He wrote "economic freedom". You're talking about crony capitalism. There is a huge difference.

How many of these people were actually abusing or aiding in the abuse of children? Few, if any, I bet.

No, the book and the quote were both published in her 50's.

I'm not an objectivist but I don't think that's accurate.

"There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them." -Ayn Rand

Minimum wage doesn't do anything but force people to be unemployed that can't provide labor worth around $7 dollars an hour. If you can provide labor worth $5 an hour but employers have to give you an extra $2 which represents a loss, they aren't going to hire you. Then on welfare you go where other people are forced to support you entirely instead of allowing charity to provide only that extra little bit you are missing. There are so many reasons why the current system hurts the needy, not allowing them to easily start a business without jumping through all kinds of legal hoops, allowing the people with the most resources to make laws (unions support the minimum wage yet they don't come anywhere close to needing it, hmm I wonder why), etc. I'm not going to sit here and give you an entire economics lesson. All I want you to take away from this is that we aren't that different. We both want people to be free, want them to succeed, want them to be happy, we just differ on how to go about it. So when you call people sociopaths just because they *gasp* think differently, it doesn't really help at all.

Nowhere in that link is there any mention of people starving to death. Try again.

If someone else does something immoral, that's on them. If I point a gun at someone and force them to share their food, that's on me. I'm not going to do anything immoral. I can't force everyone else to be moral, nor is it my place to do so. It's not a matter of "supporting a system". For someone railing against simplicity, that's a very narrow way to look at it. I don't support starving people. I support being responsible for my own actions and not doing anything immoral, which includes stealing.


Is it really not enough? Are there people starving to death in the USA because there is nobody willing to give food to them? Also, you have to consider that the current state of charity doesn't represent charity under libertarianism. When people consider charity now, they might be dissuaded because they know there is already welfare, food stamps, etc. The fact of the matter is, people want to help the needy, if we didn't, there wouldn't be any such laws in the first place. I'm not against supporting the needy, only the current implementation of it.


I consider generalizing things like this to be a pointless exercise. Let's stick to the issues instead of speculating on the psychology of others.

I agree that it would be immoral for you to gorge yourself with food while watching others starve. It would also be immoral for me to point a gun at your head and force you to stop eating and start giving food to others.


I've already stated that I'm all for charity and would engage in it myself. Somewhere on these forums is a thread (Here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=23338.0) that I started about me giving $25 in cash and $75 (at the time) in BTC to a guy begging on a street corner. There's nothing in the principles of libertarianism that makes it incompatible with charity. What it is incompatible with is forcing others to empty their pockets to the needy at gunpoint. If you can acknowledge that distinction then we will be getting somewhere.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens." -Adam Smith


Nobody owes you a living. If you don't want to work then you can be a beggar and depend on charity. I'll buy you a sandwich. I regularly give to the poor out of empathy. Though, if the only job you can get is a low-wage job, maybe it's your own fault? Perhaps you should have learned something valuable?


If you own something, you can sell it. If you can't sell it, you don't truly own it. Why do you think you can tell other people what they can and can't do with their own bodies?

Apparently, your definition of a "sociopath" is someone that wants all human interactions to be voluntary and believes that violence is only justified in defense of person or property.

I guess we have very different definitions.

Perhaps, though that doesn't negate what I said.

I think part of the reason why people focus on Atlas is because it's easier than arguing against libertarians that are a lot more knowledgeable and patient.

I'd rather drive a Chevy Nova.

A fact is a state of a affairs. There's no such thing as a "false fact" but there is such a thing as a "false belief". Opinions are subjective. There's nothing subjective about believing that the statue of liberty is 3 inches tall.

How so?

Opinions aren't the kinds of things that can be right or wrong.

It seems most of the statists on these forums are some form or mixture of "public mandate", "love it or leave it", "entitled", and "the deluded".

Wondering why most statists are delusional is like wondering my most religious people are ignorant or scared of dying, because the rest of us stopped being religious.

Here's my definition of civil discourse:

1. Never address the person, only the argument e.g. (you're an idiot, you need to educate yourself).

2. Never state the conclusion e.g. (your argument is false, your beliefs are stupid).

Nobody is perfect so there will always be mistakes made but we should all strive towards this if we really are here to exchange ideas rather than troll each other.

You're talking about government contractors, not a free market army. Blackwater is yet another example of our government being incompetent at regulating private businesses.


Good then. Bind yourself to it. I'll pass.


That's probably because you don't understand what a free market is. A government regulated market is exactly not that.