simplicitys-brother

I don't think it has been but that is only a small part of her philosophy. It was important to her but she never understood the Dynamics or life and probably never even heard of them. It is important to not harm ones customers nor the providers of ones wants. Objectivism as interpreted by too many is a little crazy IMNSHO but her views on the free market and indiviudal choices are spot on and more relevant today than ever before. Collectivism has never worked beyond the few at the very top. Those who are more equal than the rest. Collectivism also demands an ignorance of economics else the lower rungs would escape from the plantations.

You can pretend but that doesn't change the idea of the progressive "leadership" not being at all concerned with the human condition. I do not say that tongue in cheek. I know too many of them too closely for that.

Don't you just wish that were true. There are fools all around us who don't know truth from fiction. You have accused me of that often enough although I will say not directly. more subtle approach usually.

Are you having fun parsing? You well know what I was talking about. If you will not co-operate with others, well then get your own food. Sometimes life seems to really suck, doesn't it?

And thus my use of the word rational. It is not rational to make ones customers unable to purchase further wants/needs from me and in no way does it exclude charity. My objection has always been the use of force to take from me ( or anyone ) in order to buy votes from someone who will sell them. That which is taken from me goes under the name of taxes, or fees or penalties or charges, all with various adjectives such as income, excise, driving license, etc that make them seem so innoccent.

Sorry Kingfisher but I can't make any sense out of that. If I want your coffee more than I want my money and you want my money more than you want your coffee and we can connect, then there are two smiles of agreement. If too many don't have $2.00 or If too few have coffee, then demand changes and it encourages someone to fill the void. When an opportunity arises in a free market someone will try to do the job needed and wanted by others. And that is agreement and it is Capitalism and it satisfies everybody except those who want more to be taken from others for their own benefit and they are known as moochers. Just too simple, I guess.

And, if Atlas really shrugs, the takers will not be able to survive on their own. Will we have to even bury their carcasses?

Sarkany wrote: Ayn Rand wrote the bestselling “Atlas Shrugged.” She also encouraged the world’s “makers” to pursue “rational self interest” as “the highest moral purpose of [one's] life,” while giving little care to the nefarious “takers.” Perhaps the word not understood here is "rational" as it relates to self-interest. A person must align all of his dynamics to live his optimum life. No rational person ignores the remaining seven dynamics with success. Ayn Rand was an atheist and that, I think, is mistaken but what she wrote is coming to pass in front of our very eyes and so many dismiss it as balderdash or horsepucky because it conflicts with their dreams they have been promised would materialize from liberalism. Those drams can only happen through the efforts of all of us and no takers without work allowed.

I think that a better understanding of how selfishness relates to the dynamics would be helpful. Selfishness does not require sacrifice from anyone nor does it mean that others have to serve the selfish one. It would be counter-survival to treat others that way.Let each have what they want, actually help them achieve it but never submit to the use of force.

In the first place egotism as defined by Ayn Rand does not incluce the sacrafice of anyone to self so that idea is a false premise from which the conversation descends. If altruism makes one happy is that not of itself egotism? If altruism makes one happy to give then why are there people willing to use force to make us give? non-sequitor. Consider the idea of "two thank you's". Also known as free trade where there is agreement about what passes from each to the other. An example might be: You buy a morning coffee. You want the coffee more than you want the $2.00 and the shop wants the $2.00 more than they want the coffee. Is anyone harmed? Of course not. And it doesn't require an egotist nor an altruist to be involved. Perhaps there is the logical "middle ground". AV: Maybe as we become more spiritually oriented we can make changes by changing one soul at a time. I don`t know if that is possible at all. It is already happening all around the world in 90 languages, but we still have a lot of work to do.

Beautiful

I don't think you realize exactly how right you are. And that leads to many thoughts about why it is good to be good in this lifetime, because you will be coming back and you ( the generic 'you') don't want to inherit a miserable place to be. If we (the generic 'we') vote into office those who want only to be re-elected and think there is no next time, well, we will be getting what we will have deserved. You too are 100% correct and we should not leave it that way because we will be back.

What I am saying is that the Pope is Catholic, He has no reason to listen to the leaders of other faiths in determining his actions re: the Catholic church. You had said: Jonathan H. B. Lobl, on 12 July 2012 - 02:49 PM, said: The current Pope is not in an appologetic mood. Just a few years ago, he stated that, only the Catholic Church has Appostolic Succession. All the other churches are mearly "ecclesiastic communities." Clearly, the opinion of outsiders means nothing to him. And my response is that he has no reason to be in an appologetic mood. Followed by questions should you choose to answer them.

To paraphrase Horace Mann, the reason why schooling should be free is to provide workers for the factories. They are not to be educated beyond what is needed to work in the factories. Some escape and become more capable. Often those kids are drugged and put on the short bus to prevent their winning lifes games. Others do escape and become successes.I don't claim that anyone is "plotting" against us. Still those who run the education establishment like their position and won't do much to encourage others to take their place. They are supported by politicians who get large amounts of campaign financing from public teacher unions and large amounts of tax dollars with which to buy votes. The end result of this is more growth of state run universities, tenure for teachers and lowered standards for education of our children via standard testing approaches which violates the purpose of real education. But then, I'm sure you already know all this.

Yes indeed and especially for the young. There are many quotes floating around but one f my favorites goes something like this: You cannot become rich by takng from the rich because after a while he will no longer be rich and then you have to fend for yourself. Its one of my favorites because I just wrote it.Or as Lady Thtcher said "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other peoples money. Becomng wealthy is a very easy thing to do. All one has to do is learn how to set goals and meet them. Understand now, such is not taught in publlc schools, They don't want you to know.