

So if economic freedom was maximum, then for instance I can put whatever chemicals I want into my products and foods for maximum efficiency/addictiveness/cheap production costs. Etc. Regardless of any negative effects they have on mu consumers right, and ultimately it's up to the consumers to try to find out what's in my products, but they won't be able to because my company policy is secretive and we do not desire to release that kind of information, but having these ingredients in my products maximizes my profit and economic freedom and progress.

As an economic and social theory meant to be the best way for society to proceed, it should also be the best regardless of any unintended consequences, because the model itself allows the best end results, so any 'unintended' consequence like my company with it's shady practices to hook consumers and produce products with potential but undetectable negative effects on the consumer and environment (there's a lot of lead in my products but no one knows) but that should be fine, right?

They would doubtless be appointed the way civil servants are trained and appointed today. The courts would be run according to legal principles - if people had a problem with the law, they would sort it out in court or through lawsuits, much as they do today.

So the courts would simply be a ways for someone who wants something from my company to sue me and force me to give my earnings to them when they did nothing to earn it but perceive they are owed it because my company makes them unhappy because there's a little bit of extra chemicals in the river they get their drinking water from? How is that not government regulation forcing my hand? Where is my unbound, free from regulation capitalism? Why must I give something to this person who wants to leech from me?

Just as in our current society, contracts would be made by the interested parties. It is for the people engaged in the trade, transaction or agreement to sit down and negotiate a contract that suits them best. Government in our current society does not "create" contracts - it might regulate them, but mostly it just enforces the terms through the court system on those occasions when there is a problem.

So if the government is going to act just as it does in our current society, where is the unbound capitalism, if the government keeps telling me, forcing me, regulating me, to give out my money to these people who sue me?

And in an Objectivist society of the laws the laws must be based on Objectivism, so the law should say that since pursuing my self-interest and progress is my highest goal, if for instance someone leaves my company, sure I can't stop them, but I will have it stipulated in my contract that their future earnings from other companies must be paid to me since my company provided them the training they have. It's Objectivist law so the law should be protecting my companies and my self-interest and the freedom of me to run my company however I like, correct?

Perhaps you have listened to too many people telling you that selfishness is evil. But we believe that selfishness is morally good - therefore, why should we refuse to give charity just because we are selfish? We are not selfish because we are bad people who want to do bad things

Not at all, I think no such thing like selfishness is evil. And no such thing as selflessness is vastly morally superior or righteous, and as such I refuse to give to charity because it does not benefit me and I don't feel like giving and will neither feel good or bad if I do, so since I see no point in it and giving charity does nothing to help me, my company or any other company in this Objectivist society to prosper and advance, none of us has any incentive or rational reason to give to charity. I'm not even suggesting we should, and it definietely should not be 'compelled' by morals or laws, but in an earlier post you said some issues might potentially be taken care of by charity in the society. Charity goes against everything Objectivism is about as you say again here, and it harms others as it causes these others to rely on it instead of utilizing their own self-interest and will to better themselves, so then doesn't that mean there should be minimal or no charity in this society? So then how would we address those issues you suggested may be best addressed by charity? See, why would we as Objectivists feel and want to give charity when that enables people to leech off our success and not try to attain success themselves?

 

[JollyRoger]

This is because we [as in you and I] have a different understanding of what a free market is. I [like all Objectivists] am a minarchist, and I simply don't believe that your definition of free markets is correct, or that your rejection of the State in all its aspects is workable.

Why the state protection from liability though? In a free market, you can individually contract for such limitations. The default should be each man standing behind his word, not standing behind a state-sponsored shield.

 

[Crezth]

Conditions like that represent an extreme economic condition, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it. The economy of China is growing rapidly precisely because people are free to do business in that way - what people in poverty need is the freedom to do business, build enterprises, save money and increase their prosperity. There is no short-cut into it, so if the market conditions are like that due to background economic conditions, people have no choice but to suck it up and deal with it - work hard to get richer in the future.

Gonna have to red-flag this. China's economy is anything but free: It has massive tariffs, the type of dishonest fiscal policy that libertarians hate, and its businesses are subject to miles and miles of red tape. The "business-friendly" aspect of it comes from the government actively working with corporate entities to enforce the latter's will, which translates to success for China via a higher GDP. If you're a business owner in China, you kind of have to go with the government on a de-facto level or else you don't own your business anymore. Or your life.

I mean, unless you're directly jacked in to the government or have some other necessary ties, there's zero social mobility for you in China. Zero. And most of the economic success in China is had at the direct expense of its citizenry. Workers there don't have any protections, and are suffering for it.

So, I mean, bad example. China is extremely authoritarian. It should be the antithesis of all the right-wing holds dear, but... well... I've talked to a lot of right-wingers who LOVE China.

 

[Ayn Rand]

So if economic freedom was maximum, then for instance I can put whatever chemicals I want into my products and foods for maximum efficiency/addictiveness/cheap production costs. Etc.

That outcome is certainly not the aim of Objectivism - although it's a complex area of law/economics. Objectivism looks primarily to the markets to resolve that problem, but as you point out the system must be resilient and handle these kind of problems - primarily I imagine this being done through gradual legal evolution.

So the courts would simply be a ways for someone who wants something from my company to sue me and force me to give my earnings to them when they did nothing to earn it but perceive they are owed it because my company makes them unhappy because there's a little bit of extra chemicals in the river they get their drinking water from? How is that not government regulation forcing my hand? Where is my unbound, free from regulation capitalism? Why must I give something to this person who wants to leech from me?

I don't know how/why you got to this interpretation of the function of courts. As Judge Dredd - the law is the law, that's 20 years in the cubes for you!

More seriously, regulation refers to specific types of laws, not to all laws. So eliminating regulation does not mean eliminating all laws.

So if the government is going to act just as it does in our current society, where is the unbound capitalism, if the government keeps telling me, forcing me, regulating me, to give out my money to these people who sue me?

The laws would be structured somewhat differently - that's the difference. The enforcement mechanism would be the same, and the legal mechanisms would be kept - things such as a fair trial and so on - because they are just smart.

Also, as I noted before it is people who make the contracts, not the government. But without a government to enforce contracts, you would not really be able to make a contract with anyone because you wouldn't be able to enforce the terms.

And in an Objectivist society of the laws the laws must be based on Objectivism so the law should say that since pursuing my self-interest and progress is my highest goal, if for instance someone leaves my company, sure I can't stop them, but I will have it stipulated in my contract that their future earnings from other companies must be paid to me since my company provided them the training they have. It's Objectivist law so the law should be protecting my companies and my self-interest and the freedom of me to run my company however I like, correct?

Very creative. You can certainly go ahead and try, but I think you would be better off gaining a more sophisticated understanding of what "rational self-interest" implies.

Charity goes against everything Objectivism is about as you say again here, and it harms others as it causes these others to rely on it instead of utilizing their own self-interest and will to better themselves, so then doesn't that mean there should be minimal or no charity in this society?

Some people can't take care of themselves and so they do need charity. I don't think charity "goes against everything Objectivism is about" because Objectivism clearly states that charity is a good way to take care of people who need it. Therefore, you are being contradictory when stating that charity is against Objectivism as it simply isn't. As I said, altruism is not part of our value system - but giving to charity and helping others is a rewarding experience for many people and if they want to do that then good for them.

Why the state protection from liability though? In a free market, you can individually contract for such limitations. The default should be each man standing behind his word, not standing behind a state-sponsored shield.

It's just a sensible trading convention - no-one is forced to create a ltd company, nor to trade with one. Think of it as a "standard contract".

China is extremely authoritarian.

I know - I didn't say they were completely free, just that they have the freedom to run sweatshops. Y'know, the freedoms that count

Spoiler :

 

[Berzerker]

TAX: That form of coercion or interference with the Free Market in which the State collects tribute (the tax), allowing it to hire armed forces to practice coercion in defense of privilege, and also to engage in such wars, adventures, experiments, "reforms," etc., as it pleases, not at its own cost, but at the cost of "its" subjects.

USURY: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which one State supported group monopolizes the coinage and thereby takes tribute (interest), direct or indirect, on all or most economic transactions.

sounds like the same thing

LANDLORDISM: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which one State-supported group "owns" the land and thereby takes tribute (rent) from those who live, work, or produce on the land.

How does my paying rent interfere with the market?

 

[JonBonham]

That outcome is certainly not the aim of Objectivism - although it's a complex area of law/economics. Objectivism looks primarily to the markets to resolve that problem, but as you point out the system must be resilient and handle these kind of problems - primarily I imagine this being done through gradual legal evolution.

How is it not the aim if my company is profitting due to my personal efforts and clever ideas on how to produce the maximum amount of profits, which is using whatever I want in them and not disclosing any of these secrets, thus allowing myself a monopoly as well as keeping the consumer ill-informed as to what's completely in what they're getting? This allows me to succeed as much as possible and spur progress and growth forwards by freely operating and pursuing my rational
self-interest. How is that not the aim of Objectivism?

More seriously, regulation refers to specific types of laws, not to all laws. So eliminating regulation does not mean eliminating all laws.

The laws reflect the society they exist in. There is no need for anti-trust laws in Government Planned and Controlled Economy, and also there would be no anti-trust or laws against monopolies in an Objectivist society as such laws go against the nature and premise and philosophy of the society. So are we talking about an Objectivist society? Then does it not follow that the laws would follow the principles of Objectivism? And not kowtow down to other social and philosophical systems?

Very creative. You can certainly go ahead and try, but I think you would be better off gaining a more sophisticated understanding of what "rational self-interest" implies.

And to gain that understanding, I would gladly like to start by hearing your opinion on how the above, me doing that with my company, does not advance or further my personal rational self-interest, when my company and me are flourishing and the workers living at the minimal standards I provide for them do not affect me negatively in any way? Why should I care about adhereing to their demands for, say, a certain wage or conditions when they freely chose to work for me, even if with my monopoly I actually offer a good portion of the jobs available in the market? Think of me as New Standard Oil, I scooped up all the oil pathes in America due to my genius and so I charge whatever I want, and since my industry is booming and unemployment is high I offer a vast many job openings, with whatever conditions I want, and since it's simple tasks and high demand, I don't need to offer 'fair' working conditions, so how is me running my business like this not in my rational self-interest and why would the courts be allowed to prohibit me from doing so? Isn't that kind of prohibition the kind of regulation Objectivism is against?

Some people can't take care of themselves and so they do need charity. I don't think charity "goes against everything Objectivism is about" because Objectivism clearly states that charity is a good way to take care of people who need it. Therefore, you are being contradictory when stating that charity is against Objectivism as it simply isn't. As I said, altruism is not part of our value system - but giving to charity and helping others is a rewarding experience for many people and if they want to do that then good for them.

Does it really state its a good way to take care of people who need it? Why am I expending my resources so someone can leech off of me? Am I not preventing them from learning to help themselves? As I said, giving to charity is not rewarding so how is it in my self-interest to give handouts? Instead of charity, for those who can't help themselves, why don't I gather them to help propel my own personal success forwards? Free labor for me, beds and food for them. Education that only directly relates to the job they will provide for me.

 

[JollyRoger]

It's just a sensible trading convention - no-one is forced to create a ltd company, nor to trade with one. Think of it as a "standard contract".

So when I think of a government-backed privilige from liability as a conventional part of "standard contract", am I supposed to think of libertarianism?

sounds like the same thing

Pretty much so, except that usury has the banker middleman.

How does my paying rent interfere with the market?

"Ownership" traces back to government grants and is maintained and enforced by manipulation of government records.

 

[Ayn Rand]

How is it not the aim if my company is profitting due to my personal efforts and clever ideas on how to produce the maximum amount of profits, which is using whatever I want in them and not disclosing any of these secrets, thus allowing myself a monopoly as well as keeping the consumer ill-informed as to what's completely in what they're getting? This allows me to succeed as much as possible and spur progress and growth forwards by freely operating and pursuing my rational
self-interest. How is that not the aim of Objectivism?

Now you're saying something a little different to what you said before, when you mentioned adulterating food with addictive and dangerous chemicals, which is against Objectivist principles of individual rights and non-aggression.

As I said, it's a complex area of law and economics because there are all sorts of details. What you've just described sounds largely okay - but if you're asking me to get into the minutiae of these kind of economic/legal gaming theories, then I'm not equipped for something that specific.

The laws reflect the society they exist in. There is no need for anti-trust laws in Government Planned and Controlled Economy, and also there would be no anti-trust or laws against monopolies in an Objectivist society as such laws go against the nature and premise and philosophy of the society. So are we talking about an Objectivist society? Then does it not follow that the laws would follow the principles of Objectivism? And not kowtow down to other social and philosophical systems?

Indeed, but we were talking about the right to make contracts - these would be retained and enforced. In your previous post, you gave a description of the court's function which was innaccurate. As for abolishing anti-monopoly laws, the sooner they go the better.

And to gain that understanding, I would gladly like to start by hearing your opinion on how the above, me doing that with my company, does not advance or further my personal rational self-interest

It's just not how business works, nor is it how people are employed.

when my company and me are flourishing and the workers living at the minimal standards I provide for them do not affect me negatively in any way? Why should I care about adhereing to their demands for, say, a certain wage or conditions when they freely chose to work for me, even if with my monopoly I actually offer a good portion of the jobs available in the market? Think of me as New Standard Oil, I scooped up all the oil pathes in America due to my genius and so I charge whatever I want, and since my industry is booming and unemployment is high I offer a vast many job openings, with whatever conditions I want, and since it's simple tasks and high demand, I don't need to offer 'fair' working conditions, so how is me running my business like this not in my rational self-interest and why would the courts be allowed to prohibit me from doing so? Isn't that kind of prohibition the kind of regulation Objectivism is against?

Yes, but you are talking about a dream economy, not the sophisticated and nuanced real economy. I can dream up fantasy scenarios where I run an amazingly profitable company by exploiting some made-up loophole in a law or contract, but that doesn't mean that it would be possible in practise. So rather than dealing with these infinite number of hypotheticals, it is in your rational self-interest to understand how the real business environment works and learn to compete in that.

Does it really state its a good way to take care of people who need it? Why am I expending my resources so someone can leech off of me? Am I not preventing them from learning to help themselves? As I said, giving to charity is not rewarding so how is it in my self-interest to give handouts? Instead of charity, for those who can't help themselves, why don't I gather them to help propel my own personal success forwards? Free labor for me, beds and food for them. Education that only directly relates to the job they will provide for me.

Yes, it really states that. However, Ayn Rand didn't say you should do it, or that you had to do it, or even recommended that you do it. Objectivism is a genuinely free society - there is no such as a dogmatic self-interest which is given to people to follow. What is good for me may not be good for you. If everyone's self-interest was the same, we wouldn't need individual freedom would we? So whatever an individual wishes to do, including giving to charity or even joining the communist party, they are free to do that if they wish to. We do not prescribe a person's choices in life or tell them what to think and do.

 

[Perfection]

Objectivists are at best misguided at worst malignant. They rail against systems they don't understand for systems that don't work.

Many have a love for freedom, which is honorable, but they don't seem to understand that freedom is fundamentally limited by available resources (we can't all drive Ferraris) and are unwilling to make the hard decisions needed to actually give the best outcome, they instead pretend if we follow their set of dopey rules everything will work out fine. It's ignorance with arrogance, a dangerous combination.

 

[Winston Hughes]

That kind of vision is totally rejected by us, it is inherently totalitarian. The risks an Objectivist society faces are the risks of freedom, not the risks of tyranny and oligarchy.

Tyranny and oligarchy are the risks of Rand-style freedom.

In the absence of a popular state strong enough to oppose them, sooner or later it is inevitable that a 'great man' (or a cartel of several) will either:

1) seize control of the state, to impose his own rule and law on everybody else.

2) create an alternative power structure which overthrows the state and imposes its own rule and law on everybody else.

 

[bernie14]

Socialists are at best misguided at worst malignant. They rail against systems they don't understand for systems that don't work.

Many have a love for equality, which is honorable, but they don't seem to understand that equality is fundamentally limited by available resources (we can't all drive Ferraris) and are unwilling to make the hard decisions needed to actually give the best outcome, they instead pretend if we follow their set of dopey rules everything will work out fine (for them, because they give themselves the power to take from others). It's ignorance with arrogance, a dangerous combination.

fixed

Moderator Action: When altering someone's quote be sure to highlight exactly what you are altering...and rewriting the whole post certainly isn't it...and can qualify as trolly by copy-catting on top of it
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889