Started By
Message

re: Hugh Freeze Quote Ayn Rand????

Posted on 2/5/13 at 9:15 am to
Posted by CHSgc
Charleston, SC
Member since Oct 2012
1658 posts
Posted on 2/5/13 at 9:15 am to
quote:

Is it so bad to let people make wrong decisions and suffer the consequences? It's like aggressor said earlier. Greed has to be balanced by fear in the market place. Bad decisions must be punished with failure and loss. Nothing is more damaging to liberty than dependence. We should be treated as adults. The Statist wants to treat us like children. The left wants to tell us what to do with our money and the right to wants to tell us what to do with ourselves.


Well, yes, it can be bad to make people bear the full brunt of their failure. For one, it inhibits the very risk taking that you claim to value as a free market proponent. And two, it's essentially a pretty shitty way to live: constantly in fear. That doesn't mean people should be guaranteed a living wage at the expense of those who do work or any nonsense like that. But it does mean we can work to smooth the edges of a purely market based economy by implementing a social safety net. Such a failsafe is a recognition that not everyone is the sum of strictly their own personal initiative and abilities, and that those that struggle are not down solely b/c they were judged wanting by the market. The goal of a market economy is to maximize output, and things such as public education, infrastructure upgrades, and unemployment insurance go a long way towards helping us get the most out of our resources and increase that all important marker of economic success: our GDP. A purely market based economy may give you maximum freedom, but frankly living in densely populated areas REQUIRES the surrender of certain freedoms in order to produce a smoothly functioning society. And in reality, a market can be just as constraining on your freedom as a gov't.
Posted by KaiserSoze99
Member since Aug 2011
31669 posts
Posted on 2/5/13 at 9:30 am to
I don't disagree. It's removing ALL fear and taking away ALL consequences that has caused the problems we have right now.

Government should only play a role to help blunt (not eliminate) the sting of failure and harness the power of ambition ("greed") to maximize economic power.

Pure laissez-faire is too unforgiving. I don't advocate anarchy, only LIMITED government that rewards self-reliance. Government assistance in failure should be sufficient to prevent total disaster, but limited to the point that recipients feel rescued, not rewarded.
Posted by aggressor
Austin, TX
Member since Sep 2011
8718 posts
Posted on 2/5/13 at 11:06 am to
quote:

quote:
Is it so bad to let people make wrong decisions and suffer the consequences? It's like aggressor said earlier. Greed has to be balanced by fear in the market place. Bad decisions must be punished with failure and loss. Nothing is more damaging to liberty than dependence. We should be treated as adults. The Statist wants to treat us like children. The left wants to tell us what to do with our money and the right to wants to tell us what to do with ourselves.


Well, yes, it can be bad to make people bear the full brunt of their failure. For one, it inhibits the very risk taking that you claim to value as a free market proponent. And two, it's essentially a pretty shitty way to live: constantly in fear. That doesn't mean people should be guaranteed a living wage at the expense of those who do work or any nonsense like that. But it does mean we can work to smooth the edges of a purely market based economy by implementing a social safety net. Such a failsafe is a recognition that not everyone is the sum of strictly their own personal initiative and abilities, and that those that struggle are not down solely b/c they were judged wanting by the market. The goal of a market economy is to maximize output, and things such as public education, infrastructure upgrades, and unemployment insurance go a long way towards helping us get the most out of our resources and increase that all important marker of economic success: our GDP. A purely market based economy may give you maximum freedom, but frankly living in densely populated areas REQUIRES the surrender of certain freedoms in order to produce a smoothly functioning society. And in reality, a market can be just as constraining on your freedom as a gov't.



This is the slippery slope. How much freedom is too much? How much of a safety net is required? In the end Rand was very Libertarian which essentially was to take a minimalist approach where government's main job is to maintain security and create a fair marketplace where it can judge disputes. She also believed in intellectual property protection.

You can certainly argue the merits of many governmental functions and many things I would agree with you on and honestly I don't know how many things Rand truly would oppose as well. Rand was really about making people think at a core level about what was really necessary from the government and to make people realize and fear the power of government.

You have to remember she grew up in Tzarist Russia, saw the Russian Revolution up close, and was persecuted by the early Soviets before being lucky enough to be able to leave. She saw the abuse of government and the dishonesty of politicians in a way no one on this board ever has and it shaped her views. By the same token you can see how Marx's views were shaped by the abuses of corporations during the Industrial Revolution. Marx simply underestimated the power of the people to control corporations without the government and he had no sense of understanding of human nature.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter