It's a great read, but the message of total selfishness is pernicious. We're entering a heavily tribalised world, with most Western nations becoming collections of rival tribes. Our people need to be a tribe, not a collection of wannabe capitalist loners.
When I became a father, my eyes were opened to the godless, nihilistic message of Rand’s AS. Her atheistic, childless universe, where charity is a vice and human need is an affliction worse than leprosy turns out to be Stalinistic tyranny turned inside out and upside down. As for money, it’s the medium we use to convert our creative time into a tangible token, store it, accumulate it, and trade for the creative time of others. When money is devalued, the person is devalued. Debt is slavery. Time is wealth. And Ayn Rand is a creepy ideological priestess in the demonic cult of money worship, which , in the end, distills into self worship.
You said worship, Nick, not me. I've written several essays on the superiority of productive work and virtue compared to simple monetary reward. Perhaps if you desist from straw-manning me we can have a meaningful discussion. First, you'd need to re-word the rest of it into an argument; as it stands it's just an assertion.
Just to make sure we have the same priors, capitalism is three things and three things only: contract law, private property rights, voluntary free trade.
It doesn't mean open borders (a cadre of Austrian economists advocate it and that's it).
It doesn't mean unfettered, mass 3rd world immigration.
It doesn't mean oligopoly or corpocracy (neither of which can't exist without the sanction of the state anyway).
It certainly has no bearing on being un-nationalist (unless you are North Korean). That's a non-sequitor at best.
It shouldn't have to to state these things since I write fairly extensively against these practices but worthwhile to set the record straight.
So, explain what is 'immoral' about any of the three key tenets of capitalism.
You stripped out the 'voluntary' part of trade so I assume you agree with it. You agree with contract law and private property.
So all that's left to discuss are two points of difference.
1. Rand's encouragement of 'worship Mammon'
2. The 'free' element of trade.
1. Rand advocated the prusuit of virtue (e.g. productive work, justice) to attain value (e.g. self esteem, reason) where maintenance of the life of oneself and one's family is the standard. Nowhere have I found her to advocate worshipping money for it's own sake, like you imply. She gets several things wrong (e.g. stance on abortion and Israel), that's why I'm not a card-carrying Objectivist. But not that. I write about the pros and cons of objectivism here.
2. Going by what you say, I think you imputed missing elements of free trade which are actually there. You said 'Free trade is an assault on the responsibility of rulers to protect their citizens.'
'Free' trade means you CAN trade (e.g. internationally) as a default. It doesn't mean that it's costless or to the clear detriment of the nation. If the people, through its representative government (ignoring problems inherent in democracy for a moment) decide that the cost of importing people from pakistan or exporting nuclear techonology to pakistan is too substantially damaging for the nation then that exceptional tariff/ban can be justified.
As an aside, tariffs as a tax is certainly more moral than income tax, which punishes productive work.
The dogma of free trade is that no government may be permitted to interfere, even when it is clearly in the interest of the nation to do so. That's my problem with free trade. I support private enterprise, but not usury-based and rent-seeking capitalism.
You're absolutely right on the moral problem with income tax. Hery George made the same point in advocating for a land tax. Best wishes, N
It's a great read, but the message of total selfishness is pernicious. We're entering a heavily tribalised world, with most Western nations becoming collections of rival tribes. Our people need to be a tribe, not a collection of wannabe capitalist loners.
When I became a father, my eyes were opened to the godless, nihilistic message of Rand’s AS. Her atheistic, childless universe, where charity is a vice and human need is an affliction worse than leprosy turns out to be Stalinistic tyranny turned inside out and upside down. As for money, it’s the medium we use to convert our creative time into a tangible token, store it, accumulate it, and trade for the creative time of others. When money is devalued, the person is devalued. Debt is slavery. Time is wealth. And Ayn Rand is a creepy ideological priestess in the demonic cult of money worship, which , in the end, distills into self worship.
WEF whistleblower tell it all, CONSPIRACY THEORISTS CORRECT YET AGAIN!
https://youtu.be/iVYzoGYgjhg?si=r7DKUcYJKv-jH0CF
I like the moral emphasis - capitalism is the most moral system even before it is the most succesful.
The worship of Mammon is utterly un-nationalist and deeply immoral.
You said worship, Nick, not me. I've written several essays on the superiority of productive work and virtue compared to simple monetary reward. Perhaps if you desist from straw-manning me we can have a meaningful discussion. First, you'd need to re-word the rest of it into an argument; as it stands it's just an assertion.
Just to make sure we have the same priors, capitalism is three things and three things only: contract law, private property rights, voluntary free trade.
It doesn't mean open borders (a cadre of Austrian economists advocate it and that's it).
It doesn't mean unfettered, mass 3rd world immigration.
It doesn't mean oligopoly or corpocracy (neither of which can't exist without the sanction of the state anyway).
It certainly has no bearing on being un-nationalist (unless you are North Korean). That's a non-sequitor at best.
It shouldn't have to to state these things since I write fairly extensively against these practices but worthwhile to set the record straight.
So, explain what is 'immoral' about any of the three key tenets of capitalism.
Private property and the rule of law (including Contract) are the foundations of freedom, and spring from Christianity.
Free trade is an assault on the responsibility of rulers to protect their citizens.
I didn't mean to suggest that you worship Mammon, but say that Rand encouraged it.
Chesterton and Belloc explained clearly the gulf between private property and capitalism. The latter must be restricted if the former is to thrive.
Capitalism is like fire, a good servant when confined and managed, a deadly monster when allowed to rip free.
Best wishes.
You stripped out the 'voluntary' part of trade so I assume you agree with it. You agree with contract law and private property.
So all that's left to discuss are two points of difference.
1. Rand's encouragement of 'worship Mammon'
2. The 'free' element of trade.
1. Rand advocated the prusuit of virtue (e.g. productive work, justice) to attain value (e.g. self esteem, reason) where maintenance of the life of oneself and one's family is the standard. Nowhere have I found her to advocate worshipping money for it's own sake, like you imply. She gets several things wrong (e.g. stance on abortion and Israel), that's why I'm not a card-carrying Objectivist. But not that. I write about the pros and cons of objectivism here.
https://futuredad.substack.com/p/futuredad-60-libertarianism-v-objectivism?r=59rk8t
2. Going by what you say, I think you imputed missing elements of free trade which are actually there. You said 'Free trade is an assault on the responsibility of rulers to protect their citizens.'
'Free' trade means you CAN trade (e.g. internationally) as a default. It doesn't mean that it's costless or to the clear detriment of the nation. If the people, through its representative government (ignoring problems inherent in democracy for a moment) decide that the cost of importing people from pakistan or exporting nuclear techonology to pakistan is too substantially damaging for the nation then that exceptional tariff/ban can be justified.
As an aside, tariffs as a tax is certainly more moral than income tax, which punishes productive work.
So I don't think we disagree on much here.
All the best.
FD
The dogma of free trade is that no government may be permitted to interfere, even when it is clearly in the interest of the nation to do so. That's my problem with free trade. I support private enterprise, but not usury-based and rent-seeking capitalism.
You're absolutely right on the moral problem with income tax. Hery George made the same point in advocating for a land tax. Best wishes, N