Rescinding membership in Free State Project

[FrankChodorov]

what the fuck does that mean? 'mind independent reality'

in my mind I create my own reality...

[Dreepa]

what the fuck does that mean? 'mind independent reality'

in my mind I create my own reality...

so in other words... bullshit.
Ok so I think I do understand it.

[FrankChodorov]

what the fuck does that mean? 'mind independent reality'

in my mind I create my own reality...

so in other words... bullshit.
Ok so I think I do understand it.

in your own mind you may understand it 

[AlanM]

what the fuck does that mean? 'mind independent reality'

in my mind I create my own reality...

You certainly do, Frank. 

[FrankChodorov]

what the fuck does that mean? 'mind independent reality'

in my mind I create my own reality...

You certainly do, Frank. 

that is why I am an geo-objectivist

[FrankChodorov]

Ayn Rand made arguments against perpetual intellectual property that are remarkably similar to arguments against perpetual landed property. She also saw the distinction between land and capital in terms of common vs. private property, but fell back into confusion at other times. She rightly chastised the Encyclopaedia Brittanica's definition of capitalism for confusing land and capital, which she quoted as follows:

Fundamental to any system called capitalist are the relations between private owners of nonpersonal means of production (land, mines, industrial plants, etc., collectively known as capital) [emphasis Rand's]

Then she quoted a John Galt speech in Atlas Shrugged in which Galt stated sarcastically, "A factory is a `natural resource', like a tree, a rock or a mud puddle."

By Jove, I think she's...

But are the heroes of Atlas Shrugged real capitalists? The inventor John Galt is, and perhaps Hank Rearden of Rearden Metals is, too, although one wonders where he got his ore and fuel. But Taggart Railways enjoys extremely valuable right-of-way privileges from the state. (Once land is parceled out, it is virtually impossible to build a railroad without either land value tax or eminent domain.)

Then there is Francisco D'Anconia, who owned the world's richest copper deposits, and who took delight in blowing up his mines and driving the price of copper through the roof_something that would not work nearly as well for a capitalist as for a resource monopolist, as there is no way competitors can make copper ore that doesn't already exist, and, buried or not, D'Anconia's copper ore still belonged to him.

Most revealing of all is the Randian utopia, Galt's Gulch, which was financed entirely from, yes, land rents. Midas Mulligan owned the whole place, and was, in essence, the government. All the common services, from Galt's magic energy machine to Hank Rearden's village railroad, to their defense system (some sort of jammer that made the valley invisible to passing planes) were financed from ground rents collected by Mulligan from the landholders. Although politically Galt's Gulch was a monarchy, economically it was a Georgist Single-Tax community, with all community services paid for from the rent of land.

[AlanM]

what the fuck does that mean? 'mind independent reality'

in my mind I create my own reality...

You certainly do, Frank. 

that is why I am an geo-objectivist

Interesting. Have you said this before? I must have missed it.
Atlas Shrugged had a powerful impact on my thinking. I don't, however, believe Rand was consistent, as you have pointed out.

[AlanM]

But are the heroes of Atlas Shrugged real capitalists?

Capitalists? No. Free marketers, yes.

[Quantrill]

But are the heroes of Atlas Shrugged real capitalists? The inventor John Galt is, and perhaps Hank Rearden of Rearden Metals is, too, although one wonders where he got his ore and fuel. But Taggart Railways enjoys extremely valuable right-of-way privileges from the state. (Once land is parceled out, it is virtually impossible to build a railroad without either land value tax or eminent domain.)

Then there is Francisco D'Anconia, who owned the world's richest copper deposits, and who took delight in blowing up his mines and driving the price of copper through the roof_something that would not work nearly as well for a capitalist as for a resource monopolist, as there is no way competitors can make copper ore that doesn't already exist, and, buried or not, D'Anconia's copper ore still belonged to him.

Most revealing of all is the Randian utopia, Galt's Gulch, which was financed entirely from, yes, land rents. Midas Mulligan owned the whole place, and was, in essence, the government. All the common services, from Galt's magic energy machine to Hank Rearden's village railroad, to their defense system (some sort of jammer that made the valley invisible to passing planes) were financed from ground rents collected by Mulligan from the landholders. Although politically Galt's Gulch was a monarchy, economically it was a Georgist Single-Tax community, with all community services paid for from the rent of land.

Very nicely put!  (+1) 

[citizen_142002]

As I understood it, objectivism still didn't much allow for preemptive force. Am I correct here?

Wow another country's building nukes! Is there any sanity left in the world? The thought that the United States is 'responsible" enough to have nukes and Iran is not is absurd. The US is the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons in war, and for decades we adhered to a strategy called "Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD)

I'm not fan of nuclear weapons period. But one has to admit that so far deterents have prevented war between nuclear powers. I don't think that we'll see a war with China, Russia, or for that matter North Korea anytime soon.

The War in Iraq was waged on the basis of lies. The intelligence community has confirmed that there wasn't any credible evidence that led the administration to war by mistake. Yet there are still people who would hold Iraq up as an example to follow in Iran. This kind of blind faith in the compotence and benevolence of our government will lead the US to the same fate as Rome. If we engage in any more wars of agression, then we are driving more nails into the coffin.

[AlanM]

As I understood it, objectivism still didn't much allow for preemptive force. Am I correct here?

Yes. Zero aggression principle is a Randian/objectivist principle.

[FrankChodorov]

As I understood it, objectivism still didn't much allow for preemptive force. Am I correct here?

Yes. Zero aggression principle is a Randian/objectivist principle.

if she advocated minarchism then how was what she wanted for legitimate governance/defense/courts paid for?

[AlanM]

As I understood it, objectivism still didn't much allow for preemptive force. Am I correct here?

Yes. Zero aggression principle is a Randian/objectivist principle.

if she advocated minarchism then how was what she wanted for legitimate governance/defense/courts paid for?

This was one of her contradictions. She advocated ZAP, but also advocated minarchism.
I was never sure how she expected gov services to be paid for.

[anthonybpugh]

Yes, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical, but then I read this: Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of shit, I am never reading again.

[Rocketman]

Lol, this thread also had me thinking of Officer Barbrady.