Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
The Trial of Hank Rearden from 'Atlas Shrugged' by Ayn Rand
He stood up, when the judges called upon him to do so. He wore a grey suit, he had pale blue eyes and blond hair; it was not the colours that made his figure seem icily implacable, it was the fact that the suit had an expensive simplicity seldom flaunted these days, that it belonged in the sternly luxurious office of a rich corporation, that his bearing came from a civilised era and clashed with the place around him.
The crowd knew from the newspapers that he represented the evil of ruthless wealth; and - as they praised the virtue of chastity, then ran to see any movie that displayed a half-naked female on its posters - so they came to see him; evil, at least, did not have the stale hopelessness of a bromide which none believed and none dared to challenge. They looked at him without admiration - admiration was a feeling they had lost the capacity to experience, long ago; they looked with curiosity and with a dim sense of defiance against those who had told them that it was their duty to hate him.
A few years ago, they would have jeered at his air of self-confident wealth. But today, there was a slate-grey sky in the windows of the courtroom, which promised the first snowstorm of a long, hard winter; the last of the country's oil was vanishing, and the coal mines were not able to keep up with the hysterical scramble for winter supplies. The crowd in the courtroom remembered that this was the case which had cost them the services of Ken Danagger. There were rumours that the output of the Danagger Coal Company had fallen perceptibly within one month; the newspapers said that it was merely a matter of readjustment while Danagger's cousin was reorganising the company he had taken over. Last week, the front pages had carried the story of a catastrophe on the site of a housing project under construction: defective steel girders had collapsed, killing four workmen; the newspapers had not mentioned, but the crowd knew, that the girders had come from Orren Boyle's Associated Steel.
They sat in the courtroom in heavy silence and they looked at the tall, grey figure, not with hope - they were losing the capacity to hope - but with an impassive neutrality spiked by a faint question mark; the question mark was placed over all the pious slogans they had heard for years.
The newspapers had snarled that the cause of the country's troubles, as this case demonstrated, was the selfish greed of rich industrialists; that it was men like Hank Rearden who were to blame for the shrinking diet, the falling temperature and the cracking roofs in the homes of the nation; that if it had not been for men who broke regulations and hampered the government's plans, prosperity would have been achieved long ago; and that a man like Hank Rearden was prompted by nothing but the profit motive. This last was stated without explanation or elaboration, as if the words "profit motive" were the self-evident brand of ultimate evil.
The crowd remembered that these same newspapers, less than two years ago, had screamed that the production of Rearden Metal should be forbidden, because its producer was endangering people's lives for the sake of his greed; they remembered that the man in grey had ridden in the cab of the first engine to run over a track of his own Metal; and that he was now on trial for the greedy crime of withholding from the public a load of the Metal which it had been his greedy crime to offer in the public market.
According to the procedure established by directives, cases of this kind were not tried by a jury, but by a panel of three judges appointed by the Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources; the procedure, the directives had stated, was to be informal and democratic. The judge's bench had been removed from the old Philadelphia courtroom for this occasion, and replaced by a table on a wooden platform; it gave the room an atmosphere suggesting the kind of meeting where a presiding body puts something over on a mentally retarded membership.
One of the judges, acting as prosecutor, had read the charges.
"You may now offer whatever plea you wish to make in your own defence," he announced. Facing the platform, his voice inflectionless and peculiarly clear, Hank Rearden answered:
"I have no defence."
"Do you --" The judge stumbled; he had not expected it to be that easy. "Do you throw yourself upon the mercy of this court?"
"I do not recognise this court's right to try me."
"What?"
"I do not recognise this court's right to try me."
"But, Mr. Rearden, this is the legally appointed court to try this particular category of crime."
"I do not recognise my action as a crime."
"But you have admitted that you have broken our regulations controlling the sale of your Metal."
"I do not recognise your right to control the sale of my Metal."
"Is it necessary for me to point out that your recognition was not required?"
"No. I am fully aware of it and I am acting accordingly."
He noted the stillness of the room. By the rules of the complicated pretence which all those people played for one another's benefit, they should have considered his stand as incomprehensible folly; there should have been rustles of astonishment and derision; there were none; they sat still; they understood.
"Do you mean that you are refusing to obey the law?" asked the judge.
"No. I am complying with the law - to the letter. Your law holds that my life, my work and my property may be disposed of without my consent. Very well, you may now dispose of me without my participation in the matter. I will not play the part of defending myself, where no defence is possible, and I will not simulate the illusion of dealing with a tribunal of justice."
"But, Mr. Rearden, the law provides specifically that you are to be given an opportunity to present your side of the case and to defend yourself."
"A prisoner brought to trial can defend himself only if there is an objective principle of justice recognised by his judges, a principle upholding his rights, which they may not violate and which he can invoke. The law, by which you are trying me, holds that there are no principles, that I have no rights and that you may do with me whatever you please. Very well. Do it." "Mr. Rearden, the law which you are denouncing is based on the highest principle - the principle of the public good."
"Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that 'the good' was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to e their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it - well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act."
A group of seats at the side of the courtroom was reserved for the prominent visitors who had come from New York to witness the trial. Dagny sat motionless and her face showed nothing but a solemn attention, the attention of listening with the knowledge that the flow of his words would determine the course of her life. Eddie Willers sat beside her. James Taggart had not come. Paul Larkin sat hunched forward, his face thrust out, pointed like an animal's muzzle, sharpened by a look of fear now turning into malicious hatred. Mr. Mowen, who sat beside him, was a man of greater innocence and smaller understanding; his fear was of a simpler nature; he listened in bewildered indignation and he whispered to Larkin, "Good God, now he's done it! Now he'll convince the whole country that all businessmen are enemies of the public good!"
"Are we to understand," asked the judge, "that you hold your own interests above the interests of the public?"
"I hold that such a question can never arise except in a society of cannibals."
"What ... do you mean?"
"I hold that there is no clash of interests among men who do not demand the unearned and do not practice human sacrifices."
"Are we to understand that if the public deems it necessary to curtail your profits, you do not recognise its right to do so?"
"Why, yes, I do. The public may curtail my profits any time it wishes - by refusing to buy my product."
"We are speaking of ... other methods."
"Any other method of curtailing profits is the method of looters - and I recognise it as such."
"Mr. Rearden, this is hardly the way to defend yourself."
"I said that I would not defend myself."
"But this is unheard of! Do you realise the gravity of the charge against you?"
"I do not care to consider it."
"Do you realise the possible consequences of your stand?"
"Fully."
"It is the opinion of this court that the facts presented by the prosecution seem to warrant no leniency. The penalty which this court has the power to impose on you is extremely severe."
"Go ahead."
"I beg your pardon?"
"Impose it."
The three judges looked at one another. Then their spokesman turned back to Rearden. "This is unprecedented," he said.
"It is completely irregular," said the second judge. "The law requires you submit to a plea in your own defence. Your only alternative is to state for the record that you throw yourself upon the mercy of the court."
"I do not."
"But you have to."
"Do you mean that what you expect from me is some sort of voluntary action?"
"Yes."
"I volunteer nothing."
"But the law demands that the defendant's side be represented on the record."
"Do you mean that you need my help to make this procedure legal?"
"Well, no ... yes ... that is, to complete the form."
"I will not help you."
The third and youngest judge, who had acted as prosecutor snapped impatiently, "This is ridiculous and unfair! Do you want to let it look as if a man of your prominence had been railroaded without a --" He cut himself off short. Somebody at the back of the courtroom emitted a long whistle.
"I want," said Rearden gravely, "to let the nature of this procedure appear exactly for what it is. If you need my help to disguise it - I will not help you."
"But we are giving you a chance to defend yourself - and it is you who are rejecting it."
"I will not help you to pretend that I have a chance. I will not help you to preserve an appearance of righteousness where rights are not recognised. I will not help you to preserve an appearance of rationality by entering a debate in which a gun is the final argument. I will not help you to pretend that you are administering justice."
"But the law compels you to volunteer a defence!"
There was laughter at the back of the courtroom.
"That is the flaw in your theory, gentlemen," said Rearden gravely, "and I will not help you out of it. If you choose to deal with men by means of compulsion, do so. But you will discover that you need the voluntary co-operation of your victims, in many more ways than you can see at present. And your victims should discover that it is their own volition - which you cannot force - that makes you possible. I choose to be consistent and I will obey you in the manner you demand. Whatever you wish me to do, I will do it at the point of a gun. If you sentence me to jail, you will have to send armed men to carry me there - I will not volunteer to move. If you fine me, you will have to seize my property to collect the fine - I will not volunteer to pay it. If you believe that you have the right to force me - use your guns openly. I will not help you to disguise the nature of your action."
The eldest judge leaned forward across the table and his voice became suavely derisive: "You speak as if you were fighting for some sort of principle, Mr. Rearden, but what you're actually fighting for is only your property, isn't it?"
"Yes, of course. I am fighting for my property. Do you know the kind of principle that represents?"
"You pose as a champion of freedom, but it's only the freedom to make money that you're after."
"Yes, of course. All I want is the freedom to make money. Do you know what that freedom implies?"
"Surely, Mr. Rearden, you wouldn't want your attitude to be misunderstood. You wouldn't want to give support to the widespread impression that you are a man devoid of social conscience, who feels no concern for the welfare of his fellows and works for nothing but his own profit."
"I work for nothing but my own profit. I earn it."
There was a gasp, not of indignation, but of astonishment, in the crowd behind him and silence from the judges he faced. He went on calmly:
"No, I do not want my attitude to be misunderstood. I shall be glad to state it for the record. I am in full agreement with the facts of everything said about me in the newspapers - with the facts, but not with the evaluation. I work for nothing but my own profit - which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. I do not produce it for their benefit at the expense of mine, and they do not buy it for my benefit at the expense of theirs; I do not sacrifice my interests to them nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage - and I am proud of every penny that I have earned in this manner. I am rich and I am proud of every penny I own. I made my money by my own effort, in free exchange and through the voluntary consent of every man I dealt with - voluntary consent of those who employed me when I started, the voluntary consent of those who work for me now, the voluntary consent of those who buy my product. I shall answer all the questions you are afraid to ask me openly. Do I wish to pay my workers more than their services are worth to me? I do not. Do I wish to sell my product for less than my customers are willing to pay me? I do not. Do I wish to sell it at a loss or give it away? I do not. If this is evil, do whatever you please about me, according to whatever standards you hold. These are mine. I am earning my own living, as every honest man must. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact of my own existence and the fact that I must work in order to support it. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact that I am able to do it better than most people - the fact that my work is of greater value than the work of my neighbours and that more men are willing to pay me. I refuse to apologise for my ability - I refuse to apologise for my success - I refuse to apologise for my money. If this is evil, make the most of it. If this is what the public finds harmful to its interests, let the public destroy me. This is my code - and I will accept no other. I could say to you that I have done more good for my fellow men than you can ever hope to accomplish - but I will not say it, because I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist, nor do I seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist, nor do I recognise the good of others as a justification for their seizure of my property or their destruction of my life. I will not say that the good of others was the purpose of my work - my own good was my purpose, and I despise the man who surrenders his. I could say to you that you do not serve the public good - that nobody's good can be achieved at the price of human sacrifices - that when you violate the rights of one man, you have violated the right of all, and a public of rightless creatures is doomed to destruction. I could say to you that you will and can achieve nothing but universal devastation - as any looter must, when he runs out of victims. I could say it, but I won't. It is not your particular policy that I challenge, but your moral premise. If it were true that men could achieve their good by means of turning some men into sacrificial animals, and I were asked to immolate myself for the sake of creatures who wanted to survive at the price of my blood, if I were asked to serve the interests of society apart from, above and against my own - I would refuse. I would reject it as the most contemptible evil, I would fight it with every power I possess, I would fight the whole of mankind, if one minute were all I could last before I were murdered, I would fight in the full confidence of the justice of my battle and of a living being's right to exist. Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!"
The crowd burst into applause.
Rearden whirled around, more startled than his judges. He saw face that laughed in violent excitement, and faces that pleaded for help; he saw their silent despair breaking out into the open; he saw the same anger and indignation as his own, finding release in the wild defiance of their cheering; he saw the looks of admiration and the looks of hope. There were also the face of loose-mouthed young men and maliciously unkempt females, the kind who led the booing in newsreel theatres at any appearance of a businessman of the screen; they did not attempt a counter-demonstration; they were silent.
As he looked at the crowd, people saw in his face what the threats of the judges had not been able to evoke: the first sign of emotion. It was a few moments before they heard the furious beating of a gavel upon the table and one of the judges yelling:
" -- or I shall have the courtroom cleared!"
As he turned back to the table, Rearden's eyes moved over the visitor's section. His glance paused on Dagny, a pause perceptible only to her, as if he were saying: It works. She would have appeared calm except that her eyes seemed to have become too large for her face. Eddie Willers was smiling the kind of smile that is a man's substitute for breaking into tears. Mr. Mowen looked stupefied. Paul Larkin was staring at the floor. There was no expression on Bertram Scudder's face - or on his wife, Lillian's. She sat at the end of a row, her legs crossed, a mink stole slanting from her right shoulder to her left hip; she looked at Rearden, not moving.
In the complex violence of all the things he felt, he had time to recognise a touch of regret and longing: there was a face he had hoped to see, had looked for from the start of the session, had wanted to be present more than any other face around him. But Francisco d'Anconia had not come.
"Mr Rearden," said the eldest judge, smiling affably, reproachfully and spreading his arms, "it is regrettable that you should have misunderstood us so completely. That's the trouble - that businessmen refuse to approach us in a spirit of trust and friendship. They seem to imagine that we are their enemies. Why do you speak of human sacrifices? What made you go to such an extreme? We have no intention of seizing your property or destroying your life. We do not seek to harm your interests. We are fully aware of your distinguished achievements. Our purpose is only to balance social pressures and do justice to all. This hearing is really intended, not as a trial, but as a friendly discussion aimed at mutual understanding and co-operation."
"I do not co-operate at the point of a gun."
"Why speak of guns? This matter is not serious enough to warrant such references. We are fully aware that the guilt in this case lies chiefly with Mr. Kenneth Danagger, who instigated this infringement of the law, who exerted pressure upon you and who confessed his guilt by disappearing his guilt by disappearing in order to escape trial."
"No. We did it by equal, mutual, voluntary agreement."
"Mr. Rearden," said the second judge, "you may not share some of our ideas, but when all is said and done, we're all working for the same cause. For the good of the people. We realise that you were prompted to disregard legal technicalities by the critical situation of the coal mines and the crucial importance of fuel to the public welfare."
"No. I was prompted by my own profit and my own interests. What effect it had on the coal mines and the public welfare is for you to estimate. That was not my motive."
Mr. Mowen stared dazedly about him and whispered to Paul Larkin, "Something's gone screwy here."
"Oh, shut up!" snapped Larkin.
"I am sure, Mr. Rearden," said the eldest judge, "that you do not really believe - nor does the public - that we wish to treat you as a sacrificial victim. If anyone has been laboring under such a misapprehension, we are anxious to prove that it is not true."
The judges retired to consider their verdict. They did not stay out long. They returned to an ominously silent courtroom - and announced that a fine of $5,000 was imposed on Henry Rearden, but that the sentence was suspended. Streaks of jeering laughter ran through the applause that swept the courtroom. The applause was aimed at Rearden, the laughter - at the judges.
Rearden stood motionless, not turning to the crowd, barely hearing the applause. He stood looking at the judges. There was no triumph in his face, no elation, only the still intensity of contemplating the enormity of the smallness of the enemy who was destroying the world. He felt as if, after a journey of years through a landscape of devastation, past the ruins of great factories, the wrecks of powerful engines, the bodies of invincible men, he had come upon the despoiler, expecting to find a giant - and had found a rat eager to scurry for cover at the first sound of a human step. If this is what has beaten us, he thought, the guilt is ours.
He was jolted back into the courtroom by the people pressing to surround him. He smiled in answer to their smiles, to the frantic tragic eagerness of their faces; there was a touch of sadness in his smile.
"God bless you, Mr. Rearden!" said an old woman with a ragged shawl over her head. "Can't you save us, Mr. Rearden? They're eating us alive, and it's no use fooling anybody about how it's the rich that they're after - do you know what's happening to us?"
"Listen, Mr. Rearden," said a man who looked like a factory worker, "it's the rich who're selling us down the river. Tell those wealthy bastards, who're so anxious to give everything away, that when they give away their palaces, they're giving away the skin off our backs." "I know it," said Rearden.
The guilt is ours, he thought. If we who were the movers, the providers, the benefactors of mankind, were willing to let the brand of evil be stamped upon us and silently to bear punishment for our virtues - what sort of "good" did we expect to triumph in the world? He looked at the people around him. They had cheered him today; they had cheered him by the side of the track of the John Galt Line. But tomorrow they would clamour for a new directive from Wesley Mouch and a free housing project from Orren Boyle, while Boyle's girders collapsed upon their heads. They would do it, because they would be told to forget, as a sin, that which had made them cheer Hank Rearden.
Why were they ready to renounce their highest moments as a sin? Why were they willing to betray the best within them? What made them believe that this earth was a realm of evil where despair was their natural fate? He could not name the reason, but he know that it had to be named. He felt it as a huge question mark within the courtroom, which it was now his duty to answer.
This was the real sentence imposed upon him, he thought - to discover what idea, what simple idea available to the simplest man, had made mankind accept the doctrines that led it to self-destruction.
THANK YOU!
After the "Money" speech by D'Anconia, this is my favorite part of Atlas Shrugged. I wonder how many Freepers have read this book?
I have now read this 1000 page monster 3 times, having just picked up the 35th Anniversary edition hardback.
It is absolutly AMAZING that what this book described in fiction, is actually happening today.
I can only hope that the outcome is the same, otherwise its time to find a new country.
Thanks for posting this.
You are quite welcome.
It is absolutly AMAZING that what this book described in fiction, is actually happening today.
I wish Bill Gates had a bit more Rearden in him.
Thanks for this post....
You're welcome.
It seemed very fitting today.
THANK YOU!! I finished Reading Atlas for the 4th time last week. I hope this spurs much debate here on FR. Other chapters in Atlas Shrugged that are my favorites include:
If only John Galt were a real person.........
Thanks, I needed that!
BUMP
When I first read this book years ago, I thought - well, the thing is, the government looters won't be so obvious and overt. Would that they were - it would be easier to rally the fight.
The Microsoft anti-trust ruling proves AR right yet again. Between this and the government's new gun-maker extortion scheme, I'm wondering where John Galt is, and when we strike.
I wish Bill Gates had a bit more Rearden in him
Ah, but he does my friend.
I dont know if you noticed, but both Bill & Steve were doing their best not to crack a smile at their press conference yesterday.
I'm a former Microsoftie, and I can tell you that yesterday was quite a victory for Microsoft. I wish I could tell you why, but the world will find out soon enough.
I would suggest to anyone willing to listen, to buy Microsoft stock today. There is a reason that NONE of Microsoft's competitors stocks went up yesterday, while MS shares sank. Its the same reason why none of the competitors wish to testify during the remedy phase of the trial.
They understand what General Yamamoto knew......
Stay tuned.
You wish Gates had a bit more Reardon in him? Funny, I was just thinking that. Here's where we're at right now, IMO:
"I want," said Rearden gravely, "to let the nature of this procedure appear exactly for what it is. If you need my help to disguise it - I will not help you."
"But we are giving you a chance to defend yourself - and it is you who are rejecting it."
"I will not help you to pretend that I have a chance. I will not help you to preserve an appearance of righteousness where rights are not recognised. I will not help you to preserve an appearance of rationality by entering a debate in which a gun is the final argument. I will not help you to pretend that you are administering justice."
It's just too bad all the Microsoft Bashers here on FR don't have the common sense, nay intelligence to see the hypocirsy/stupidity of their stance on this case. Here we have big gub'mint determining which technologies will win, which will lose. This isn't "leveling the playing field" by a long shot. Anyone who makes that specious argument ignores the fact that a business *must* maximize its profits in order to remain successful and continue to innovate.
This case is all about taking away from those who have, to "give" to those who have not (that is to say, the intelligence to innovate, or the savvy to market their wares in the arena of competition.) In short, the gub'mit is about to expand the welfare system for those companies who cannot compete on their own. That's what's going on here.
I truly wish Bill Gates would just get on TV today and say "America, we're sick of this oppressive government. They want to punish us for being successful. Therefore, we're closing up shop today. No more Microsoft Code, no more Windows. Your government has pushed us too far. We will be used by this tyranny no more."
If only Gates had the guts. Imagine how fast this tyrannical, corrupt government would fold.
Thank you Ayn Rand, for changing my life.
A FOX NEWS caller just said, "When I bought my Gateway computer, they gave me a choice of components, I chose, and still use Netscape as my browser", so how is it that Microsoft is an evil monopoly?
He wrapped up with; "Who has more credibility with the American people, Bill Gates or Janet Reno?"
It seemed very fitting today.
Absolutely. My fiancee is reading the book. She got to about page 13?-14? and she remarked, "This is just like what MS is going through"...
I'm a former Microsoftie, and I can tell you that yesterday was quite a victory for Microsoft. I wish I could tell you why, but the world will find out soon enough.
I don't think one needs to be a former Microsoftie to know why. And you're right: buy Microsoft NOW. There won't be another chance like this anytime soon.
Whenever I see Joel Klein on TV...the non-producer...I can't think of anything else but Atlas Shrugged...he would fit right into the book, with his appearance and evasion of telling the truth. He gets a glow in his eyes when he talks about bringing MS to its knees...
Bullseye!!!
TO THE TOP!!!...
Thanks, I needed that!
You are welcome my friend, I need that this morning too.
(BTW, I always meant to ask you whether or not your screen name was derived from the "YaYa Sisterhood" novel)
If only John Galt were a real person.........
Before all is said and done, he may well be.
[It is absolutly AMAZING that what this book described in fiction, is actually happening today. ]
My sentiments exactly. Truly truly frightening.
If only Gates had the guts. Imagine how fast this tyrannical, corrupt government would fold.
Indeed, and if only I had the guts as well.
As I look at unfolding events, I am reminded of one of the blank faced "extras" walking the pages of Atlas Shrugged, in despair.
I am forced to wonder what it will take to shake ME out of my passive world.
WOW!!! Been a long time. Many thanks.
You are quite welcome friend.
Anyone who reads and understands, is someone I would gladly call friend.
Listening to CSPAN this morning, there was actually a caller suggesting that Microsoft be "nationalized", because Gates makes too much money.
Friends, if you dont already realize it, this country is one or two generations from revolution. Because of our completly corrupt educational system, along with incredible Political correctness, no I mean FASCISM, this country is on its last legs.
If Al Gore wins this election, I hope you all have bought plenty of guns.
Genuinely uplifting post O,thank you.I have never read any of Ayn's books,I will be doing so now.
I have never read any of Ayn's books,I will be doing so now.
You will find it well worth the effort my friend...
Particularly "Atlas Shrugged" and particularly right now. It's a bit long, but you will be glad you read it.
A suggestion:
Start with "The Fountainhead"
Then read "The New Left: The anti industrial revolution"
Then, "Atlas Shrugged".
You will be changed from within. You may even lose people who you once called friends. You will never be able to look at Liberals without utter contempt.
Friends, if you dont already realize it, this country is one or two generations from revolution.
If it must come, then let it come sooner.
I do not wish my children to live as slaves, and will do what is necessary to avoid such consequences.
Great timing!
Definitely not found as recommended reading in the government schools. Heck! (Even if it doesn't exist.) It's more likely that any knowledge of, or posession of, such literature would get a kid clasified as a potential threat to others.
Thanks for the tip!
| You will be changed from within. You may even lose people who you once called friends. You will never be able to look at Liberals without utter contempt. |
|
|
You've beautifully articulated exactly how I felt after reading this great book. |
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 28 | Top | Last ]
I thought of this trial when I saw Bill Gates and Warren Buffet speaking to a group of college students (on PBS). In the question period after the speeches, a student, well versed in altruist-collectivist ethics, asked these men what they were going to do to "give back" to society, since they had received so much…
This little student was giving these productive men a lecture on the premise that they had "taken" from society, and now it was time to "give" something.
Neither man could answer properly. Gates answered defensively, as though he had no idea that his company had "given" more to the economic well being of the country than this student could ever dream of… as though productive achievement is a sin that must be atoned for.
...it's equally repulsive that we've all stood by and allowed it to happen.
This (to my great shame) is the point that needs to be driven home.
… as though productive achievement is a sin that must be atoned for.
This is what I believe to be the single most powerful idea advanced by Rand in "Atlas Shrugged". The looters are in fact empowered ONLY by our willingness to subscribe to their world-view, and that the most effective tool used by the looters toward that end is misplaced guilt.
When men are subject to feelings of guilt, for the most noble of their endeavors, the battle is lost.
My usual bump, with essential links for anyone interested in liberty:
A Chronology of US
Historical Documents.
The
Avalon Project at the Yale Law School, more historic
documents.
Laissez Faire
Books.
Second Renaissance
Books.
Reason
Foundation.
Ayn Rand and
Objectivism.
Religion and the Founding Fathers
Religion vs.
Morality, from the Ayn Rand Institute.
A Timeline of Western Philosophers, a great
resource.
Welcome to the club, friend.
My own experience was similar, as I am a black man.
I'm sure you can imagine how well Rand's philosophy works among the professional victim class in this country.
Because of my skin color, I am a witness to some of the most incredibly inane commentary, because it is assumed that I am "one of them" whenever I am around black people.
If white people only knew what most blacks REALLY thought of them, there WOULD be revolution.
I have to stay away, for the most part. The lack of reason in the black community, is not good for my health.
After the "Money" speech by D'Anconia, this is my favorite part of Atlas Shrugged. I wonder how many Freepers have read this book?
Francisco's ``Money Speech''
from Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand
Rearden heard Bertram Scudder, outside the group, say to a girl who made some sound of indignation, "Don't let him disturb you. You know, money is the root of all evil- and he's the typical product of money."
Rearden did not think that Francisco could have heard it, but he saw Francisco turning to them with a gravely courteous smile.
"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Aconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor- your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?
"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions- and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.
"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made- before it can be looted or mooched- made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.
"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except by the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss- the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery- that you must offer them values, not wounds- that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of GOODS. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best your money can find. And when men live by trade- with reason, not force, as their final arbiter--it is the best product that wins, the best performance, then man of best judgment and highest ability- and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?
"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality- the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.
"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants; money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth- the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
"Money is your means of survival. The verdict which you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?
"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money? "Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is the loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money- and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it."
"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another- their only substitute, demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride, or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich- will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt- and of his life, as he deserves.
"Then you will see the rise of the double standard--the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money- the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law- men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims- then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.
"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion- when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing- when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors- when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you- when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice- you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.
"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an aribitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it becomes, marked: 'Account overdrawn.'
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world?' You are.
"You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while your damning its life-blood- money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men's history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves- slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody's mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer. Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocarats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers- as industrialists.
"To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money- and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being- the self-made man- the American industrialist.
"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose- because it contains all the others--the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money.' No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity- to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted, or obtained as a favor.
Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.
"Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters' continents. Now the looters' credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards,ark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide- as, I think, he will.
"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns- or dollars. Take your choice- there is no other- and your time is running out."
"We are John Galt."
-Restore (the Constitution)
"He felt as if, after a journey of years through a landscape of devastation, past the ruins of great factories, the wrecks of powerful engines, the bodies of invincible men, he had come upon the despoiler, expecting to find a giant - and had found a rat eager to scurry for cover at the first sound of a human step. If this is what has beaten us, he thought, the guilt is ours."
Thanks for putting this up again.
Regards,
L
Thanks for the post -- RJayneJ: Post of the year material?
I read Atlas Shrugged when it was published in 1957. I was 16, a junior in High School. Apart from the Holy Bible, this is the book that has had the most profound affect on my life.
I recall that Hitlery, in discussing her metamorphisis from Goldwater Republican to Communist, remarked that Atlas Shrugged affected her life also. Either she BADLY misread the book, or set about to use it as her own outline for government. She and her ilk have just about succeeded.
Wake up, America!
Is there any doubt that Slick and Hitlery and their gang of looters are the personification of the evil that Ayn Rand so eloquently portrays?
You may recall that the book ended on a high note. I don't know if, after you finished the book, you daydreamed the sequel. I did. And it was a much better world than the one the looters destroyed.
That, its seems to me, is our mission, FReepers. And you know what? I know we are up to the task!
To make the best use of this excerpt, why don't we email it to Bill Gates? Anybody know his email address?
Let's get it on!
We will never be a truly free people so long as we have Clinton/Gore, an income tax and the IRS.
Scrap the Code!
Scrap the IRS!
Abolish the VLWC!
And then there is the inarticulate Bill Gates.
We all have disliked him at one point or other but that is sort of like disliking Henry Ford for his sort of monopoly on the cheap car.
I have gripes against MS but they are in the realm of cooperating with other vendors by keeping me out of control of Windows. Example, MS cooperated with the DVD folks to keep their area liscening safe. That is conspiracy and restraint of trade. And we all know the basis for this as restraint of trade with Netscape is a BS issue.
But the real issue is what everyone recognized when the anti-trust suit was filed, that MS did not spread enough money around Washington, the DC Washington that is.
And that is what we can call voluntary national socialism where the penalty is failure to volunteer by force.
Honestly the issue if properly exposed is the anti-trust violations of the vendors such as the DVD folks it was protecting. Nothing else was an issue.
Try it this way. I am buying an OS but rather than vendors finding a way around it to make their copy protection and such, MS helps them do it by adding features.
And if Netscape was harmed, I am posting this via netscape from from Redhat [no connection, no profit] under linux.
That is a long digression but damn it if Gates can be an Ayn Rand character it is the way it is going to be.
Thank you Ayn Rand, for changing my life.
I don't know that she changed my life....
But she certainly changed my mind.
And for that, I too, thank her.
Thank YOU!
This should be REQUIRED reading.
If money is the roof of all evil then money can not be used for else evil can be used or good and all kinds of theology are in jeopardy at that poin.
"After the "Money" speech by D'Anconia, this is my favorite part of Atlas Shrugged. I wonder how many Freepers have read this book?"
Rearden heard Bertram Scudder, outside the group, say to a girl who made some sound of indignation, "Don't let him disturb you. You know, money is the root of all evil- and he's the typical product of money."
Rearden did not think that Francisco could have heard it, but he saw Francisco turning to them with a gravely courteous smile.
"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Aconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor- your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?
"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions- and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.
"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made- before it can be looted or mooched- made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.
"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except by the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss- the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery- that you must offer them values, not wounds- that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of GOODS. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best your money can find. And when men live by trade- with reason, not force, as their final arbiter--it is the best product that wins, the best performance, then man of best judgment and highest ability- and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?
"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality- the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.
"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants; money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth- the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
"Money is your means of survival. The verdict which you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?
"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?
"Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is the loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money- and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it."
"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another- their only substitute, demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride, or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich- will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt- and of his life, as he deserves.
"Then you will see the rise of the double standard--the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money- the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law- men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims- then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.
"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion- when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing- when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors- when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you- when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice- you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.
"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an aribitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it becomes, marked: 'Account overdrawn.'
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world?' You are.
"You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while your damning its life-blood- money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men's history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves- slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody's mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer. Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocarats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers- as industrialists.
"To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money- and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being- the self-made man- the American industrialist.
"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose- because it contains all the others--the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money.' No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity- to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted, or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.
"Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters' continents. Now the looters' credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards,ark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide- as, I think, he will.
"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns- or dollars. Take your choice- there is no other- and your time is running out."
John Galt does live in all of us, if we apply the leson to our own lives.
I finished reading The Fountainhead a few weeks ago and it took me forever to finish it for various reasons. I posted one of my favorite exchanges from the book here at: Ayn Rand: The Absence of a Self. I have Atlas Shrugged sitting on the shelf and will get to it in the near future.
"I wish Gates had a bit more Rearden in him."
What Gates should do is file a notice of intent with the SEC to sell about $2 Billion worth of Microsoft stock. Then sit back and watch the NASDAQ plummet day after day until Willy and Al Gore come crawling up to Redmond, Washington begging him to settle the case. The lower the NASDAQ goes, the lower Al Gore's prospects in November.
Thanks!
Its already happening without Gates.
Nasdaq is down more than 300 this morning.
Many startups have just lost their seed capital. Silicon Valley will rue the day the cried to the feds.
I am in the middle of Atlas Shrugged.
Last night while was reading a new article came on the radio about the Adams Mark Hotel in Daytona Beach. The annual black College Reunion was taking place.
Last Year that hotel did some things that the Justice Department did not like. This year the Justice Department installed a number of inspectors to approve who was admitted to the hotel and the rates they were charged.
The Hotel turned into bedlam. The Hotel had to beg for hours for permission to call the police to clear the lobby.
The Hotel spokesman said "the Hotel was completely out of control."
The combination of actively reading Atlas Shrugged and hearing this new article scared the Hillory out of me.
Check out "The Trial of Hank Reardon" thread.
Oops, thought you were from another thread, sorry.
Definitely not found as recommended reading in the government schools. Heck! (Even if it doesn't exist.) It's more likely that any knowledge of, or posession of, such literature would get a kid clasified as a potential threat to others.
The Ayn Rand Institute sponsors an annual essay contest for high school students in "Anthem" and "The Fountainhead".
anyrand.org
I cut the following article from the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago and hung it on my cubicle wall as a reminder that Atlas Shrugged is played out every day in America. It brings up images of grain sitting in large piles along the railroad spurs as people go hungry across the land, but those with government pull are able to travel in the comfort of a dedicated train.
Golfers in Clark, N.J., Want Earth to Move, Preferably by Rail
By Daniel Machalara
Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal
Does the dirt train stop here anymore?
That's the question asked in Clark, N.J., which is awaiting delivery of 200,000 cubic yards of dirt to finish a golf course. The township wants the dirt to come by rail, as it had in the past. But Norfolk Southern Corp., which began operating Conrail Inc. routes in June, has said it can't deliver the dirt, which will require more than 3,700 freightcar loads.
Local officials are dumbfounded. "You have a pile of dirt moving in a rail car," says Clark Mayor Robert Ellenport. "How difficult can that be?"
A spokesman for Norfolk Southern, Rudy Husband, says "integration challenges" with Conrail and the peak shipping season make it hard to move dirt right now. "Putting on a slow freight train carrying dirt would disrupt the flow of our priority trains," he says.
A spokesman for General Motors Corp., which is building the course on a former plant site, says GM is "disappointed" by the decision.
Last week dirt deliveries resumed -- by truck. But local officials are uneasy about the noise, traffic and danger from 200 truckloads of dirt a day rolling through local streets.
Norfolk Southern officials have now offered to deliver three trainloads of dirt a week, with 42 cars per train. But Clark officials say that is only half the rate needed to keep the project on track. Meanwhile, says Mayor Ellenport, "I'll believe it when I see the first cars coming in loaded with dirt."
Wow, thanks for this post. I am in the middle of re-reading Atlas Shrugged right now.
It is very heartening to see so many people see this novel as somewhat prophetic. I just hope that the ending is prophetic as well.
John Galt does live in all of us, if we apply the leson to our own lives.
I operate under the premise "5% of the people do 95% of the work" which has held true in nearly every company I've worked at. The "blank faces" simply drive me nuts. I see bits and pieces of myself in so many characters in Atlas Shrugged. I've always wanted to be either Francisco D'Anconia, or Hank Reardon, or Wyatt at some point. I feel more like Wyatt lately, wanting to just get up and leave one day, middle finger raised high as I walk out the door, never to return. Too many people here (above me) who don't have a clue what it takes to run this operation on a daily basis telling me what to do, and how to do it. Only then to complain when things fail. Sound familiar? It should. It happens in corporate America all over the U.S. daily.
I take one day off sick (yesterday) and things fall to pieces. I ask to take a vacation, and I'm denied. When I took my vacation last year (the last two weeks of November) they wanted to know how to get ahold of me at any minute during the day "in case something happens" ... why? Because they don't have a clue. They won't admit they don't have a clue. Just like our damn' gub'mint. They seek to tear down Microsoft and tell them how/when they can do business, without a remote understanding of what the technology is, how it's used, and the damage they'll surely cause by trying to "level" the playing field for the market. Judge Jackson NEVER used a computer in his life, and doesn't have even a remote understanding of how they work. THIS is the gubbermints judge in charge of the case???? Please, someone tell me: what's RIGHT with this picture? I can't think of a damn' thing.
Please Bill - take an example from Hank Reardon, Wyatt and Francisco D'Anconia: Tell Clinton and the rest of the corrupt administration to "shove it" and shut down MS. It won't take more than a week to expose this gubbermint for what it really is: parasitic leeches that produce NOTHING and expect to collect extortionist rewards for the "privledge" of their letting you continue to do business.
I guess it's a good thing I'm not the head of Microsoft, because that's what I'd have done a long time ago.
Maybe its D'Anconia Copper?
I guess it's a good thing I'm not the head of Microsoft, because that's what I'd have done a long time ago.
My guess is that some of the very traits which allow someone like Bill Gates to be so successful are the very same traits that prevent them from even considering walking away. That would be interpreted as giving up and they are unable to make the mental leap that the characters in Atlas Shrugged did in realizing that their very virtues were what the altruists were using to destroy them.
Particularly "Atlas Shrugged" and particularly right now. It's a bit long, but you will be glad you read it.
I am reading "For The New Intellectual", now...for the second time.
5.56mm
Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy?
Boy, has Atlas Shrugged changed my thinking. I said this (albeit, in different terms) in THIS POST ABOVE:
This case is all about taking away from those who have, to "give" to those who have not (that is to say, the intelligence to innovate, or the savvy to market their wares in the arena of competition.) In short, the gub'mit is about to expand the welfare system for those companies who cannot compete on their own. That's what's going on here.
Reminds me in Atlas of the Railroads literally racing to see who could go out of business first, since they were "guaranteed" by the government a certain level of profitability - whether they operated or not. The end result was the few remaining railroads (again, in the novel) were forced to take up the slack for those who had gone out of business, and share their meager profits with those railroads.
Thank you for posting that part of the book. How truly inspirational. I'm sitting here almost in awe at some of the posts on this thread. The combined brain-power on this thread surely surpasses that of the entire US Justice Department and Clinton Administration combined.
Yes, We Are John Galt!
I am reading "For The New Intellectual", now...for the second time.
It is good to be among those who share our values.
your post #35 hits the nail right on the head...well said. Everyone should go back and read it again and again. In fact...I'll post it again.
The looters are in fact empowered ONLY by our willingness to subscribe to their world-view, and that the most effective tool used by the looters toward that end is misplaced guilt.
regards,
-Lance
(who is floored by the accuracy of Ayn Rands world outlook and foresight)
My guess is that some of the very traits which allow someone like Bill Gates to be so successful are the very same traits that prevent them from even considering walking away.
Everyone has their breaking point. Mine is reached very quickly when someone (or a tyrannical, corrupt gubbermint such as we have) lays a claim on what it is *I* produce, in order to give it to those who cannot or will not produce. Before you ask, YES, I vehemently oppose the welfare system - in any form. I see no fundamental difference to what the government is forcing down Microsoft's throat and their continued taking of what it is *I* earn and *I* produce to feed the ignorant masses. Individualism, dare we say RUGGED Individualism is a very good thing indeed.
That would be interpreted as giving up and they are unable to make the mental leap that the characters in Atlas Shrugged did in realizing that their very virtues were what the altruists were using to destroy them.
Good is now bad; bad is now good. Right is now wrong; wrong is now right. Wealth is now evil; poor considered a virtue. Gee, life truly is imitating art (or in this case, Atlas Shrugged) isn't it? It's only a question of time at this point, imo.
Thank you my friend....
This realization hit me like a ton of bricks.
It is good to be among those who share our values.
Hi, One!
From time to time I need a refresher course. Only problem is, as stated in previous posts, the Atlas is quickly becoming reality, and not a novel anymore. More like a prediction.
The looters are in fact empowered ONLY by our willingness to subscribe to their world-view, and that the most effective tool used by the looters toward that end is misplaced guilt.
Every day, this God Forsaken, corrupt, evil Government passes more laws enabling them to forceably take money from your pocket. With each new law, they stake a new claim, and place upon you and I a "moral obligation" to care for those who cannot care for themselves; to think for those who dare not think for themselves; to make dependent on them those who can't or won't produce for themselves.
This government is the BIGGEST looter of all. It produces nothing. It lays its claim on us by passing more intrusive, money-grabbing laws. It takes OUR money, which we have earned by the fruits of our labors, and gives to those who produce NOTHING.
Our biggest moral obligation is to ourselves. Our biggest moral obligation is to not become a burden to others. Our biggest moral obligation is to be productive. Our biggest moral obligation is to care for our own families. Our biggest moral obligation is to THINK. Our biggest moral obligation is to our very own souls.
I rant, therefore I AM!
a big descartian bravo!
regards,
-Lance
If it must come, then let it come sooner.
I do not wish my children to live as slaves, and will do what is necessary to avoid such consequences.
I will not live my life for another man, nor will I expect another man to live his life for me.
Amen, and Amen OWK!
Repeat: Let us send this (these) Rand excerpts to Bill Gates.
Anyone know how to email Gates?
We will never be a truly free people so long as we have Clinton/Gore, an income tax and the IRS.
Scrap the Code!
Scrap the IRS!
Abolish the VLWC!
Sigh. The Microsoft case is not as clear cut as Rand's world. Look, I'm as big of a Rand fan as anyone around here (I would like to add We the Living to the list of recommendations scattered in the posts in this thread). But the facts of the matter are that Microsoft did some things that Ayn Rand would definitely not have ascribed to a company of one of her protagonists.
Let us say Hank Rearden asked another company for a sample of a new advanced alloy that had some of the properties he was looking for in his super-metal, along with the opportunity to knock heads with the specialists that made the alloy, broadly hinting that he might be interested in purchasing the entire company and its research labs if the alloy exhibited the characteristics that were advertised for it. The company obliges, and they sign a contract with a modest fee to cover the expenses, and an exploratory exchange is undertaken so Hank can make sure they aren't blowing smoke on the characteristics he is seeking. They amiably did the exploratory exchange, he returned the sample, sent the specialists back home, and said, "no thanks" to the deal. Then Hank proceeded to include exactly the same characteristics into his super-metal using insights he gained through his examination, no matter how cursory; just by interacting closely with the specialists and having a chance to play with the alloy with them answering his questions, he figured out something far, far sooner than he would have otherwise to help him with his own researches. Is all this in his character? No.
He would have realized the honest value he leveraged from the opportunity to examine the alloy and talk some serious shop with the specialists who were claiming some fairly unique properties he was seeking for his own super-metal. Hank Rearden would have paid for the value exchange if it helped him in his experiments, even though legally he was not obligated to do so; the contract he signed with the company said nothing about payment for any intellectual value obtained from the exploratory exchange.
This kind of practice is incredibly easy to perform in more purely intellectual property activities like software though, and Microsoft has done this, repeatedly. Like I said, all perfectly legal. However, legal does not cover ethically abiding by the principles laid down by Rand, where recognizing and honestly exchanging for value obtained is paramount.
Well, I can hear you retort, it is the fault of the stupid lawyers for the other company, who didn't put in a clause that would stipulate payment for such intellectual value obtained. Oh, really? And just how do you propose to prove that? That's right, you can't. In any competitive intellectual property industry, unless someone is outright ripping a direct copy, it is pretty hard to prove the other side simply didn't come up with a similar idea at about the same time.
Another quick example of the difference between Hank Rearden and Microsoft. Once Hank Rearden finished his super-metal and started manufacturing it, would he tell his customers, "Okay, now that you are laying tracks, building parts, whatever with my metal, and are convinced of its value, I don't want you using anyone else's metal to make your stuff?" He certainly is within his legal right to do so: it is his metal, his property, and his customers can walk away from the proposed contract if it didn't suit them (though that would hurt their market position). No, Hank would not have done that because that violated another Randian precept, that of unfettered competition. It would have offended Hank to suggest to him that the only way to keep his customers was to tie them with these exclusionary contracts, and not because he offered superior product at a superior price with superior service. Those speeches that people are quoting in this thread are great, but they don't mean a tinker's damn unless you understand the fierce individualist ethos behind those speeches, the stand-or-fall-on-your-merits approach to life. Using exclusionary legal contracts is not standing or falling on your own merits, no matter how entirely legally justified they may be.
Microsoft has definitely delivered value. I am certainly not going to contend otherwise. But they are not lily white, either, not to speak of by Randian standards. So Microsoft is not a white or black knight in all of this. Nor is the government. The Microsoft anti-trust case, properly prosecuted, would stop the more egregious examples of the abuse of their dominant position in the industry, not interfere with their monopoly, and allow them to compete more upon the merits of the value they offer to customers, than the ability of their attornies to craft tying agreements. That said, I'm not all for the case; I would have rather preferred that the industry itself obsolete Microsoft's abuse of their dominance (note that I did not say obsolete Microsoft itself), and I still have hope that it will do just that.
. I feel more like Wyatt lately, wanting to just get up and leave one day, middle finger raised high as I walk out the door, never to return.
Do it! I did it, and it is the best decision I ever made. I am a software consultant. I make money, because most business are too stupid to invest in their employee's knowledge and education.
I have walked into some of the biggest companies in America, and written code VERBATUM out of a $30 Wrox book, and charged $120 per hour for it. E-Commerce startups wanting to add shopping cart functionality to webs sites are paying thousands to people like me, who write them once in an afternoon, and sell the same code to 15 companies.
If Businesses insist on being stupid, why not profit from it? If I were you, I would resign, then sell my services back to my employer at double the rate on a 1099 basis. Incorporate yourself, and pay taxes at a huge reduction.
If you need a boost, pick up a copy of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad. Dont wait, GO FOR IT!!
You can email Gates at billG@microsoft.com
I am certainly not lobbying for the cannonization of Bill Gates, nor am I suggesting that Microsoft is a real-world analog to Rearden Steel. I will submit however, that anything Microsoft may have done, which was unethical, or anything it may have done to misappropriate intellectual property, should have been settled in a court of law (between litigants), and not a circus trial, under the guise of the Sherman Anti-trust Act.
If Microsoft violated the rights of another company, then let that company accuse Microsoft of fraud or theft, and let them demonstrate that fraud or theft in a court of law, to the satisfaction of a jury.
But Microsoft's detractors were unwilling to follow this path. Instead, they chose to accuse Microsoft of being "too big" or "too successful"... and chose to use the government to steal from Microsoft, and redefine its business practices so that the small guy can get his "fair share" of the business. I find such actions disgusting, and I find no reasonable or moral justification for the very CONCEPT of anti-monopoly legislation.
If men choose to transact with a provider of goods or services of their own free will... and if that provider does not defraud his customers, or steal their property, he should be free to pursue whatever business transactions that the two parties might find mutually acceptable.
If that means that the two parties agree to exclusive distribution agreements, then so be it.
Bill Gates may have a little of Hank Rearden in him. I hear rumor that he's considering moving the entire operation to Ireland, where they don't give a damn about "monopolies" and wish to make money fairly. So I hear.
You touched on a core principle, but neglected to define it's true value:
Another quick example of the difference between Hank Rearden and Microsoft. Once Hank Rearden finished his super-metal and started manufacturing it, would he tell his customers, "Okay, now that you are laying tracks, building parts, whatever with my metal, and are convinced of its value, I don't want you using anyone else's metal to make your stuff?" He certainly is within his legal right to do so: it is his metal, his property, and his customers can walk away from the proposed contract if it didn't suit them (though that would hurt their market position).
Any computer manufacturer has been free to decide to include / not include Microsoft's products along with their own. Microsoft's two-pronged strategy has been: ink an exclusive deal with us, and we'll cut you a break on the price. If you don't give us an exclusive, we'll charge you more per unit. Tell me, what's unethical about that? Did Dell, Gateway, Compaq etc.. all make a choice when they decided they wanted to offer Microsoft products along with their own? YES. Do I as a customer have a choice whether or not I want MS products installed on a computer when I order it? YES. The fact is, the masses are woefully ignorant of the choices they have today and this government seeks to punish Microsoft for it. Apple, Sun, Netscape, Lotus, etc.. are having difficulty competing with the MS marketing dynamo, so what do they do? They cry to the government for help.
The question really is: Is Microsoft aggressive with their pricing strategies? HELL YES. I'll concede overly so. Illegal? No. Where are consumers hurting? Point exactly where? The specious claims that the market hasn't decided is nothing short of a pile of cow manure on a warm summer day. The market has decided - years ago.
I remember when there were 4-5 different versions of DOS, at least 6 different spreadsheets, 5 or more different word processors, and all kinds of networking protocols and network software offerings. Integrating them all was a pain in the butt. Microsoft developed standards, integrated their products, and offered "one stop shopping" .. something it's competitors couldn't or wouldn't do. How has this hurt consumers? Wasn't it these same consumers that chose Microsoft over the competition? Yep. It sure was. The market has decided, the problem is the government doesn't like how the market decided.
Just as in Atlas Shrugged where the government decided how many books would be published, what the titles were, in order to "force" people to read the opinions of those they disagreed with in the name of "diversity" so is this government trying to "force" competition on our desktops.
I say reject it, and that specious fatally flawed argument out of hand.
Are you and I on the same page or what .......
Thank you.
Best cigarette I ever smoked... :-)
I truly wish Bill Gates would just get on TV today and say "America, we're sick of this oppressive government. They want to punish us for being successful. Therefore, we're closing up shop today. No more Microsoft Code, no more Windows. Your government has pushed us too far. We will be used by this tyranny no more."
Problem is, he's a globalist. He gets invited (and attends) such functions as the Bilderbergers. He'd never decry government oppression. Unless this is the proverbial straw.
Gates is a globalist, because he sells software outside of the US.
As far as that Bilderburg nonsense is concerned, please get a clue.
Borders are only for those who are afraid of competition.
Re: your response to DallasDeb: Right On.
Loved seeing this (again) for about the 1 thousandth time. I read this often. Rearden is perhaps my favorite literary character.
Listening to CSPAN this morning, there was actually a caller suggesting that Microsoft be "nationalized", because Gates makes too much money.Someone else mentioned that caller, and I responded in that thread "The bottom-feeders are out in mass of late. Atlas may be getting ready to shrug".
A few hours later, this is posted.
Interesting...
You will never be able to look at Liberals without utter contempt.Nor without seeing what evil really is.
Whoa!
Rearden is perhaps my favorite literary character.
As much as I might love Hank Rearden's character... I think I might be more in tune with a Ragnar Danskejold, or a Fransisco Di'Acconia
I always thought of you as a John Galt guy
Ugh! I struggled through the writing to get the ideas. I'll try to confine myself to the ideas to avoid a discussion about writing. Suffice it to day, I do not share your passion for Ms. Rand's writing talent.
The major flaw here is that the scene ignores the fact that a number of people are perfectly willing to perform evil for their own benefit. Rand seems to believe that once their evil is exposed it will be defeated. This is not true.
Does anyone here believe Bill Gates could deliver this same speech and get any change in the outlook of his case? Hardly. Governments are perfectly happy compelling people at the point of a gun. And once they're locked up, their elegant words are washed away in a surge of demonization, even if untrue.
Sacrificial righteousness is no defense from power. There is more power at the end of a single gun than in all the stocks in the world, unless the stockholder is willing to meet force with force. The old joke about brining a knife to a gun fight comes to mind.
To put it another way: When one is being attacked, it's safer to assume one's attacker means real harm than to assume that the matter is just a big misunderstanding. I doubt Harry Rearden would engage in a rhetorical polemic about economics while being mugged in an alley. And I find that about as believable as what is described in the courtroom scene above.
I always thought of you as a John Galt guy
I don't know if I have a Galt kinda guy in me. (although I'm flattered by the comparison)
Ugh! I struggled through the writing to get the ideas. I'll try to confine myself to the ideas to avoid a discussion about writing. Suffice it to day, I do not share your passion for Ms. Rand's writing talent.
I have no passion for her writing (or at least not her writing STYLE). As a novelist, she is a dismal hack, but as a purveyor of some of the most important ideas with respect to rights, she is a giant.
The major flaw here is that the scene ignores the fact that a number of people are perfectly willing to perform evil for their own benefit. Rand seems to believe that once their evil is exposed it will be defeated. This is not true.
A read of this isolated scene might convey this thought, but I can assure you that the novel does not. Many of the novel's antagonist characters are practitioners of evil for personal gain.
Does anyone here believe Bill Gates could deliver this same speech and get any change in the outlook of his case? Hardly.
No. In fact I think that is what most in this thread are lamenting.
Governments are perfectly happy compelling people at the point of a gun. And once they're locked up, their elegant words are washed away in a surge of demonization, even if untrue.
Couldn't agree more.
Sacrificial righteousness is no defense from power. There is more power at the end of a single gun than in all the stocks in the world, unless the stockholder is willing to meet force with force. The old joke about brining a knife to a gun fight comes to mind.
Or unless the "stockholder" is willing to employ an even MORE powerful weapon than force. (reading the book might give you some idea what this weapon is)
To put it another way: When one is being attacked, it's safer to assume one's attacker means real harm than to assume that the matter is just a big misunderstanding. I doubt Harry Rearden would engage in a rhetorical polemic about economics while being mugged in an alley. And I find that about as believable as what is described in the courtroom scene above.
I think your insight here is well placed. Interestingly though, the character (Hank Rearden) is at this point in the book, still in a state of semi-denial as to the motives of his muggers... and has not as yet decided how to act. He is simply prolonging his own agony.
That is the total point of the book. Any action on the part of government which denies the rights of individuals (property rights or otherwise) requires the sanction of its victims....
I don't do it justice. You should read the book. (although I will grant your earlier point, that it is a prosaic struggle).
Rand would have benefitted tremendously from a competent editor.
I think I might be more in tune with a Ragnar Danskejold, or a Fransisco Di'Acconia
But Francisco is such a ..... slut! LOL!
Governments are perfectly happy compelling people at the point of a gun.
Interesting choice of words. Got the feeling that's what is happening in the Microsoft case? How about in our daily lives?
You betcha.
All you need to do, is imagine the reaction to the following scenario;
Bill Gates announces that Microsoft corporate headquarters are moving to Vancouver, B.C. within the next 30 days... after signing special tax-exemption clauses with the Canadian government.
Washington state's tax-base goes into the red overnight, causing the immediate shutdown of social services.
Microsoft's Market value triples in a single day, after announcing 25% price cuts across the board.
Sun Microsystems stock loses half its value, along with IBM, causing massive layoffs at both companies, and curtailing service operations to emergencies only.
Congress attempts to nationalize Microsoft under Immenent Domain laws. Because Microsoft assets are intelectual property, they are defeated by the Supreme Court.
My point is, the government only THINKS it is in control, and it only requires our participation in this fallacy for them to succeed.
Somone needs to send this thread, specifially your last post to Gates.
Don't have time to read this right now, but I wanted to 'mark' it. Bought a copy of Rand's For the New Intellectuals, but can't get into it yet, as I am absorbed in Unintended Consequences, by John Ross, and heartily recommend it to anyone who has not read it, yet. Have had the urge to post excerpts from it, as well, but I can't put off getting to the next page, and the next.
Thanks for all your efforts in this forum, OWK.
"...money is the root of all evil."
Actually this is a misquote from the Bible which says, "The love of money is the root of all evil."
Please forgive me for the way this post looks. I'm new at HTML and all my codes are showing. Also, there have been some good articles which I would like to post, but I haven't figured out how to do that either.
You will never be able to look at Liberals without utter contempt.
There's a reason I call them DemonCraps.
Liberalism=Socialism=Communism=Kills A Man's Spirit
Atlas Shrugged is one of my favorite books. It was powerful influence on my thinking and helped give consistency to my personal philosophy of economic and political freedom.
Hank Reardon's poignant defense of property rights is the same message Bill Gates should have delivered to the world. Unlike Gates, the fictional Reardon refuses to participate in the charade of government regulation. There is no capitulation in his soul, no bowing to authorities who would destroy commerce in the name of "the public good."
It's astonishing how prophetic Ayn Rand was in her writings. Now, if only Gates and other captains of business could grasp her message.
Whenever I post a reply, mine is always the last one to show up, even when the numbers indicate that others reply after me? Am I doing something wrong?
Hit the "refresh" button on your browser... every time you enter a thread.
Unintended Consequences is an excellent book. I read it awhile ago after a recommendation on the part of another FR participant. Well worth the effort. (and thanks for the kind words)
The major flaw here is that the scene ignores the fact that a number of people are perfectly willing to perform evil for their own benefit. Rand seems to believe that once their evil is exposed it will be defeated. This is not true.
I disagree....then why do they (the looters) go to such lengths to disguise the fact? Because once the disguise is lifted, they cannot for long stand. It is only through deception that their guns are effective, that they have any staying power as tyrants. It is why they seek to keep the masses ignorant and content with bread and circuses because they know that they are powerless against a mass of thinking men. There is no other reason for their great efforts at deception.
Sacrificial righteousness is no defense from power. There is more power at the end of a single gun than in all the stocks in the world, unless the stockholder is willing to meet force with force.
Sacrificial righteousness was not Hanks defense from power. It was the fact that he realized that the only reason the looters had any power over him was because he gave them that power; that, as Jolly Rodgers above so eloquently put it, his very virtues were what the altruists were using to destroy them. He just stopped giving them ammunition.
Regards
-Lance
The situation is simple.
Why on earth should they care? Gates has made his money. He and others like him are completly immune to the coming socialist state of America.
If things get too bad, he can buy an Island like Richard Branson, and employ his own army like the they did 500 years ago.
You see, we who are at risk, bear the responsibility for fixing this mess, and because we forget, this society is just as doomed as all the others before it. It is just a matter of time. At the very moment we look to others to solve our problem, we have condemmed ourselves.
Gates, Edison, Tesla, Shockly, Wozniak and others have giving us all we need to turn this around.
Will we get the message?
Nope.
Keep in mind, Freepers have long memories. Gates was on the wrong side of the fence when he funded an anti-Second Amendment referendum in Washington state, that, thankfully, failed.
Will we get the message?
Some here have. More need to. Is there enough time? Doubtful.
This country is well on its way to becoming a land of bottom-feeders and leeches. Those who's sustinence comes at the expense of others.
It is becoming that way because we are letting it. Those of us who produce LET this corrupt government take from us forcefully. When will we stop producing, so that there is nothing left to loot from us?
That my friends, is the question. Reardon, D'Anconia, Wyatt and even Dagney Taggart all had different breaking points. When will "enough be enough?" When will we have the courage to stop the motor of the world, and let the light shine on this evil?
Only then, will things begin to turn around. Only then.
"I have now read this 1000 page monster 3 times"
I've read it twice, and now I hear that it will be made into a movie, can you imagine what a Cluster F**K this will be Hollywood style?
rt
Anyone who still thinks that the government's case against Microsoft was about benefiting the consumer or spurring innovation, need to scan the headlines in his newspaper today. Mine had something like: "Sensible Government Regulation Prevails Over Tyranny of Unbridled Free Market".
That was an unfortunate reaction to his mother being kidnapped. Gates became a somewhat different person after that.
I disagree....then why do they (the looters) go to such lengths to disguise the fact? Because once the disguise is lifted, they cannot for long stand. It is only through deception that their guns are effective, that they have any staying power as tyrants. It is why they seek to keep the masses ignorant and content with bread and circuses because they know that they are powerless against a mass of thinking men. There is no other reason for their great efforts at deception.
The reason they work so hard to maintain a pretense to righteousness and lawful activity while looting the producer is that the minute the veil is lifted and we all know the real rules of the game, we will be free to play by them. When we understand that the law of the land is the law of the jungle, might makes right, then every government thug will be in a position of cowering behind a wall of guns, much like the first family does today. They will no longer have the freedom to move about in society. They will live each moment in the knowledge that the population is of a mind to strike back. This is why books such as the one by Mr. Ross mentioned above are so threatening to the powers that be. It opens the eyes of one more group of citizens who have a history of respect for authority.
I hear that it will be made into a movie, can you imagine what a Cluster F**K this will be Hollywood style?
Can you imagine getting the entire premise of the novel wrong? I can. I imagine that Reardon, Wyatt, Galt, D'Anconia, Taggart et all will come out as the villias by the time HollyWeird gets through with it...
The major flaw here is that the scene ignores the fact that a number of people are perfectly willing to perform evil for their own benefit. Rand seems to believe that once their evil is exposed it will be defeated. This is not true.
Read the book -- it most certainly does *NOT* ignore the fact you mention above. In the book, Reardon wins this little skirmish, and later loses nearly all the rest, precisely for the reason you point out.
Does anyone here believe Bill Gates could deliver this same speech and get any change in the outlook of his case?
If he took it to the public properly, yes. But, just as in the book, that wouldn't save him in the end.
Governments are perfectly happy compelling people at the point of a gun. And once they're locked up, their elegant words are washed away in a surge of demonization, even if untrue.
Just like in the book. Try reading it before you call Rand's outlook unrealistic.
To put it another way: When one is being attacked, it's safer to assume one's attacker means real harm than to assume that the matter is just a big misunderstanding. I doubt Harry Rearden would engage in a rhetorical polemic about economics while being mugged in an alley. And I find that about as believable as what is described in the courtroom scene above.
Again, read the book -- that scene occurs no more than halfway through. Following that are several hundred more pages of Rearden learning every hard truth about his opponents, the real depths of their evil, and finally understanding the only way to defeat them.
And Reardon is only one character in the book out of many, each of whom learns his/her lessons via their own path, in their own time.
One of the many remarkable things about the book is the way it peels away the truth slowly, like a multi-layered onion.
What Gates should do is file a notice of intent with the SEC to sell about $2 Billion worth of Microsoft stock. Then sit back and watch the NASDAQ plummet day after day until Willy and Al Gore come crawling up to Redmond, Washington begging him to settle the case. The lower the NASDAQ goes, the lower Al Gore's prospects in November.
If he *really* wanted to give the finger to Reno/Clinton et al, imagine if he then took that $2 billion and donated it to the Republican campaign fund... Or hired $2 billion worth of private investigators to look into Clinton and Reno and company. Or... the mind boggles at just how much he could monkey-wrench the socialist Democrats if he really decided to put his mind to it.
There's a line in Atlas Shrugged that I have to look up to get worded exactly right, but it goes something like, "the looters have made their living attacking men of ability. Well, let them see what happens when a man of ability finally decides to fight back."
I took the leson and left the business I was in, for a job that pays less .I am now just a nameless faceless number in a big corporation. No longer do I listen to a looter tell me how they dont need me how they can replace me while I suport him and all the lazy desk jockeys. I have met the guy they replaced me with, I hope they enjoy him . I have left the world to the looters and am enjoying the show.
.... Start with "The Fountainhead"
Then read "The New Left: The anti industrial revolution"
Then, "Atlas Shrugged"......
I'd say start with Anthem.
Whenever I post a reply, mine is always the last one to show up, even when the numbers indicate that others reply after me? Am I doing something wrong?
What do you mean by, "the numbers indicate that others reply after you"? That does not make sense to me.
The most recent reply to be posted is always the "last one to show up", which of course has the highest number.
If you're saying that when you start to reply, number 45 is the current highest post, and that when you finally post your reply, it shows up at the end as number 50 and there are four more posts between 45 and your 50, that's because other people managed to get their posts finished between the time you first brought up the thread page, and the time you hit "post".
.... Start with "The Fountainhead"
Then read "The New Left: The anti industrial revolution"
Then, "Atlas Shrugged"......
I'd say start with Anthem.
I am afraid that most people (especially recent products of the public school system) are either oblivious to this country's downward slide toward socialism or they simply don't care.
Too many of our fellow citizens have grown fat, dumb, and happy living off the bounty of capitalism. Now they seem quite willing to trade their hard-won freedoms for a pair of free dentures.
You are braver than I at this point. It's something I think about daily.
After having worked 60+ hours per week for the last 3 years now, I come in at 9am, I leave at 5pm, and don't work @ home anymore.
My "superiors" know why things are falling behind, they just don't know how to deal with me at this point. Nor am I willing to tell them how to deal with me. They seemed perfectly content to let me burn myself out year after year for a salary. Now I'm no longer willing to do that. Problem is, I work in high-tech and there's more jobs than there are people, so they don't dare fire me. I wish they would though, so I could get one of those "exit compensation packages" that they're famous for - 6 months salary and medical benefits.
I think I'll be sick tomorrow.
John Galt Was Right! - that's my new motto.
The trick is NOT to fight back.
The point is to understand that we do not have to play the game at all. We do not have to participate in our own destruction.
Just opt out...., its that simple.
Imagine what would happen if EVERY american started a new business, maybe a farm or something. There is no restriction on starting a business, there is NO requirement to actually make money.
Now, imagine if EVERYONE of those new businesses were to incorporate themselves, allowing THEM to decide when of IF they pay taxes.....?
That car that you struggled to keep up the payments on? Sell it to your corporation for a dollar, and those payments become an expense against your business. Slap your business logo on the car door, and every car payment is a tax-deduction. Take your wife out to dinner... is she an employee? Call it per-diem. Write it off!
I could go on for days, but I think you get the point. You dont even have to quit your job, you just have to think differently.
We are destroying ourselves, because we are playing the governments game. Learn their rules, then use those rules against them!
As far as that Bilderburg nonsense is concerned, please get a clue. Borders are only for those who are afraid of competition.
Wrong, shrimphead. Borders are for those who believe in their country's sovereignty.
Oooooh.... intelligent & witty comeback! Nice change of context too!
Did ya learn that one in the White House basement school too?
Re: your response to DallasDeb: Right On.
Dittoes #122 to you, too.
I'm impressed ..... NOT. If you have nothing constructive or intelligent to add to the thread (as has been previously demonstrated) than please feel free to excuse yourself and participate in a discussion that's more your "speed."
One of the many remarkable things about the book is the way it peels away the truth slowly, like a multi-layered onion.
The best kind. You've been reading too much bad prose.
You've been reading Rand.
I want you to do something for me, and for yourself.
Right now, TODAY, I want you to go to FreeAgent.com, and build a profile on yourself.
If you are in Hi-tech, you can find yourself with more consulting & contracting offers than you will know what to do with.
You take your first check, get a business licence and incorporate yourself with your wife under LLC or S corp rules. Then you start doing what I wrote in my last post.
Look, Its TERRIFING at first. But if you are good, and willing to spend your free time getting even better, than YOU CAN DO IT!!!.
Look US, I'm telling you, buy yourself a copy of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad". You can get it from Amazon for $13, paperback. Like Atlas Shrugged, it will change your life, because it teaches you the mentality about money that will remove you from thinking like most in your situation. I wont stay on your case, but will you give it a shot?
i heard that too, i was stunned. seems that woman doesn't realize that gates earned it himself and that he provides work for thousands.
Sovereignty is for individuals, NOT countries.
Your thinking is limited. You are ripe for socialism.
Who made you boss of freeperland?
You really do have a reading comprehension problem don't you? As I said (and this was an invitation since your reading & comprehension skills are sub 6th grade level) "please feel free to excuse yourself and participate in a discussion that's more your "speed."
Look US, I'm telling you, buy yourself a copy of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad".
Will do. Thanks for the suggestion and personal testimony.
When men are subject to feelings of guilt, for the most noble of their endeavors, the battle is lost.
Not to worry, OWK.
Encouraging contempt for your enemies is a decided step in the right direction.
Don't be too mean, though. Just stick to stuff like "shortsighted" ... like President Bush does when he singles out those who don't understand how economic perks and complete access to our free market will overcome the (nonexistent) hegemony and (once upon a time) population control measures of the Chicoms.
What happened?
Just a week ago you were making perfect sense....
Then... all of the sudden you're unintelligible again.
What exactly were you trying to say?
Fantastic.
When you tell your boss to kiss your ass, as you walk out the door, NEVER to return, you will then owe .......YOURSELF....... a beer.
I have been in Galt's Gulch for over five years now. I quit my high paying high tech job at the end of 1994 at the age of fifty. I absolutely refuse to contribute one more minute of my labor to this corrupt government. $$$$$$
I just checked on Amazon, there are another 217 testimonials for this book, and it is averaging 4.5 stars out of five.
Read them all, they will fire you up for whats ahead.
Yamamoto knew that he could hold the high ground for only six months. And that's the way it was, almost to the day.
Yamamoto knew that he could hold the high ground for only six months. And that's the way it was, almost to the day.
You have my respect and admiration.
Congrats, Blam.
I'm in my late 30's, but I am one greedy bastard.
When I first read this book decades ago it was titled, "Something for the new intellectual."
What an ugly rude person you are. And intellectual snob.
I have been in Galt's Gulch for over five years now.
I've been sitting here rattling my brain trying to remember that name "Galts Gulch" for most of the thread. If only there really were such a place.
What an ugly rude person you are. And intellectual snob.
Those are big words for someone with a reading comprehension problem. Do you know what they all mean?
Why do you insist on embarassing yourself so? Personally I find it rather amusing, but others may not.
Yup. "Unintended Consequences," John Ross, is an excellent book. One man can make a difference. All on this thread, this is a must read, after all Ayn Rand's books.
I need to convey a personal anecdote with reference to Atlas Shrugged. I am an engineer for a Fortune 100 Corp. We build large earth moving equipment. These machines are used to turn what was a mountain into a hole in the ground. They are used to turn the rain forest into a soybean field. In other words the machines we build are the penultimate rapists of the environment.
A few years ago, the fedgov came out with a ruling that if your product was manufactured using solvents listed as Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS), you must place a small sticker on the vehicle stating "this vehicle was made with ozone depleting substances".
The reaction of mine leaders was a surprise to me.....they were terrified of the thought of putting this decal on the cab window of a machine which would eventually bulldoze the Amazonian rain forest into oblivion (I am not a tree hugger, BTW).
In my little corner of the business, the solvent free alternatives do not work very well = quality and performance problems. I made the pariah list by standing up in two meeting and telling my superiors we should tell the EPA to shove it, and put the decals on our machines. Both times, the room fell silent, and the attendees looked at me like I had just broke wind in church. They caved without a whimper, and we now make inferior product with solvent free materials, and the rain forest is still being bulldozed.
I'm off my soapbox now, thanks for the chance to blow off steam. Ayn Rand was right.
Regards
J.R.
Ladies and gentlemen, may I introduce Betty Pope..... reincarnated, of course.
Just go away. Or better yet, stay and LEARN something. Dont type, just read. But whatever you do,.....Shutup.
Please?
Was that polite enough?
A few years ago, the fedgov came out with a ruling that if your product was manufactured using solvents listed as Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS), you must place a small sticker on the vehicle stating "this vehicle was made with ozone depleting substances".
Oh the irony of your post just makes me giggle. What's next, warning labels on these machines of rainforest destruction? LOL! Which is causing the alleged hole in the ozone layer to get bigger: the spray paint used on these machines, or the destruction they cause by eliminating the rain forest?!
Thank you for your story of stupidity on behalf of our Government! LOL!
Welcome to the Matrix......
Did you ever get a chance to read my Ayn rand spoof? I enjoyed the ideas in her books, but also found the writing tedious. In case you are interested... Click Here to check it out. regards,
Is this coming off a dialup connection by any chance? I've been trying to d/l this for 20 minutes, it's only at 16%. I'm on an OC-12 btw.
You sound like the Mensa types I've run into before. I guess your "smarter-than-thou" attitude really puffs you up doesn't it? Feeling superior now that you've denigrated a person with lesser eloquence than you? What you're really doing is trying to invalidate my view (although I've only expressed on concerning globalism) because it goes against yours. You and innocentbystander seem to be having a love fest. Why don't you take it elsewhere.
You will have to make your own 'gulch.'
I am reading "For The New Intellectual", now...for the second time
I just read it for the second time, while flying from Alabama to New Jersey. Great archetypes set forth in that book.
You sound like the Mensa types I've run into before.
I'm flattered to be considered as smart as someone in Mensa. Why thank you!
I guess your "smarter-than-thou" attitude really puffs you up doesn't it?
Nope, I just know it ticks small, feeble minded people such as yourself off. It's really just a hobby of mine ...
Feeling superior now that you've denigrated a person with lesser eloquence than you?
Actually, it was quite a letdown. Not as good as I thought it would be, but then I'm used to feeble minded people such as yourself using much more vulgar terms than you have. I commend you on your lack of vulgarity. There may be hope for you yet.
What you're really doing is trying to invalidate my view (although I've only expressed on concerning globalism) because it goes against yours.
Actually, your narrow definition of Globalism invalidated itself. You called Bill Gates a globalist simply because he sells software outside of the United States. You then called him a Bilderberger which made you a laughing stock on this thread. I didn't do it to you, you did it to yourself. But you go right ahead and play the "victim" role ... you're a prime example of what we're talking about on this thread.
You and innocentbystander seem to be having a love fest. Why don't you take it elsewhere.
Looks like she's onto us innocentbystander ..... I just hope she doesn't tell my wife! LOL!
Thanks DallasDeb, for the best laugh I've had all day. (Note: I'm laughing at you, not with you.)
Still typing huh?
OK, my border-loving patriot, why dont you explain to all us losers why we should be concerned about "Globalism"?
Instead of name-calling, lets debate it on the merits. If we agree to engage your facts honorably, will you do the same?
Lets rock and roll.
Dazzle us.
ROTFLMAO, Dude!
You called Bill Gates a globalist simply because he sells software outside of the United States. You then called him a Bilderberger which made you a laughing stock on this thread.
I didn't call Gates a globalist because he sells software outside the US. innocentbystander said that. That wasn't my thought at all.
Do you disbelieve the Bilderbergers are for real? You've been around long enough to see postings of news articles that listed attendees of their meetings. He has participated. Or don't you think they are a threat?
Instead of name-calling, lets debate it on the merits. If we agree to engage your facts honorably, will you do the same?
Why waste your time? She's woefully ignorant of the facts, and has clearly demonstrated her inability to grasp the premise of the conversation at hand. Why allow her to take the thread off-topic into her unintelligible, factless globalism rant?
Sorry DallasDeb ... were those words too big for you?
Do you disbelieve the Bilderbergers are for real? You've been around long enough to see postings of news articles that listed attendees of their meetings.
I believe that they're about as real as UFO's, and the little green men that operate them.
Gawd you're funny! Do you do standup?
Bump...
usconservative, tell me where I said anything about the illegality of what Microsoft is doing. They haven't; they employ some of the best attornies in the business, illegal is not in their vocabulary. I would be entirely comfortable comparing Microsoft with Rearden Steel if Microsoft had a price schedule that said: 1M units of Windows, you get this break; 10M units of Windows, you get a better break, and so on --- but a price break for exclusion I simply cannot believe is in line with what Rand advocated. Even if the price points were different for different customers. But I don't consider Microsoft Randian when they structure the price schedule so that it deliberately induces customers to exclude competition. That is not Randian, that is thuggish because you are using legal instruments to bludgeon your customers into an exclusive relationship, and not letting customers choose your product to the exclusion of others without the influence of a preferential contract that rewards exclusivity. That is almost as bad as the government inducing customers to pick Microsoft.
There is an externality you left out of your response. Due to the overweaning dominance of the largest employer in the nation, because the apathy of its "stockholders" allowed it to grow out of control, there is a dominant voice in the marketplace. That's right, the government at all levels has spoken, and there is a corresponding gigantic reverberation in the marketplace. It is extremely commonplace when doing business with government to hear: we'll only accept plain text, or Microsoft Office documents. Well gee, when submitting an RFP, and you want to put your best foot forward, what will you pick? Those who put forth the argument that "the market has spoken" always sweep this network externality under the rug, and that is especially ironic on a forum where we are supposed to be vigilant against such distortions in our lives brought on by the government.
Look, first tell me if you believe that exclusionary contracts don't violate Randian principles. If you say they don't, then hey, let's agree to disagree and I don't want to argue any longer. But one of the reasons we all are participating in this thread is to one degree or another we agree with Rand's principles, not whether the legalities are kosher. If you want legalities, go to an anti-trust attorney or professor and talk shop; I've little desire to play attorney. I've asserted why I believe exclusionary contracts don't agree with Rand, no matter what their legality, but your argument revolves around the legality of Microsoft's actions. Pick principles, or pick
For what is is worth, exclusionary contracts are legal in America, unless you are classified a monopoly, and I agree with that. What might surprise you is that you have an ally in me, insofar as I don't agree with what I perceive to be lax standards in defining "monopoly". My personal view of the case: I believe it was initiated too early, and that while Microsoft has the capability to make a run at what I consider a monopoly, I don't consider them a monopoly by the yardstick of what I believe should be anti-trust standards. They are dominant, certainly, but not what I consider a monopoly (far fewer competitors --- perhaps as few as three --- would have had to be remaining before I would consider the monopoly charge, for example).
Know that this comes from an ardent anti-Microsoft guy: while I make a living performing consulting services that involves Microsoft products, and I am not under any illusion the world would be a better place without Microsoft, in the long-term the "standards" and "consistency" mantra they pass off and which you buy into is so much bullsh!t. It really hurts my customers' businesses when they find out there really are standards out there built by honest-to-God, industry-recognized standards groups with reference implementations and all, but they just happen to be standards that don't interoperate with Microsoft-standards. Scaling up solutions on Microsoft-standards becomes a scary expensive proposition very quick when you consult in Fortune 500 client environments, and I'm not talking just money terms here (although it boils down to that in the end). That's sad when everyone buys into the "Microsoft solutions are cheap" message; no, Intel boxes are cheap --- Microsoft software, and the services to make them work, are just as expensive as anyone else's when you scale up, and make up 95% of your lifecycle costs. In short, I don't like today's Microsoft because they apply their market presence to their credibility using clever marketing, and then lie through their teeth so many times that it makes my job dissatisfying in one respect: I would rather be paid well to bring actual value into the world, and not to clean up someone else's incompetent attempt at creating their idea of a big, he-man solution. I would rather Microsoft compete more honestly in Randian terms if a product of theirs doesn't yet scale in its current version, because they have real winning solutions for smaller customers that no one else offers (and where I think enormously greater value can be created in this world), than pretend to offer value that they don't have for delivery.
The problem with challenging the pricing strategies is there is no way to prove structuring of the price schedule(s). Microsoft for example can figure out Dell produces say 10M systems a year, and work backwards from widely-known component costs to determine the price point at which Dell must put Windows on every one of those 10M systems or absorb a loss for choosing Windows plus other operating systems to install onto their systems. Any third-year business undergraduate (or sixth-week operations research student) can figure out that problem. And who are you or I, and especially the government, to say that Microsoft is charging such and such rate for Dell because of, say, factors like the Dell relationship is more expensive for Microsoft to maintain? We can't.
This is why the government was suggesting things like a published, universal price schedule in the talks earlier this weekend. They're not even suggesting that the government decide the prices, they're asking that Microsoft devise a universal schedule that averages together the different PC box maker accounts that purchase Windows licenses. Not optimal, and in fact I hate this idea because it is entirely against Rand's principles; it punishes those accounts that are more efficient in their relationship with Microsoft, because they can't negotiate a "pass along the savings" price break with Microsoft.
I think the government is jumping the gun here; if they find Microsoft a monopoly, I think they should first tell Microsoft that they have to knock off the exclusionary contracts because if you accept the assertion that Microsoft is a monopoly, then exclusionary relationships held by a monolopy are debatably a harmful market distortion. Then proceed carefully from there. Now if you don't agree that Microsoft is a monopoly, and/or that exclusionary relationships struck by a monopoly are harmful to the market, then let's start another thread and discuss that; I don't think Microsoft is a monopoly, but I do believe there is a valid contention that exclusionary relationships demanded by a monopoly have an adverse distortion upon the market. If in the absence of exclusionary contracts, Microsoft starts structuring price schedules, well, let's debate about that if it comes to that.
OWK, I agree with your response that in a Randian world, things should work out the way you suggest. If a company thinks Microsoft did something illegal, duke it out in a court of law. But tell me this: would Hank Rearden have approached a competitor and told them, "don't go into the steel rolling business with your new alloy, I want to run that industry, but I'll let you make your alloy with my steel rolling machines"? No, he would not.
Yet that is exactly what Microsoft did when a senior management executive told Apple Computer's chief technology officer that Apple must get out of the multimedia authoring business by cancelling Apple's QuickTime authoring technology, because Microsoft wanted to own the authoring technology and market. No, there is no written, video, or audio documentation of this, it was a verbal exchange; there was a log that a meeting of a noted length occurred between the two execs from the two companies, but that was it. Microsoft is not stupid when they make these demands. This was entered into testimony for the current case. Okay, I know this is a little hard to digest without corroborating documentation like memos, video/audio recordings and the such; can't blame you, I was skeptical myself. But when company after company tells a similar story, from different parts of the industry? Look, it is one thing when a competitor/partner tells you, "We're gonna bury you"; yeah, yeah, sure, whatever, we'll poach your customers behind your back --- it's all rhetoric when it is this general, I do it all the time when I board the plane to a city and see a competitor...then we buy each other drinks.
It is something completely different when a player as dominant as Microsoft is attributed with making such specific demands from "partners" that actual products are in the demands. That should throw up caution flags. As to "where do you draw the line" for the specificity of remarks in hypothetical situations: if you are unsure, build a case by looking for a pattern. The Justice Department was too hasty: they should have publicly brushed off the pleadings from the industry players (who I agree were craven for running to the government when they did), then secretly run undercover operations over several years to solidly document these attributions, and told the companies to gut it out in the meantime. If the time came when it was incontrovertible that Microsoft was a monopoly, the Justice Department would have had a far more believeable case of abuse of a monopoly position by demonstrating a pattern of behavior that persisted right up past the point when saying Microsoft was not a monopoly was impossible to sustain by legal standards.
However OWK, Rand does not address solving the gambler's ruin problem as applied to disputes between companies. Deeply capitalized entities can absorb a longer string of losses, and turn an ordeal between entities that favors all with reasonably equal measure, into a game that tends to favor the more deeply capitalized players over the long run. This is why playing options and hedges is reserved mostly for the big boys, and this is why corporations can and at times do use the courts as another competitive tool to intimidate or otherwise obstruct strings of smaller players. I am not saying that because of this we have to seek government redress to interpose between the advance of the woould-be abusive monopoly. I am saying that in the real world, justice can be slow in coming, and in this kind of situation, if you advocate seeking recourse in the courts you must be up front with the reality that many companies will founder and go under before justice is found, and say that as well. It can be harsh to accept that kind of justice especially if you were among those wronged before justice finally prevailed, but to otherwise omit the reality is to commit as grievous an error as socialists do with their "it would all work out if we all just..." crap. Idealizations, even Randian ones, are great, but conservatism demands nothing less than absolute honesty about how to get things done in the real world, even if it means our ideals don't quite mesh up with the current state of the world. That is why individualism works, and why conservatives like it: it is an adaptable solution for an imperfect world, and while imperfect, it is a damn sight better than anything else our deeply flawed yet brilliantly promising species has yet to come up with.
I can hear you saying to yourself that it was the fault of the other companies that they cowed before Microsoft, and ran to the government. They should have stood up to a bully if such specific threats were being made, and besides, nothing illegal was done. Yup, and I'll agree with you all the way. Again though, the legality is not what I am talking about. I don't know how I can make this any clearer, but I don't agree with how the Justice Department handled this issue, and I agree with you that it smells rotten. That is not what I am talking about, though. I am talking about whether all this comparison between Microsoft and Rearden Steel in this thread is entirely justified: I am saying, "Hey, let's not be so quick with the broad brushes here, shall we? It is the real world we are talking about, after all." I've addressed all sorts of tangential issues responding to you two, but my central discussion point still revolves around asking for some more realistic moderation (IMHO) in the Microsoft-Rearden Steel analogies that are being drawn in this thread.
I made sense to you?
(This makes no sense to me.)
I support Gates in his fight with the government, of course, but don't find him or his lawyers as "noble" as do you. He's simply making another wise decision as a businessman whose second-best product managed to flourish thanks to some super timing and serious stutters by his competitors. Ethically-neutral, in other words. He's not out to blaze a trail for all other similarly situated moguls. He's protecting his own. Period.
I'm also confused as to why one would ever feel guilty about a truly noble endeavor. (Note how I didn't say "righteous". I mean the high moral character, generosity and courage sort of noble that precludes leaving an injured man behind ... truly noble.)
It's lines like that which only encourage me to view threads like this with suspicion or suspect you really do have more in common with censored than even I realize just yet. (Although, granted, they would never actually struggle with guilt since the common good ALWAYS outweighs the suffering or subjugating of mere individuals.)
I do cringe at your contempt for your "enemies" when they're just some loudmouth liberal. That sort of thing should be reserved for mortal combat. Run of the mill liberals are deluded, no doubt, but generally you will find they are doing the wrong things for the right reasons. (Far better than the other way around, I assure you.) The ideologies under which they operate are contemptible and their proponents despicable but the average member of the shock troops really has no idea the Left is just yanking his chain with their fear-mongering and hate used to catalyze the troops into demanding reform.
I guess I'd just rather see you break the chain of a single liberal than ring the chimes of the choir. I think you could do it. With enough breaks in the chain, we might actually have some hope of besting those whose winning strategy is always locking step.
Because she has guts. She is overmatched but she is trying to hang in there.
I admire that.
I think that if she can wake up to the conspiracy diversions being placed in her path, she stands to gain a bit of personal wisdom.
Too many people fall for that crap, because it gives them an easy way to understand society. What she does not understand is that her enemies are being chosen for her, instead of by her.
She is a Saul Alinsky case study, and no one deserves that.
I'm getting ready to walk out the door and head home, but will reply later. One thing before I leave:
that is thuggish because you are using legal instruments to bludgeon your customers into an exclusive relationship, and not letting customers choose your product to the exclusion of others without the influence of a preferential contract that rewards exclusivity.
Thuggish? Yep. Did I say Microsoft was overly-aggressive? Yep. Is that illegal? By your own post, NO. The fact is and remains that each of these computer companies could've opted for a variety of solutions which may or may not have included Microsoft software. That has always been their CHOICE. Your reply continues to ignore that fact. Every company I've dealt with in a vendor-management capacity has had different pricing structures based on the number of licenses I'm purchasing, whether or not I'm entitled to competitive upgrades, etc.. What Microsoft did was no different than that. If I'm a computer maker who sells 500,000 units a year vs. a computer maker who sells 100,000 units a year, who gets the bigger price break to entice them to sell my software? You guessed it: the maker who sells 500,000 units.
If what you're theorizing is true, then I should be able to walk into any car dealership in the U.S. and pay the same exact dollar amount, down to the penny, for a specific model car with a specific options package. Fact is, I can't. Why should software be any different?
I'll happily reply to the rest of your post later.
but a price break for exclusion I simply cannot believe is in line with what Rand advocated
Ever buy a new car?
Exclusionary contracts are usually the rule. You can buy the "factory" stereo system, or you can pay more to get the "aftermarket" brand.
Now, what if the car you want has the OEM stereo in it, and because it's the only one in that color, you decide you MUST have it, though you dont want the stereo? Even if you take it out, or have the dealer take it out, YOU are going to pay for the Stereo, or for the labor to take out the OEM unit.
That is exactly what is being defined by the Justice dept. as an exclusionary contract. However, it is also what Microsoft has been found to be innocent of. This is because any business has the right to define the contents of its products. If you wish to add or subtract to that product in ANYWAY, you can be charged for that service.
That is the law.
You are wrong.
This case reminds me of when Dagny Taggart was told to take a coal train off her railroad's schedule to ship grapefruit for the Smather brothers, who had some sort of political pull.
Maybe we are joined-at-the-hip!
We both used car analogies to point out the flaw in this person's logic.
Dude!
When I first read this book decades ago it was titled, "Something for the new intellectual."
My copy has a printing of 1961.
5.56mm
I just read it for the second time,...
What I find very interesting is that the book stores (new and used) can't keep Ms. Rand on the shelf.
5.56mm
re: your #158
Are you Limbaugh's former call screener, Beau Snerdly? No offense intended, but you remind me of him.
Regards
J.R.
Nope, but he is a friend of mine.
There are probably about 1000 black men in this country with their heads on straight.
We are part of a secret conspiracy group like the Bilderburgs! We get together, and run around naked near Lake Washington in the middle of the night, while chanting Y-M-C-A!
Close, but not quite! :-) Forgive my sarcasm, I'm just tired.
re: your #150:
I would laugh about it as well, but this is the truth. It makes me want to puke. Few of us buy D11N tractors, and 797 Off Highway Trucks. We all drive cars. The reliability of many components (our dirt movers and cars) has gone down because of this EPA instigated, ignored by congress crap, intended to fix a non existant problem.
Thanks for the reply
J.R.
re: your #151
Put your movie critic hat on....should I rent the 'Matrix' when it comes out?
Regards
J.R.
Dont rent it, BUY it! Get it on DVD.
The Matrix is a wonderful metaphoric story about human delusions. It fits perfectly with what this thread is all about.
WHen one learns that the Matrix is an illusion, then it loses power over those trapped in it. The message that one must participate in their own destruction for it to be possible. My wife just said that it is about to come out on HBO, so check it out.
re: your #174:
Thanks for the reply. There are a few thousand caucasian types left with their heads on straight. I am not sure I belong in that category anymore. But anyway, since I had not seen you here before, welcome to FreeRepublic. You strike me as someone who can hold his own around here. It's a fun place, hope you become a regular.
Regards
J.R.
Give me a break, already! Pretty please? I read these threads to learn. I have ordered Atlas Shrugged because I have seen it referenced so many times on this website. I haven't stated my opinion about Microsoft one way or another. I simply responded to unconservative's post #12 re: wishful thinking that Bill Gates might close the doors because of our oppressive government. Instead of hoping to "enlighten" someone who wants to learn, you evidently want to maintain a one-on-one conversation by deriding those of lesser knowledge--note I didn't say lesser intelligence. Enjoy yourselves in your limited club.
Thanks!
I hung around the house today, so that I could stay close to Ameritrade.
This morning, I brought up FR in another window, and I've been here all day!
She is a Saul Alinsky case study, and no one deserves that.
Why do you continue your insults? So you think I'm a case study for Hitlery's socialist mentor? What elitists you and unconservative are. Or maybe you two are just enjoying pumping each other up.
You are right.
We were impatient with you, because of your "globalist" and "Bilderburg" references.
We were rude to you, because we were offended by your point of view.
Feel free to shoot me a message anytime, I would love to hear about your transformation one you start reading Shrugged.
It is going to be fun watching your evolution. Good Luck!
Okay. I did say it was decades ago. But, I would have read it after 1961. Old memory?
Okay. I did say it was decades ago. But, I would have read it after 1961. Old memory?
should I rent the 'Matrix' when it comes out?
Yes - it is a Shaolin fable - and NOT because of themartial arts action scenes...
Interesting point. I'm sure it's because her brand of individualism is sweeping the nation.
It shows, does it not?
The Saul Alinsky reference was NOT an insult. It was a fact.
The point I was making, is that you fit the perfect description of what his goals were.
You were willing to get exercised over a non-existant enemy.
This is important, you must understand this!
This is how Liberals gain power. They understand human nature to a fanatic degree, which is why they can pull the strings of most people so easily.
I was NOT attacking you, I was using you to illustrate a VERY important point. I am not your enemy.
You must learn that your enemy is within your "borders", not on the other side. You are being used. They use your fear and insecurity, to prevent you from seeing who the true enemy is. Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicles" is the Clinton bible. He is the subject of Hillary Clinton's college thesis. Your Bilderburg reference is one example how they are using you to suit their needs.
They want you to think that Microsoft is your enemy, so that they can get rich defending you from Microsoft. They want you to think that the Gun & Tobacco companies are evil, again so that they can get rich defending you from them. Hillary's brother stands to make a BILLION dollars as one of the lead Tobacco case lawyers. Did you know that?
In each case, Tobacco, Guns or Microsoft, you have the power and the right to use or NOT to use any of their products, but somehow Liberals dont see it that way. They want you to think that without them, you are at the mercy of these EVIL corporations, who undoubtebly wish you harm.
I have nothing against you, Deb. I can only hope that you will realise that you are being used as a pawn in this war, and educate yourself.
I would also recommenend "The Sovereign Individual" & "The Road to Serfdom". Both books are tough, dry reading. But you will come away from them with a completly different outlook, and you might even thank me for my tirade.
I agree with NMC EXP on 174. Hang around, sounds like you belong here. I have enjoyed reading you inputs today.
Thanks.
Doubtful that I'll stay on this long any one day though.
I've spent the whole day typing on this and three other threads.
I just love a good debate. I'll be around.
As an ex-microsoftie, I fully understand. These fools are still applying industrial-age thought processes to a situation that makes the effort laughable...
Geeze, you are well read. I thought I was the only person in the world who had read "Sovereign Individual," Davidson/Rees-Moog. I gave it to my son as a Christmas present last year.
re: your #180
Stick around, never a dull moment.
Regards
J.R.
re: your #185
Thanks for the input...will check it out.
Regards
J.R.
Thanks, Blam.
Sometimes I think I am supporting Amazon all by myself.
"The Sovereign Individual" is an absolute MUST read for anyone wishing to understand how technology impacts society.
Anyone who hasn't read it, when you pick up your copy of the Matrix, pick up this book as well!
usconservative said in reference to Galt's Gulch:
If only there really were such a place.
There is. Perhaps not literally for you at your point in life, but believe me, you can make it. Fifteen years ago I read Atlas Shrugged and thought exactly what you did. There I was, counting pennies and leading the life of a "starving student" (no, no, I didn't starve, and my diet was nutritious if, um, regular-like). I didn't see from those circustances how I could attain the resources to build my literal Galt's Gulch.
But you know what? That changed. Because I took Ayn Rand's message to heart, and took what I considered back then some heart-stopping risks with my work (i.e., against the advice of almost everyone around me, except for those who I recently introduced to Ayn Rand's works), banking big on my abilities and the value that I could deliver and market, and rejecting the "safety" promised by corporate jobs (never believed that safety message, anyways). Fast forward fifteen years, and I am earning an income that some might consider pretty good; in 6-7 years I can afford to buy a Central Texas ranch you can lose yourself in, with buildings, cash over the barrel, no mortgage whatsoever.
But I lead a fairly middle class lifestyle with my girlfriend. We make most of our own food instead of habitually eating out, grinding our own grain even (tastes better). Entertainment is usually some old friends over for dinner and some games and chatting. Vacations are made on the back of the frequent flyer miles I rack up from my business travels, and we even use those conservatively. We don't hold debt, of any kind. We drive very old used cars, but maintain them regularly and carefully. We live outside the city on a low-expense rented farmette to learn about living in the country; I figured out I would come out ahead by saving aggressively and renting, than signing any mortgage. We set aside about a fifth of our monthly take home into our pre-tax retirement funds (i.e., max out what we can, and it has been very conservatively invested so the recent volatility hasn't affected our holdings), save some portion for a set-aside in cash (most in the bank, a little bit physically with us) and some we convert to precious metals, and spend a portion on preparedness supplies; this is not a complete picture of what we do, but I'm just trying to convey that we are as fiscally conservative as we can manage. Doing a fair number of things all at once, a tiny little bit at a time, consistently, is our strategy. Unimpressive strategy, really, but hey, it works for us. We have enough resources of all types on hand to ride out a complete economic dislocation for a year at least, possibly two years, and won't rest completely easy until we can extend that buffer to five years as long as it is just the two of us, and eight years when we start a family.
All that I told you just now I considered plain crazy talk back in those student days. The reality is I can no longer dismiss out of hand the possibility of literally creating my own Galt's Gulch; I am fast approaching the level of setting aside that I consider to be simply prudent measures, and I still have 6-7 years before I am considered even a candidate for "over the hill" in my particular niche in my industry. But what I will create won't be as impressive as Rand depicted, not by a long shot. Not as camouflaged, with that snazzy macro-scale optical illusion. But it can be remote and hard as hell to find, it can be self-sufficient at a modest technological level, and it can serve as a temporary refuge if TSHTF, until things blow over.
Note that I work for and plan for all this not because I think Atlas will shrug, so to speak. I will be all too happy if I won't have to put to use everything I have set aside against that or a worse contingency. No, the real purpose of all this struggling is so I can raise a family the way I want to: with minimal to no interference from a culture gone mad (i.e., with far too many socialist influences), and using a lot of time on my hands (even if I lose half my income right now, I will still achive what I want, and still be able to semi-retire early --- I joke with my girlfriend that I will either die in bed with her while we are, um, playing, or pitching a client with a presentation, but I'll never retire). What you want to build can be achieved, usconservative. Rand's message does hold truth in it. My humble story is not unique; there are others out there who have accomplished far more in their versions of Galt's Gulch with much, much less than I started out with.
My humble story is not unique; there are others out there who have accomplished far more in their versions of Galt's Gulch with much, much less than I started out with.
Right you are, sir, and I can personally attest to that. I salute you and your efforts...
I'll add my voice to the recommendation...I thought it was the best movie of the year last year, certainly the most original...don't miss it.
regards,
-Lance
Great post.
I agree with everything you wrote, but ESPECIALLY about Debt. People think I'm nuts, but I have one Amex for my business, and NONE for myself. Debt is the most important key.
You will reach your goal. Congrats!
re: your #197: Thanks, three thumbs up so far.
Regards
J.R.
Problem is, I work in high-tech and there's more jobs than there are people, so they don't dare fire me. I wish they would though, so I could get one of those "exit compensation packages" that they're famous for - 6 months salary and medical benefits.
I like reading your posts in this thread, reminds me of the company I work for. It is so true that 90% of the work is done by 10% of the people. If you want to get something done, you need to find somebody who is busy.
As a technical manager at my company, I easily do the job of three people. I really get piled on because I am the one who can get things done. My secret to success is organization. I maintain a daily "To Do" list and I don't leave the office until everything is checked off (as well as some tasks for future days). No voice mail or e-mail goes unanswered. Whenever I am asked for something, I either do it on the spot or I make another "task" entry to be checked off later. Nothing slips through the cracks with this system. But just try getting other people to use this system!
The office "assistants" are so bad that most of the salespeople know to come to me if they need something done quick. I am constantly going around and fixing problems on other people's computers (mine always seems to work perfectly) and helping people with Excel spreadsheets or Word documents. Oftentimes when I am at somebody else's workstation working on a problem (usually something they screwed up), they will say in a patronizing tone: "Well I was never trained on these computers.
Well guess what? I was never trained either. But I do take the time to RTFM and use my common sense.
Like you, I find it hard to take time off because I know that I can count on nobody to do the job right while I am gone. As a result, I come back to a mess. Also like you, I sometimes wish I would just get the "package" so I can move on to something else. But it is always the "faceless" people who get the nice package: essentially three months off with full pay and all kinds of other bennies.
As a manager who has been involved in deciding who gets the pink slips during times of downsizing, I can tell you that people like you and I will never get "the package." In fact, we are at the very bottom of the list. For when corporations decide to "do more with less," it is always the people who can "do more" that end up staying.
bttt
what the hell...BUMP!!!
I recommend "Anthem." It is a quick, easy read... but very powerful.
Perhaps, as a black man, you can explain to me why all my favorite political writers are black men, and why I love listening to Alan Keyes? And where can we get a few more Clarence Thomases for the bench?
You say many people who share your skin color hold views that make you get heartburn. But I will tell you what, when you guys get it right, you get it right! (Shhh. The PC police will get me now for sure!)
A "Matrix" bump. Very well done movie.
And it appears that I need not reply further. I had no idea that my hurriedly composed response covered as much ground as it did.
Sometimes I amaze myself.
I've spent the whole day typing on this and three other threads.
I spent the bulk of my day on this thread .. when I wasn't writing job performance reviews. And now I'm spending part of my evening. I just love a good debate.
Moving post. I have to tell you that on many levels, you and I think alike.
I purchased my first home when I was 22 - 15 years ago. Bought what's called a "handy man special" for a song and dance, re-habbed it from floorboard to roof-joist and sold it 5 years later for 3x what I paid for it. The same year I bought that house I graduated college, got married, and moved out of my car. (I actually lived in my car for 6 months, no one including my now wife @ the time knew.)
Took the money from the first house, invested half (the market was still below 3,000 at the time) and the other half went towards the house I'm in now. That was 9 years ago. House paid for, since we were DINKS (Double Income No Kids) we doubled the payments every month on a 30 year mortgage, with an extra at the end of every year. Last payment went in last month. We own it.
We live a very modest existence since I don't like owing debts to anyone. As an example, only last year did I finally get rid of my '87 Chevy Monte Carlo with almost 200,000 miles on it for a 4 year old vehicle.
We have one credit card, and only spend what we can comfortably pay off every month. A "treat" for us every now and then (meaning, like every few months) is when Grandma watches the two kids, and we go out for a meal alone. Nothing fancy, just time to ourselves.
Money that I don't invest in our retirement funds (which I self manage, and have managed to beat the S&P the last 8 years now) goes towards our household supplies or to our place that we have in the Upper Penninsula. It's self sufficient, good hunting land, good fishing in the river behind us, self powered via generator, wood-burner and with a well. Nothing as big as you're describing, but it'll do. Any money left over goes into a reserve account, currently with enough money to live for a year.
It's funny, because I think everyone should be as self reliant as apparently we are. To me, it's just common sense.
As a manager who has been involved in deciding who gets the pink slips during times of downsizing, I can tell you that people like you and I will never get "the package." In fact, we are at the very bottom of the list. For when corporations decide to "do more with less," it is always the people who can "do more" that end up staying.
Ditto every word you said, double ditto's to the above. You obviously work for the same company I do. I'm just trying to figure out who the heck you are at this point! LOL! You described me, the company I work for, and the position I'm in to a "T."
As a technical manager at my company, I easily do the job of three people. I really get piled on because I am the one who can get things done. My secret to success is organization. I maintain a daily "To Do" list and I don't leave the office until everything is checked off (as well as some tasks for future days). No voice mail or e-mail goes unanswered. Whenever I am asked for something, I either do it on the spot or I make another "task" entry to be checked off later. Nothing slips through the cracks with this system. But just try getting other people to use this system!
This is the exact position I'm in. Funny thing happened 3 weeks ago: I went on "strike." I go in at 9am, leave at 5pm. All kinds of stuff is starting to go wrong. (Given I manage 75 NT servers, and 7 large scale HP's with about 3TB of data, there's LOTS to go wrong!) Management doesn't know how to deal with me, nor will I tell them. I do whatever it is I can do in the 7 hours I'm there (I do take my 1 hour lunch daily, along with the rest of the company) and anything else can wait.
You see, I used to be like you: had my palm pilot wired to my email and calendar and to-do list so that nothing fell through the cracks. As soon as people learned that I didn't leave for the day until my list was clean, the list of "demands" (or claims) on my time grew. And grew, and grew, and grew! It got so bad, I was answering email on my Palm Pilot, and syncing up when I got home. But that wasn't good enough, because then there was MORE email that needed to be answered. Before I knew it, I was answering/reading more than 200 emails a day. Add to that all the phone calls and people who knocked on my door throughout the day who needed help. Gee, wonder why I got so burned out, right?
My limit was reached 3 weeks ago when I was told "well, this is the way it is and there's nothing you can do to change it." Wanna bet? For a change, it's the company that will have to "do more with less" ... less of my time that is. I have a 1 year old and 3 year old. I've missed alot of their growing up. I'll be damn'ed if that happens anymore. At least I finally have my priorities straight.
I told my boss the other day that there was two things he could do about the situtation I've put him in: 1) Nothing; 2) Like it. I put him on notice that there were plenty of jobs out there, alot with my name on it and that I knew my market value far exceeded what it is they're paying me. I could quit tomorrow, and have 5 offers by the end of the week. I know it, now he knows it. There aren't very many people with my skillset out there. I get calls daily from companies looking for people with my experince (Unix, NT, Client/Server Development, Web Technologies, Internet Development, Routing, Security, EMail systems and Management experince.)
Oh yeah ... Atlas is getting ready to shrug in my life. That's for damn' sure.
Perhaps, as a black man...
Innocentbystander is black? GASP! Couldn't tell by his posts! LOL!! I love it when people blow away stereotypes ... I knew there was a reason I loved ya innocentbystander!!
Yep. See here.
That is one thing I like about debating online. It is all about who you are (as defined by your mind, your ability to put thoughts together, and your ability to communicate them in words), and not at all about who you are (based on someone's preconceptions of a stereotypical group).
You not only have a reading comprehension problem as previously noted. You also have a reality comprehension problem. Your typing spasms break up the flow of the thread. I would like to invite you to go away, please.
What elitists you and unconservative are. Or maybe you two are just enjoying pumping each other up.
Nah, I don't need anyone to help me get "pumped up." I'm perfectly capable of being an elitist snob all by myself thankyouverymuch. (And sometimes DallasDeb, I say things just for the sheer "outrageousness" of saying them, just to get the reactions I do from people like you. It's amusing, and it helps to make a point. Keep reading, I promise you won't be offended further.)
You really need to take innocentbystanders words to heart: if you invested half the energy reading his recommendations and taking a solid look in the mirror at what you're saying, you'd see the sheer stupidity of it all. That's not an insult, that's fact. You are a prime example of what liberalism seeks to do in this country. You can continue to accept those arguments and fallicies as fact, or you can educate yourself and reject them. You can continue to let the lies (Bilderbergers, "Microsoft is evil") have power over your life, or you can educate yourself and take control over your own life and thoughts.
As with everything, the choice is yours.
Now if you're going to jump right into Atlas Shrugged - don't. Read Anthem, then The Fountainhead, then We The Living. Each is short, easy to read (well, for Ayn Rand they're easy) and will give you the building blocks necessary to get through Atlas Shrugged.
Good luck.
I couldn't agree with you more.
You Sir, are the best argument in the world against the stereotyping of black men. I'm too old for it to matter, so I think I'm in love. I'm in love with Alan Keyes, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly, Walter Williams, Mr. "Beau" Goldman, and now you. I'm sure I've left some out. I truly hope you stick around, because I find your thoughts to be enlightening, as well as interesting. My reading of Ayn Rand's works was waaaaay back when, but I've always remembered "Atlas". Maybe I'll read it again. Thanks for an enjoyable thread.
The more you post about your situation, the more familiar it all sounds! It's gotten so bad for me that I have people following me to the bathroom and out to the parking lot. About half the phone calls coming through the switchboard are for me and when I do run out of the office for a while, my voice mail stacks up at the rate of 10-15 an hour. My company recently issued Nextels and now I am getting flooded with calls to and from work as well!
From what you have posted, it appears that you are in network administration. Damn! I've spent the past year getting my MCSE so I would have an out. But it appears that if I do pursue a career in network administration, I am only in for more of the same!
WOW !
I really ought to get off my #*% and read this thing. I can just picture this Rearden fellow standing there in front of those hollow judges tellin' em what for "I don't recognize your authority" he says. HA HA HA HA
Thank you, and everyone for their comments.
It is gratifying that my color rarely comes out in my commentary. I happen to think that Thomas Sowell is the smartest man living. Walter Williams is also great.
Again, thank you.
I read up a bit further and found your question;
One thing I can tell you, is that a Black conservative is someone who has grown up with a lot to say, and not to many people around to say it to.
As a group, black conservatives are people who have achieved some measure of success, and therefore are in a great position to understand exactly what is happening to the black community, which is complete Liberal mind control.
Black conservatives tend to be pretty outspoken, but once you have excaped from the victim mentality, what's left to be afraid of?
You see, most white people have never seen out-of-control anger, like black people see every day. Self-control and discipline are rare, unless its a military family (like mine).
So, most black commentators, are people who by the time you hear them, they have been made fearless through their experiences, and their knowledge of the alternative way. Unfortunetly, most black kids are not readers, and they watch too much television. Were I emperor, I would remove the television and every piece of sporting equipment from every black home in America, then only return each piece in exchange for every 20 books read.
Well, we agree on the smartest man alive. I think his "Vision of the Anointed" will be a classic a hundred years from now. He nailed the "Boomer" generation. Two of my children were on the tail end of the Boomers and one is a Gen Xer. The difference is astonishing. I love my older children, but I can't stand to be around them. My Gen Xer is a joy. Go figure. I guess it gets my dander up when my children blame me for the miserable life they have, when it's their own fault for buying into the doom and gloom of the elitist's propaganda. Anyway, it's a pleasure to have you here amongst our "family". I may send you a Freeper mail and tell you some of my experience growing up in the south during the 30s & 40s. I have my reasons. Blessings.
I'd love to get mail from ya!
I chucked when you mentioned your ungratful kids. I've got a sister just like them. She is a nutcase, and hates me because I dont have to get up and go to a job everyday.
Thanks again!
Strangely, I am currantly working on "Soverign Individual"
It's a book I keep reading in small, digestable chunks.
Thomas Sowell certainally has it figured out. I read his work often and have never found as much as one word I disagree with. Frankly, reading your comments on this thread, I had considered the possibility that you were Mr. Sowell. I now know that you're not because he would never call himself the smartest man alive.(although I agree with you) Armstrong, is this you? LOL
Sounds like you young guys have it figured out. Make a plan and stick with it. One method I used for years was to always live below my means, I was always chided by my peers for not having the newest car and etc. They figured it out when I walked out the 'door' for good at age fifty. I was an engineering manager for many years and have made the journey at work you all have described. If you will do it, they will let you do it all. Stick with your plans and your dreams will come true. The ability to delay gratification is key to your success.
LOL! Nope, I'm not Armstrong Williams!
I'm just a software geek consultant, no political motivations whatsoever, just an amateur philosopher.
Cheers!
They figured it out when I walked out the 'door' for good at age fifty.
That's the age I'm shooting for. Although at this point, I doubt I'm going to live that long with the stress 'n all. I'm hoping that my investments are good enough that I can simply "chuck it all" and go do something I enjoy.
Congratulations on your making it! Stay in touch will ya? I could certainly benefit from a little mentoring here and there...
You seem to be one of those people I could call brother, and mean it. :-)
Welcome aboard.
The more you post about your situation, the more familiar it all sounds! It's gotten so bad for me that I have people following me to the bathroom and out to the parking lot.
I've found that the way to answer their rudeness when they continue talking while following you into the bathroom is to simply aim at their shoes. Some people just don't know how rude/ignorant they're being until you "one up" their rudeness. (yes, I've actually done it.)
About half the phone calls coming through the switchboard are for me and when I do run out of the office for a while, my voice mail stacks up at the rate of 10-15 an hour.
Sounds familiar. I've had people camp on my phone and let it just ring until I've answered it ... only to hang it up on them. A few weeks ago with my boss sitting in my office, I turned my monitor towards him while I bemoaned how stupid some people were, and in the 20 minutes he was sitting there, more than 40 emails came in. The phone rang literally non-stop. I intentionally leave my voice mail near-full (leaving space for only 3 new messages at any time) so people get the message "sorry, voice mail full" message.
My company recently issued Nextels and now I am getting flooded with calls to and from work as well!
Last vacation, I threw my pager out my truck window once I hit I-43 north of Green Bay. In the four hours it took me to get from Chicago to Green Bay, my pager went off at least 25 times. When my boss started complaining to me that I wasn't answering pages (once I returned from vacation) I asked what the point of a vacation was, if I couldn't "de-compress" from the stress of daily life here? Totally shut him down with that question. Too easy I thought. There's a reason we maintain a second home in a very remote area of the U.P. No phone, no tv. Barely pick up two radio stations on the radio. Cell phone doesn't even get a signal. It's simply beautiful to get away from all the damn' technology and give my brain a rest.
From what you have posted, it appears that you are in network administration. Damn! I've spent the past year getting my MCSE so I would have an out. But it appears that if I do pursue a career in network administration, I am only in for more of the same!
Yes I am, and yes you are!! In case you haven't figured it out, and I'm guessing you're much younger than I am, people will always go to the person who's most busy figuring that person knows what they're doing (otherwise why would they be so busy?) and once you give them an answer, will always come back to you, no matter how you try to get rid of them. (That is unless, they follow you into the bathroom and you really do pee on their shoes!)
I'm contemplating going to truck driving school and hitting the road for awhile just so I can do something that doesn't require this amount of brain power. I just pity the first fool that cuts me off while I'm driving 80,000 pounds of freight vs. their sub 3,000 pound car. LOL!
I hear that it will be made into a movie, can you imagine what a Cluster F**K this will be Hollywood style?
Can you imagine getting the entire premise of the novel wrong? I can. I imagine that Reardon, Wyatt, Galt, D'Anconia, Taggart et all will come out as the villias by the time HollyWeird gets through with it...
There's a few people in Hollywood that might make a worthwhile adaptation that would send the Hollywood establishment reeling in horror... John Milius (Red Dawn, Conan The Barbarian) and Martin Scorsese (Taxi Driver, etc etc) come to mind. You get Bruce Willis and James Woods to star in it... it just might work...
I've found that the way to answer their rudeness when they continue talking while following you into the bathroom is to simply aim at their shoes.
Ditto that guys. I just got back from a client meeting, where these guys are pissed that I wont accept a job under any circumstances, even at more money than I get under contract.
I explained that I like the option of returning calls. I think both you and Sam are ripe to become consultants. If you guys want some help getting started, you let me know. And to OWK, thanks for the comments, and back at ya dude.
I explained that I like the option of returning calls. I think both you and Sam are ripe to become consultants.
It's looking better and better with each passing day. I received two phone calls from headhunters yesterday inquiring if I'd like to "move on." Both had positions that I was well qualified for, were a "step up" and paid alot more money than I'm making now. I couldn't help but think just how appropriate the timing was.
One interview scheduled for Friday, another being setup for next week. One's a contract position, the other an FTE as an assoc. director at a very large IT shop. It'll be good to do a "side by side" comparison of the two.
Thanks for the kind words, and offer of help. Rest assured if it comes down to my seriously taking on a consulting role I'll be tapping into your expertise. You are very kind.
Regards,
USConservative
Proud Member Of The Hank Reardon Society (I'm forming it now...LOL!)
Proud Member Of The Hank Reardon Society (I'm forming it now...LOL!)
If we are forming a club for Hank, we had better get the spelling of his name right. I would be happy to join your Hank Rearden Society.
Good Luck! Please let us know how it all turns out!
I encourage you to make the leap...I've been doing it for 5 years now and have never regretted a moment of it.
regards,
-Lance
About 40 percent of my business comes from the following sites:
Guru.com
Free Agent.com
Consultants-On-Demand.com
Onvia.com
It is a pain to do your skills profile, but you will find yourself with offers up the wazoo!
I thought I would bring this back up as a tribute to the Republican members of the counting teams in PBC that are refusing to go along with the Kangraoo Count.
bump. Required reading.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |