Developing: Bridge Collapses Near Seattle…Unknown Injuries…See the Photos

Watch Today’s BlazeCast With Your Questions, Comments & Live Chat!

Politics

Is Capitalism Heartless? President of the Ayn Rand Institute Talks Economic Policy (And How to Fix the Economy) With TheBlaze

Nov. 1, 2012 11:00pm Erica Ritz

Dr. Yaron Brook, the president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, stopped by TheBlaze newsroom recently for a lively interview with contributor Mallory Factor. With the recent release of Atlas Shrugged II and the presidential election right around the corner, many of the theories and philosophies Brook advocates are at the center of politics today.

After noting that Brook has a new book out– Free Market Revolution: How Ayn Rand’s Ideas Can End Big Government– the two delved right into the issues.

“What about protecting all those people who need to be protected?” Factor asked, bringing up a common critique of what some call “unbridled” capitalism. “Don’t we have moral obligations to people?”

“No, we don’t,” he said simply. “Somebody else’s needs, somebody else’s suffering, somebody else’s desires are not your responsibility.”

When asked if he would help someone if they got hit by a car, Brook explained: “As a human being you want to help them, absolutely, but it depends on the cost! If it’s in the middle of a highway and you might get run over going to help them, you’re probably not going to do it…So it depends on the cost to you. The standard is your life.”

Reiterating that charity is good but that it should be your choice, Brook directly tackled the notion that capitalism is heartless and will leave the poor helpless:

“Under capitalism, the poor are the biggest beneficiaries! No other system in history has benefited the poor more than capitalism…Capitalism is moral because it allows you the freedom to pursue your happiness, it allows you the freedom to take care of your life…So what happens under capitalism? The poor go out there and they get a job…under capitalism, the standard of living of the poor rises dramatically. So the poor under capitalism are a lot less poor than the middle class in any other system. Capitalism is what created the middle class– not by lowering the wealth of the rich, but by increasing the wealth of the poor.” [Emphasis added]

From there, the two switched to presidential politics. When asked why he isn’t supporting Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson, Brook opted for the “realistic” approach that only Mitt Romney or Barack Obama have a chance of winning, but said that Johnson “absolutely” has better ideas than Romney on domestic policy.

“Congresman Ryan…was a fan of Ayn Rand until he became the vice presidential candidate, now he’s running as fast as he can away from it. Why?” Factor asked.

According to Brook, it’s a little too early for Rand’s “radical” ideas in American politics. “[We're] not for a little bit of free market, not for a little bit of slowing the rate of government,” he explained. “We’re for slashing government.”

But that’s not all. Brook also thinks Rand’s atheism could alienate religious voters, adding that we’re far more religious today than we were in 1776:

“We’re a much more religious nation today than I think we were at the founding, when a deist like Thomas Jefferson could get elected…[Ryan] has to run from [Rand's] atheism, he has to establish his Catholic roots, and he has to articulate a defense of the entitlement state because America’s not ready yet for a free-market revolution.”

When asked what advice he would give to America’s leaders, Brook began with “deregulate, deregulate, deregulate” before proposing a novel way to get spending cuts through Congress:

“Start cutting spending by cutting all government subsidies to business…All farm subsidies, all energy subsidies, get rid of all tax deductions, all of them…Republicans are always described as ‘the party of big business,’ and they hate the poor. Well, don’t start with the poor. Start with big business this time, and you could cut close to half a trillion dollars off the U.S. budget not in ten years– today– if you just got rid of all the stuff that only hurts business in the long term.” [Emphasis added]

Citing several specific examples of what he would cut, Brook concluded: “This is not hard. Let’s start the process by deregulating and significantly cutting subsidies…Let’s get rid of cronyism, and the way to get rid of cronyism is to get government out of the business of business.”

Watch the entire interview, below:

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (73)

truemedia
Posted on November 2, 2012 at 8:22pm
I am sick of hearing Capitalism is immoral??? Capitalism gives the individual the greatest opportunity to reach out to help the less unfortunate but we don’t have to support consistent laziness either

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
flatbroke
Posted on November 2, 2012 at 12:31pm
Capitalzism is heartless only to lazy, people who sit around feeling sorry for themselves and cry, b/c things did not go their way, and refuse to work. for people who choose to work, its great, you may lose your shirt, but at least you have the opportunity to get your shirt back, and no other econnomic system allows you to do this.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- turkey13
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 2:36pm
  Some Electric crews from Alabama went to NJ and tried to take the union workers jobs up there and found out they couldn’t do it. Those people will just have to tuff it out untill it comes on. The state had to get the Casinios up and running first and they are fireing up as I type. Some folks are bootlegging guns to that area. Can’t other people keep their noses out of others business. Folks in Phillie, Chicago, Nj and NY voted in gun control. They are happy with just the police and bodyguards of the wealthy having guns. If you see a person selling guns up there call the police and report.
  
  Report this comment
Twinspeedr
Posted on November 2, 2012 at 10:28am
Yes Capitalism IS heartless, it is a vehicle nothing more. The participants in Capitalism is where the heart SHOULD be. That is what we need God in order for the system to work sustainably.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TJSON
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 4:09pm
  Ayn Rand doesn’t believe God exists…
  
  Report this comment
- Spirit 72
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 6:47pm
  If capitalism is heartless, then so is Lady Justice with the blindfold and scales.
  
  IMPARTIAL is the word they should be using.
  
  Report this comment
BenFree
Posted on November 2, 2012 at 9:02am
If you want to understand the best argument for capitalism, there is a proven scientific basis in physics and sociology. The best explanation I’ve ever read is in the book Quantum Capitalism. It is trippy and easy to understand. It proved what money really was, and showed how countries work. It also destroys Islam and the ******** as serious human pathology of values.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
johnjamison
Posted on November 2, 2012 at 7:50am
Capitalism is the actual system based on the old story of the ant and the grasshopper. Yeah there are ants in the capitalist system that struggle like the grasshopper but in every other economic system everyone ends up like the grasshopper. At least capitalism allows most to make it if government got out of the way and did it’s actual job and protect U.S. SOVERIEGNITY

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
GaltLine
Posted on November 2, 2012 at 6:52am
An atheist is able to participate fully in a civil society. A Socialist/Marxist cannot and will not.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
GaltLine
Posted on November 2, 2012 at 6:38am
This whole idea of ideas and labor by Ayn Rand is handled differently but with similar results by Antoine de Saint Exupery in “The Citadel” also known as the “Wisdom of the Sands.” The harshness and unforgiveability of the desert being allegorically a similar basis for Rand’s objections to altruism.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
NancyO
Posted on November 2, 2012 at 6:16am
Only when you give up the idea that god cares what you do can you understand the basic principle of free will. It works the same in economics, government or spiritual truth. If we are truly free, there is still one restriction: that which says you can do anything you want, but you cannot ever escape the consequences of your choices. It seems to me that government is the ultimate tool trying to negate this principle and make new rules. Religion does it with guilt, government does it with guns. What’s the difference?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GaltLine
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 7:14am
  Your definition of freewill is not supported by any example of nature around you. Step off a ledge, consequence. Hug a flame, consequence. Refuse to eat, consequence. In your utopian world of free will there can be no consequence. With or without God there is no such free will as you define anywhere.
  
  Report this comment
- Mr. H.
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 8:51am
  The difference is that when the government is the majority provider of charity and philanthropy, it is NOT voluntary. Religion is the foundation of all society as it teaches the basic tenants of civil conduct and governance. It is from religion that we get “From those who have much, much is required”. In civil discourse this tenant is largely followed by the religious. By chasing religion out of public discourse, society looses its civility. All of the great societies were religious and achieved greatness because their religion taught or teaches charity and philanthropy, and that charity and philanthropy is provided on the principle of subsidiarity.
  
  Report this comment
Mr.buff1959
Posted on November 2, 2012 at 2:09am
Other than soybombs comments, this is one of the most intelligent discussions i have ever seen on this web sight.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- smallcraftadvisory
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 5:34am
  Free market Capitlism is the most just and fair system devised by man> It also leads to the gretest amount of charity. Read http://smallcraftadvisorychronicles.blogspot.com/ for fresh political commentary.
  
  Report this comment
- chucksue351
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 5:52am
  small craft is right, free market capitalism is a just system of economic activity, but capitalism that is controlled by the state, communism, nazism, or any other will tend to a dictictorial regime, once those guys get power they don’t like to give it up
  
  Report this comment
rsanchez1
Posted on November 2, 2012 at 1:29am
More on weighing the cost to rescue someone, there was a story a short while ago about a car crash that downed a power line, the car and power line near a puddle of water. A few people rushed to help, didn’t stop to check if it’s safe, and paid for it with their life when they got electrocuted.

When you let emotion take over and don’t stop to think rationally, more often than not it will end badly.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Mr.buff1959
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 2:15am
  Great point. Well said.
  
  Report this comment
- TJSON
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 4:18pm
  Yes, TheBlaze forums, please tell me more about the benefits of thinking ‘rationally’ as you call it…
  
  I go through this forum occasionally and for every 1 rational response i see 25 that are dominated by emotion.
  
  One of the first steps to becoming a rational human is to accept the following statements:
  
  1. You have ulterior motives for believing the things you believe.
  2. It is more important to you to agree with your peers than to be ‘correct’
  3. There is no such thing as objective truth. Even if such a thing were to exist, we have no access to it.
  
  Report this comment
- acidovorax
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 6:05pm
  TJSON wrote: “One of the first steps to becoming a rational human is to accept the following statements:
  
  1. You have ulterior motives for believing the things you believe.
  2. It is more important to you to agree with your peers than to be ‘correct’
  3. There is no such thing as objective truth. Even if such a thing were to exist, we have no access to it.”
  
  You do realize that #3 undercuts everything you’ve said, right?
  
  Report this comment
psychosocial1
Posted on November 2, 2012 at 1:16am
Brooks statement about the suffering of one not being the responsibility of another has a fatal flaw. If the actions of the former directly cause the suffering of the latter it IS necessarily the responsibility of the former. For example, a corporation dumps toxic chemicals in the water supply of a locality. The residents of that locality develop diseases as a direct result of this dumping. The individuals in charge of this corporation are simply following policy that is in the best interest of the corporation (i.e. maximizing profits, limiting costs). Without any type of regulation there is NO reason for any corporation to follow any policy that would protect the environment because these types of protections necessarily drive up costs. Furthermore, while the corporations realize bigger profits due to this deregulation society as a whole bears the additional costs. These costs are referred to as externalities. Privatize the profits and socialize the costs.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- justangry
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 1:34am
  Sure there’s an incentive to protect the environment. If someone harms another or causes damage to their property with their pollution, they’re liable. As opposed to what we have now where the company pollutes as much as they’re allotted by the govt and everyone’s taxes are used to clean it up. Or where individuals are protected by incorporation rather than being responsible for their actions.
  
  Report this comment
- rsanchez1
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 1:35am
  Here is your regulation. The people of the town get together and decide to do something about it. They might try to negotiate with the “evil” corporation, they might try to blockade it, they might try to storm it and raze it. Whatever the people feel is in their best interest, they will do, because just like a corporation is a group of people working together for a common cause, the townspeople can work together for a common cause.
  
  The corporation then chooses how to respond. Like you said, they have to do what maximizes profits, and if their factory will start losing WAY more money if it’s not producing than if it’s producing while dumping toxic chemicals, then they have two choices: either yield to the townspeople or skip town for greener pastures.
  
  If they skip town and the next town hears what happened with the previous town, they will be more wary and keep a closer look on the corporation. In this way, you have both free market, and the people acting in their own best interest. The people will place a price on the corporation by deciding whether or not they want to do business with the corporation, in terms of buying product or sharing land. A huge bureaucracy does not respond to the needs of the people. That’s why the founders originally envisioned a federalist system, with a central government to bind the states together, but the states ultimately having responsibility for themselves. Have more power closer to the people down to the town level.
  
  Report this comment
- psychosocial1
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 1:43am
  @justangry
  
  I will agree with most of what you say, but will make one caveat. I strongly believe that those in power, both in Congress and the boardrooms, are still seeking the protections of the rules of incorporation while freeing themselves from the “burdensome” regulations that raise the costs of operation. Would you not agree with that?
  
  Report this comment
- psychosocial1
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 1:56am
  @rsanchez
  
  You make decent points, but you miss the big picture. I’ll use your example as an illustration. The corporation has private property rights. Without regulations to govern the conduct of the corporation it is free to do as it pleases within the boundary of its property. If this company chooses to pollute there is little recourse for those living in the surrounding community. The scenario can quickly become very convoluted. One could use game theory to map out all of the different outcomes. My original point is simply refuting Brooks statement that the suffering of one is not the responsibility of another especially when the latter causes the suffering of the former.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 2:16am
  I agree they’re in cahoots, but most of the regulations are lobbied for and written by corporations themselves to protect themselves from competition. Keep in mind that when Rand wrote Atlas she was devastated that corporate America didn’t accept her philosophy either and why should they? They were a protected class. She advocated a total separation between the market and government and we’ve never really had that. Corporations don’t want that. I think another misconception you have is about her is she really admired the laborers who were skilled in their craft. In the Fountainhead she went on about the bus driver who skillfully navigated the turns of the city. Almost as if she were inspired by his expertise. That being said there are people much further along than I am and there’s a little tiff between the Ayn Randers and Libertarians currently going on. I’m still trying to sort stuff out myself.
  
  Report this comment
- rsanchez1
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 2:25am
  Well if you bring private property rights, then you have to ask who is granting the corporation that right. If it is a government that the townspeople live under, then there are more options. The townspeople can change the government to their own benefit. The new government could forbid the corporation from polluting (ie, regulation), with threat of taking away property rights. In this case, it is obvious the town is populated by people that see things your way, because not only have they decided to cede power to a government, they have also decided that the government can regulate.
  
  There is another option. Say the government is unresponsive, unchangeable, generally not reflective of the needs of the people. The townspeople can then choose to revolt against the government, declaring that the government has no power over them, nullifying the laws of the previous government, including property rights, and then doing what they feel is best with the corporation. The corporation can then either negotiate with the townspeople, move away, or ask the previous government for assistance. Undoubtedly, since the townspeople revolted, this assistance would come in the form of military intervention.
  
  Like you said, there’s many many ways to game theoretically show all possible actions/reactions. I think the point Brook was trying to say is that there should not be responsibility, only choice. If you choose to feel responsible, that is another matter.
  
  Report this comment
- TJSON
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 4:41pm
  @rjsanchez
  
  Hypothetically:
  A corporation sets up a factory in a small town. Over the course of 35 years, cancer rates spike. A study is done and concludes that the increase in cancer rates are the direct result of water pollution caused by the factory. In your view, the corporation is not responsible for the suffering of the people?
  
  To continue the hypothetical. The townspeople band together, as you say, and attempt to force the factory to close. That is to say, they form a government. The collective will of the people is organized through a governmental system that is democratic in nature, with large groups of people representing smaller groups of people to represent their will.
  
  The corporation then chooses how it responds. You say that it will either a. accede to the wishes of the town, or b. pack up and leave. You forgot option C, which is that the corporation will use its considerable resources to protect its ‘property.’
  
  Without a higher government to grant them property rights, the land will belong to whoever can control it. In situation C, the corporation decides that it doesn’t want to give up the land. It hires mercenaries and weapons, and defends the factory from the townpeople. The town becomes split. Some want to fight, and do, but they are killed. The corporation goes after the families of those who tried to fight back. Many people leave, but many more stay and live out their lives under the rule of their corporate masters.
  
  Report this comment
Mr.buff1959
Posted on November 2, 2012 at 1:15am
@psychosocial1. You sound like someone that, never studied Ayn Rand, but you did see the movie.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- psychosocial1
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 1:36am
  The first movie was a very poor adaptation of the book. I’ve read more than one of Rand’s books, Atlas Shrugged being one of them. I won’t level any charges of hypocracy against Rand for accepting government assistance toward the end of her life. My argument against her beliefs are much more foundational. Plus, I’m not saying she was completely wrong in her assertions. However, many people that espouse her positions have very little understanding of what capitalism really is. If our government chose to completely deregulate industry and end subsidies tomorrow we still would not have a true capitalist system.
  
  Report this comment
drenfroe
Posted on November 2, 2012 at 1:08am
Well I read Atlas Shrugged I and agree with alot of it but there were some things in it that turned my stomach as far as the overall out look on fellow humans. Capitalism and subsudies cutting could be a very good thing as long as its not taken out of context. Some subsidies and some regulations are proven to be needed from history but most really could be gotten rid of. As far as taxes and deductions go I think taxes need to be rethought and go back to the days of no taxes and smaller government and the roles layed of our government. We are over taxed now so there are some good points to the Rand way of thinking and some bad points also. You gotta know where to draw the line or you end up with communism or socialism. You have to get rid of the idea that old people and disabled people are usless and therefore can be fazed-out out of the equation. Leave our social security alone. If left alone there is no way it should be deminishing. It is being used for things it wasn’t meant to be used for and that needs to stop.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
soybomb315_II
Posted on November 2, 2012 at 12:49am
i’ve always wondered why we call things ‘capitalism’…Its kind of a amorphous word with no real meaning. There are only two types of markets: free and not free

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- vox_populi
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 1:44am
  And what, pray tell, is a “free market”?
  
  Report this comment
- The_Cabrito_Goat
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 6:49am
  One where you can worry about pleasing the consumer rather than pleasing some arbitrary statute set by a cigar chomping bureaucrat hundreds of miles away.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 7:41am
  a free market is simply not a not free market
  
  the internet is pretty close to a free market
  
  Report this comment
SovereignSoul
Posted on November 2, 2012 at 12:12am
“As a human being you want to help them, absolutely, but it depends on the cost! If it’s in the middle of a highway and you might get run over going to help them, you’re probably not going to do it…So it depends on the cost to you. The standard is your life.”

It’s a good thing our soldiers don’t subscribe to this line of thought.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- justangry
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 12:34am
  Well they did donate more to a champion of her philosophy more than all other candidates combined.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 12:48am
  our soldiers are to be used for traffic assistance?
  
  Report this comment
- DianaGL
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 1:08am
  Clearly you don’t get it. The soldiers are CHOOSING to give their lives for us, it is part of their pursuit of happiness to do so. They are exercising their freedom and in pursuing their happiness, living their life as they choose. They are not forced to do so. When the government forcibly takes the fruits of our labor through onerous taxes of every imaginable kind, to “help” the so-called “disadvantaged” they are preventing us from pursuing our happiness, and FORCING us to help them. Other people’s misfortunes cannot be a mortgage on my life! Not even the Bible calls for that. The Bible calls for us to help “the widows and the orphans”. Single mothers are not considered because women should not be having children out of wedlock, that is irresponsible; neither should there be deadbeat dads, because men’s honor is to take care of his wife and the children he creates! Whoever refuses to follow the basic reasonable precepts of a civil society, one that was established by God, should suffer the consequences of his/her choices. The second that alleged forced safety net is removed, the minute the leaches of society realize there is no more help, they will immediately modify their behavior. It will no longer be profitable for them to milk the system.
  
  Report this comment
- rsanchez1
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 1:40am
  Exactly what Dianagl said, capitalism is not about being heartless, it’s about making your own free choices. Our soldiers don’t have to place themselves in danger (as long as we don’t have conscription), and it might even benefit them more not to do so. But, they made a choice to answer to a higher calling, protecting their friends, family, city, state, and nation from enemies that would do us harm.
  
  Report this comment
- psychosocial1
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 2:07am
  The scenario proposed by Factor is nonsensical. It is completely outside the context of what is understood to be “helping”. I would think that most reasonable individuals could agree with that point. Social programs and bureaucracy are much more relevant to any discussion of this subject. Brook should have refrained from giving an answer to that particular example and instead shifted focus to the broader scope of government largesse. It is was he was referring to.
  
  Report this comment
- NancyO
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 6:10am
  Probably the reason is that when enrolling in military activities, they consciously decided not to use that standard and took an oath to do otherwise. That is the epitome of self actualizing and what Rand would call enlightened self interest. Nathaniel Brandon explained it well in “The Virtue of Selfishness.”
  
  Report this comment
- luxlife
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 11:46am
  Excellent point Nancy.
  
  Report this comment
- SovereignSoul
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 12:22pm
  I spoke nothing to social programs. The point was human compassion. I spent a career putting myself in harm’s way to evac wounded and help others during natural disasters. If any one of you were laying injured in the street with heavy traffic I would risk personal injury to help you without concern for your political affiliation, religion or social status. The man made some valid points and then nullified it all with one stupid statement.
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 4:24pm
  JustAngry- I suppose it’s possible that competition would drive companies to think about their customers and profit rather than just the latter. Even so, like I mentioned in my first post what we had in the 1800s and early 1900s was free-market economics and it did not end well. Also, again competition may not be enough because if companies cause harm to the environment and there is no cause for them to stop we have some issues and capitalism does not dive into that realm. This is where I feel like small government intervention would come in handy. A few laws against such acts.
  
  I just thought of a cool analogy. Maybe not completely all there. Capitalism is like a robot. Since robots deal only in what works best, mathematically and what not, they would arrive at capitalism to make the most money and advance society but like robots capitalism itself doesn’t have the human element namely emotion. I guess this is where socialism comes in. It doesn’t work and it uses far too much of the human element. Human emotion. “Oh no, a poor man is suffering let’s use the government to take care of them and give him a house phone and food.” Look at this, there is logical about it, however, it is filled with human emotion or at least that’s why many people like socialism even if that’s never really the end result. Capitalism works but it needs to be balanced with the human element. Never really seemed to take charity seriously which is a big part of this if capitalism is to work
  
  Report this comment
Psychosis
Posted on November 2, 2012 at 12:11am
to all the anti rands that will flock to this article …………..you are not intellectually capable of understanding rand

so bugger off

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- justangry
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 12:40am
  I don’t think that’s issue. I think the way most of us were raised conflicts with her ideology. I mean it’s basically the opposite of everything I was taught growing up.
  
  Report this comment
- psychosocial1
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 12:51am
  What is your defense of Rand’s philosophy? Rand generally got it wrong in Atlas Shrugged. She suggests that it is the idea that is the most important thing and the developers are the kings. What Rand, and all the followers, miss is that labor is required to bring that idea to fruition. Rearden is the perfect example of this. He develops his new metal. Revolutionary? Quite possibly. However, the raw materials necessary for crafting the finished product require labor. Mining and transport specifically. Processing the raw materials into the finished product require labor. Men to run the furnaces and manage the processes. Transporting the finished product requires labor. Rand never shines any light on the required labor. She simply promotes Rearden’s idea. These two entities are dependent on one another. It is a symbiotic relationship. Dagny and Willers are another example of this. Dagny requires Willers’ assistance to help run Taggart Transcontinental. Willers is Dagny’s eyes and ears in her family’s company while she runs the John Galt Line. His assistance is imperative yet he is eventually unceremoniously dumped in the desert and forgotten while Dagny goes on. Again Rand shows favor to the “idea” person while shedding the laborer. And again, the relationship is symbiotic. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the subject and your defense of Rand.
  
  Report this comment
- Psychosis
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 1:04am
  @ psychosoc….
  
  one question
  
  why do the miners mine ???
  
  Report this comment
- psychosocial1
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 1:29am
  @psychosis
  
  I believe I know where you are going with the question, I’ve heard it before, but I’ll play along. They mine to earn a wage, to provide for themselves and their family. In the context of AS and my earlier post, the miners, through their labor provide the raw materials for Rearden to produce his metal. No miners, no raw materials, no Rearden metal. The path I see you following is this: Why didn’t one of those miners develop the metal? The person that develops the metal is really immaterial to the discussion. What is important is that without labor the idea is not fully realized. They each require the other. You may say that without the idea the labor isn’t necessary and logically you would be correct. I’m simply saying that once the idea is conceived it requires labor to become fully developed.
  
  Report this comment
- GaltLine
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 6:29am
  @PsychoSocial1
  
  You’re making me dizzy. You could have stopped when you said both are necessary, ideas and labor. If Rand idolizes ideas you are idolizing labor. Both are forms of property people should be able to dispose of as they see fit. It starts with ideas. Labor finishes it. But it’s not really finished because someone, including those who labor comes up with a better idea. There is innovation. And the one who had the original grand idea becomes obsolete and becomes the laborer of the innovator. There. Now you can be dizzy for awhile.
  
  Report this comment
- psychosocial1
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 10:05am
  @galtline
  I apologize for any dizziness I may have caused. I was simply trying to give a thorough explanation of my position. Sometimes we must go beyond what should be necessary to compensate for ambiguity due to the nature of the forum. The bottom line is that both are necessary. In my opinion Rand fails to address this fact. It is a cyclical system where both entities support the other. I am not attempting to put one above the other, but rather I am simply illustrating this fact.
  
  Report this comment
- jeff.cooper
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 11:13am
  @PSYCHOSOCIAL1
  
  Quentin Daniels, Owen Kellogg, Bill Brent, Gwen Ives, Pat Logan, and the bus driver who “expertly steers” his vehicle around the corner are examples of laborers who Ayn Rand highly praised in Atlas Shrugged. Furthermore, Rand is clear in discussing work: “Whether it’s a symphony or a coal mine, all work is an act of creating and comes from the same source: from an inviolate capacity to see through one’s own eyes—which means: the capacity to perform a rational identification—which means: the capacity to see, to connect and to make what had not been seen, connected and made before.” from “For The New Intellectual”
  
  Additionally, Hank Rearden’s first job was…in an ore mine as a laborer.
  
  Report this comment
paperpushermj
Posted on November 2, 2012 at 12:08am
Heartless ….no … It’s… Neutral
Would you say water is heartless because someone drowned?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on November 2, 2012 at 12:06am
Capitalism, as with any set of tools and structure is in and of itself neither good nor bad; it is what the people wielding those tools, and the controls always desired by government to throttle it, that are the determining values.

Remember that the bible says clearly “the LOVE of money is the root of all evil.”

There it is in a nutshell with capitalism, is can be a boon if used wisely for the benefit of the world as a whole along with the individual in a land where opportunity can freely be pursued; or as a detriment for harm and control.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- justangry
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 12:31am
  I think capitalism is all good, if totally unregulated, because it’s the only way to have a free society and fosters innovation, which will benefit everyone. Referencing the Bible and pushing an altruist ideology based on it is the opposite of Rand was all about. I know I’m going to upset you (not my intent) by saying this, but that sounds like collectivism. Rand thought that was the problem with today’s conservatives and I believe she’s right. I don’t know how to create a happy balance between Christianity and laissez faire capitalism because of what you just said. Perhaps someone of faith can bridge the gap, but Rand herself couldn’t do it and she was much more intelligent than I am.
  
  Report this comment
- rsanchez1
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 1:59am
  The problem is that you are trying to create a happy balance. Laissez faire is about free choice. If the people decide to enter into an agreement with each other, of their own free will, to engage in collectivism because they are prosperous and have money to spare, that is their choice. Going to church, tithing, practicing what the bible says, everyone who goes there does so of their own free will. God does not compel us to do so, we do so because that is our choice.
  
  What might trip people up with regards to laissez faire is the critical word, agreement. If you decide to go by “money is the root of all evil” and engage in collectivism, you are taking a risk. Therefore, you form an agreement with other people to minimize risk, to detail exactly what kind of activity you will perform together and what consequences there will be if the agreement is breached. Of course, people can breach the agreement at any time of their own choice, and the other party can choose to enforce punishment. In the case that the first party does not agree to punishment, there is a possible snag to laissez faire. If you were strictly laissez faire, agreements would not be possible.
  
  Continued…
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 2:15am
  Just Angry- In a perfect world totally unregulated capitalism would work however, if you truly believe it would work now then you are being foolish. Need I remind you of some of the early 1900s problems with capitalism with monopolies and what not. IF capitalism is totally unregulated big business can talk advantage very easily, kill competition and sort of enslave consumers. I’m all for capitalism but there needs to be laws against taking advantage of people because let’s face it, people are greedy and will take advantage of their consumers if it makes them a profit. If the human element was not in capitalism the system itself would be perfect.
  
  Report this comment
- rsanchez1
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 2:17am
  Continuing…
  
  In this way, I think laissez faire and society as we know it may be mutually exclusive. The only way to have pure laissez faire is to not have any other person that could force their will upon you. Society is in essence an agreement between a large group of people, and history has shown it to be quite profitable, if at times quite detrimental to some people (ie, whenever a group starts a genocide). It is a necessary “evil”. Following from this, I also think Christianity and laissez faire may also be mutually exclusive. Christianity is essentially an agreement between you and God. Christians would be under a new covenant with God. Of course, God has given us free will, the choice to go into a covenant with Him or not, but even with we choose to go into a covenant, we still have free will, choice in what we can do with our life, for God does not give us instructions on every single aspect of our lives. He may guide us, but he does not live life for us. God still gives us great freedom in deciding how we can live our lives, and in my opinion that freedom is enough. In my opinion, the freedom I get in society is enough (although with this government we might lose enough freedoms that it becomes a problem).
  
  I think that if you really want pure laissez faire, the only option you have is to completely separate yourself from all human contact, and not believe in God. No doubt there are some people in the world who have done just that.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 6:52am
  @DLV, I’m just diving in and haven’t researched what you mentioned. However, Rand would argue that it’s a fallacy that either there were actually monopolies or that we were a completely unregulated market during the years prior to the early 1900′s. Her view was the only way a monopoly can ever exist is by some type of government favoritism. She thought that while the founders were close, we’ve never achieved a totally laissez faire market. Granted that is contrary to everything we were taught in history classes, but she was sharp as a tack. It would be a great thesis. The only research library around here is at Ohio State and if I hung out there it would just be creepy. That being said, consider the alternative. Regulation to fix a problem. Unattended consequences so more regulation to fix those and so on leaving us with what we have now, which isn’t working.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 7:19am
  @rsanchez1, Thanks, man.
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 8:09am
  JustAngry- Even if you are right and we never had totally unregulated capitalism it would be worse than it was. Rand was bright in some areas but she is completely disregarding human greed as a factor and boy IT”S A FACTOR. I’m not for a ton of regulation just enough to keep the human element in check. That’s the only downside of capitalism. If I had a guess her atheism has something to do with it.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 4:00pm
  @DLV, I’m a newbie to her philosophy, but she’d argue competition would take care of the problems you’re siting. If one were to price their goods too high, competition would jump at the chance to get in on that gravy train. What I haven’t gotten to is how she would address collusion among competitors. I don’t think her atheism has as much to with her philosophy as her intellect. Check out…
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx-LpRSbbeA
  
  It will link you to the rest of the interview and she addresses everything you questioning.
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 4:30pm
  Justangry- I’m just two minutes into your video and already she is saying helping peole is not a moral virtue. We have a HUGE problem. Especially for Christians because Jesus said it is your duty to help those in need. Again this is where my robot analogy rings true. Only another reason why not to look to her for capitalism advice. She had some good ideas but capitalism without charity and our nation will be brought to its knees especially since God is watching.
  
  Report this comment
- TJSON
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 4:52pm
  @justangry:
  
  “Her view was the only way a monopoly can ever exist is by some type of government favoritism.”
  
  This was her view, and she was totally wrong.
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 5:35pm
  JustAngry- I suppose it’s possible that competition would drive companies to think about their customers and profit rather than just the latter. Even so, like I mentioned in my first post what we had in the 1800s and early 1900s was free-market economics and it did not end well. Also, again competition may not be enough because if companies cause harm to the environment and there is no cause for them to stop we have some issues and capitalism does not dive into that realm. This is where I feel like small government intervention would come in handy. A few laws against such acts.
  
  I just thought of a cool analogy. Maybe not completely all there. Capitalism is like a robot. Since robots deal only in what works best, mathematically and what not, they would arrive at capitalism to make the most money and advance society but like robots capitalism itself doesn’t have the human element namely emotion. I guess this is where socialism comes in. It doesn’t work and it uses far too much of the human element. Human emotion. “Oh no, a poor man is suffering let’s use the government to take care of them and give him a house phone and food.” Look at this, there is logical about it, however, it is filled with human emotion or at least that’s why many people like socialism even if that’s never really the end result. Capitalism works but it needs to be balanced with the human element. Never really seemed to take charity seriously which is a big part of this if capitalism is to
  
  Report this comment
- jeff.cooper
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 7:01pm
  @DLV
  
  If you could, please clarify which markets you are referring to. Furthermore, define why monopolies are bad? I hold that if a company can provide the best service/product at a price consumers are willing to pay, any competitor is still free to provide a lesser/same/better quality product for a better/same/higher price. Capitalism works best when men act as voluntary traders; exchanging value for value.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 8:48pm
  @DLV Apparently the president of the AR Institute is right about people not being ready for it. That being said, what you are advocating is altruism and like Rand says all tyrannical governments are based on some form of altruism. I’d gladly accept any problems caused by an unregulated market, which I’m not convinced are valid, over the alternative.
  
  “Even so, like I mentioned in my first post what we had in the 1800s and early 1900s was free-market economics and it did not end well”
  
  I don’t see how you can say this. We went from nothing but a few colonies to the most prosperous innovative country the world has known in an very short period of time. That standard of living was elevated for everyone. We surpassed every established country in the world in a blink of an eye. Our decline has come on the heals of more and more intrusive regulations, ‘charity’ and expanding federal government. Don’t let the lefty revisionist historians influence you with their illogical conclusions. Your belief in charity is fine if you don’t expect the government to handle it. The government proving charity is theft, immoral, inexpedient, progressive and unconstitutional.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 8:53pm
  @TJSON, Whose opinion do you think I value more? A genius who witnessed the evils of collectivism first hand or some idiot Marxist troll on the internet?
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 11:59pm
  Just- trust me, I’m not letting liberal textbooks influence, I’m sticking to the facts. I agree with you capitalism helped build us into a mighty nation. But there were problems. You want me to mention them? Well first off, unions first rose up why? Because workers were being treated badly. Originally unions were a good thing. They actually cared for the worker. Now they are all money makers themselves still claiming to support the worker but they don’t. Come on do you really not remember all the huge issues workers had in places like steel mills? There was disease, huge safety concerns. People’s limbs would be chopped off. Food wouldn’t be handled properly. Remember the food and drug act of 1906, there was a reason for all of that. All of that stuff was for the better. People were sick and dying and the workers were treated like crap barely making enough to survive on. How do you not know about this? This did not just start in the 1900s it had started throughout the industrial revolution. These are perfect examples of what’s wrong with capitalism when companies go unchecked. People can get hurt. This is the type of small intervention I’m talking about. And although I’m not fan of Teddy R. he did break up the monopiles. Jeff you asked why monopolies are bad because one corporate giant can dictate the prices of a market and people suffer that’s why monopolies are bad. Hope I answered you questions. Just you and I agree capitalism is good but people can’t be trusted s
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on November 3, 2012 at 12:06am
  Just- I completely agree with your last paragraph. You make it seem like because I see a few problems with capitalism I don’t want to keep it around. That is false. I am merely aware of the effect it has on people.
  
  “That being said, what you are advocating is altruism and like Rand says all tyrannical governments are based on some form of altruism.”
  
  Maybe that’s what is being said in the beginning that this for the greater good and “so and so” will make all your problems go away but it is never really altruism. All tyrannical governments have a selfish end in mind. Mao, Stalin all of them. They were always claiming for the people throwing around altruism but it never really is. By the way Jesus was about altruism. I think I’ll take Jesus over Ayn Rand any day of the week. Thanks. Come on now. How do I think we should help the poor? Mainly a lot of charity and giving on OUR own ends. The lowest can have a little bit of government help but laws need to be in place limiting who is receiving government aid. It’s far too bloated right now. Most people I believe should be taken care of by CHURCHES, CHARITY AND COMMUNITY. The three Cs. Simple. If you’re confused by community basically helping out those who live around you. You are their immediate source of help.
  
  Report this comment
- jeff.cooper
  Posted on November 5, 2012 at 3:53pm
  @DLV
  
  “There is no way to legislate competition; there are no standards by which one could define who should compete with whom, how many competitors should exist in any given field, what should be their relative strength or their so-called “relevant markets,” what prices they should charge, what methods of competition are “fair” or “unfair.” None of these can be answered, because these precisely are the questions that can be answered only by the mechanism of a free market.” – Ayn Rand
  
  If I may suggest, read “Capitalism, The Unknown Idea” by Ayn Rand.
  
  http://arc-tv.com/unions-in-america/ is an interview with Yaron Brook on unions.
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on November 5, 2012 at 5:40pm
  Jeff- If it’s by Ayn Rand I already know what it is going to say. Her fatal flaw is leaving the poor high and dry. That is not what Jesus would have wanted and I do not either. She is completely missing the human element in all of this and is going by robot logic. Yes capitalism works but you’re missing the emotional part of all of this. That is her fatal flaw. I agree with her economic policies mostly, not her human policies.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.