If I have my choice of supporting the ideas of Ayan Rand who was an atheist, but bat shit insane thinking "every man for themeselvs" constitutes all of evolution, or some deluded nuns who support the superstition of meteporhical canibalism, but understand that economics has to include regulation and safety nets, I most certainly would be their ally because what the uber fuckwad libertarians want is EXACTLY what gives rise to monopolies of money and power, which can and will lead to the slave shop mentality of China or the warlord mentality of Somolia.

The mistake that Ayan made is the same mistake Marx made. BOTH assumed optimal conditions and that humans will always behaive themselves. No matter what system one is talking about, be it government or business, you are still dependent on humans and humans do not always do the right thing and can and will rig or monopolize EITHER private business or government.

Neither these nuns or I advocate Stalin's nanny state. That was simply a rigged political market no different than big business pays off law makers to benifit themselves.

What we are saying and what they would say is that ALL classes are needed but the worse the gap is eventually becomes a long term unsustainable problem that will even undermin the very free market the economic right lies and says we need more "tricle down".

I am with them on economics only and wish they could see that they have a human compassion that needs no deity to hold.

Of course.

Not bad. Not bad at all.

I love your analogy of her, even more reason to hate her. lol.

But yes they BOTH made the same mistake. They thought of a solution to a problem and stupidly forgot that society is complex, not simplistic. Rynd's bogus "objectivism" is bullshit psuedo phychology.

Humans are a range of personalities and it is impractical and impossible to slap simplistic terms and ideas on a species that can only be described as a range and delt with as a range.

If Ayn was being consistant about people being individuals then she would not deny that that is exactly what evolution produces, and in that group you will have people with different intrests and personalities. She thought falsely that "fuck everyone else and worry about yourself will eventually benefit them".

No, that is how not as individuals but as a climate, you can create irreversable power with no way to keep a check on it. It is not all self interest OR hand outs. Charity by itself is not bad. Caring about yourself by itself is not bad.

Marx did the same thing, but took an absolute in the opposite direction. The mistake is the same taking a complex species and betting on the faith in an idea rather than deal with the reality of complexity as it is. And the same abuse that is driving down wages in the west allowed a monopoly to occur in Stalins nanny state.

It is the childish human flaw that a one word term or a paragraph of an idea can be applied to a complex species.

There is a benefit to autruism just as there is a benefit to selfishness but there are always unintended affects that can become outcomes in ANY situation. Why, because it is hard for humans to understand that life is both good and bad and can be both at the same time. And we still suffer from projectionism and falsely think that life is static and what may work at one point may not the next. Life is fluid and complex. If either truely had valued the individual, like they had claimed they never would have come up with utopias which is what both were postulating.

I think out of all the ideas that got put into law was the Constitution that in a real sense, even if they had no scientific knowledge of evolution, is as close to relfecting the complexity of society. I think many, maybe not all, but certainly many of the founders would say, "It is not all or nothing or either or. I think the first Amendment reflected both the neccessity of the collective and the necessity of the individual and that everything was case by case as well as anti monopoly" Something that a mere one word solution fails to do.

Ayan's mindset lead to the great Depression and our great recession. Marx failed too because it simply became an excuse for Stalin to create his own monopoly and abuse.

If it is about maximizing bene fit and minimizing harm than nothing can be stagnant and the veiw has to be both are part of the solution but can be part of the problem depending on context of time and who has power and how much power they have.

As an open society and a free press we do have collectivism in that if we don't collectively protect that concept we can easly slip into fascism. I have no doubt Rand likely read 1984 and Animal Farm. But somehow in doing such missed the point of those books.

A plutocracy, is nothing more than pooling money to monopolize power. Iran is not only a theocracy but it is also run by the wealthy few. Gaddifi was a capitalist who owned stock in GE. Stalin maintained his power the same way. If none of them had any wealth(even if just the party) they could not have created the monopolies they did.

Ayan faild to see that as long as anyone seeks wealth and power, and many will, without a check on it  it can be abusive. Marx also failed to see that potential.

The only way to be a free society to me, is both the collective intrest in our wealfare, and our collective protection of the rights of the individual. The conclusion the founders came to is that the only absolute was that there could not be any absolute. Both Rand and Marx spoke in terms of absolutes. Our first Amendment does not and insists on the ability to question and compete while treating the rights of the one or the rights of the majority as a fluid situation, not a static one.

It is why some here cannot comprehend that I do understand that no one owes me anthing. But long term as a society, long after I am dead, if all we do is simply get as much as we can and say fuck the other person, it is simply untenable. If we treat our economy like that it is no different than over tilling a crop.

You sell any idea to a critical mass there will always be humans seeking to expoit that to create their own monopoly. That is how Stalin got his power, and that is how Gadaffi became a billionaire. And that is despite what some claim, will destroy this country.

Ideas can only be situational and cannot cover a complex species so the best policy is to always keep any type of power in check, be it a political party, a religion or a business by insisting that no one NO ONE is intitled to a monopoly.