Posted on 02/20/2009 11:07:25 AM PST by mnehring
The economic miracle that has been the United States was not produced by socialized enterprises, by government-union-industry cartels or by centralized economic planning. It was produced by private enterprises in a profit-and-loss system. And losses were at least as important in weeding out failures as profits in fostering successes. Let government succor failures, and we shall be headed for stagnation and decline. -Milton Friedman
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.-Ayn Rand
Friedman: Well, first of all, tell me is there some society you know that doesnt run on greed? You think Russia doesnt run on greed? You think China doesnt run on greed? What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy; its only the other fellow whos greedy.
The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didnt construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didnt revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty youre talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, its exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear: that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.
Donahue: But it seems to reward not virtue as much as ability to manipulate the system.
Friedman: And what does reward virtue? You think the communist commissar rewards virtue? You think a Hitler rewards virtue? You think - excuse me, if you will pardon me - do you think American presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout? Is it really true that political self interest is nobler somehow than economic self interest? You know I think you are taking a lot of things for granted. Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us? Well, I dont even trust you to do that.
Sound and video for those quotes:
From the Donahue interview of Friedman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I don’t know how anyone could look at the confiscation of wealth and not think it was many times more immoral than greed.
I’ll take a greedy CEO over a tax-greedy politician ANY DAY!
I know my fellow man is looking out for himself—this is a good thing, folks. It is just as nature intended. We survive as individuals not as one entity or group.
Whenever the powermongers have tried to force humans to live for something outside their self-interests it resulted in corruption, stagnation and the deaths of millions.
When someone is trying to sell you “selflessness” you can bet with 99.9 percent certainty that they want you to serve them instead of yourself. They whole “do it for the people” thing is a farce—”the people” end up culled.
I know that Galt’s diatribe is awfully long winded, but I swear that entire book is really a bit of a “life changer”.
It so perfectly crystalizes lots of concepts that I previously saw only vaguely.
It definitely oughta be required reading in every HS in the US.
For twelve years you've been asking "Who is John Galt?" This is John Galt speaking.
I'm the man who's taken away your victims and thus destroyed your world.
You've heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis and that Man's sins are destroying the world.
But your chief virtue has been sacrifice, and you've demanded more sacrifices at every disaster. You've sacrificed justice to mercy and happiness to duty. So why should you be afraid of the world around you?
Your world is only the product of your sacrifices. While you were dragging the men who made your happiness possible [in today's terms he is referring to the business men, the executives, the 'evil rich' with visions and desire to see that vision through to fruition] to your sacrificial altars, I beat you to it.
I reached them first and told them about the game you were playing and where it would take them.
I explained the consequences of your 'brother-love' morality, which they had been too innocently generous to understand. You won't find them now, when you need them more than ever.
We're on strike against your creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties [these would be the looters in government and moochers who demand others' earnings because they claim to be needy - ie, welfare class].
If you want to know how I made them quit, I told them exactly what I'm telling you tonight.
I taught them the morality of Reason -- that it was right to pursue one's own happiness as one's principal goal in life.
I don't consider the pleasure of others my goal in life, nor do I consider my pleasure the goal of anyone else's life.
I am a trader. I earn what I get in trade for what I produce.
I ask for nothing more or nothing less than what I earn. That is justice.
I don't force anyone to trade with me; I only trade for mutual benefit.
Force [ie, the force of govt] is the great evil that has no place in a rational world. One may never force another human to act against his/her judgment.
If you deny a man's right to Reason, you must also deny your right to your own judgment.
Yet you have allowed your world to be run by means of force, by men who claim that fear and joy are equal incentives, but that fear and force are more practical.
You've allowed such men to occupy positions of power in your world by preaching that all men are evil from the moment they're born.
When men believe this, they see nothing wrong in acting in any way they please. The name of this absurdity is 'original sin'. That's inmpossible. That which is outside the possibility of choice is also outside the province of morality. To call sin that which is outside man's choice is a mockery of justice.
To say that men are born with a free will but with a tendency toward evil is ridiculous. If the tendency is one of choice, it doesn't come at birth. If it is not a tendency of choice, then man's will is not free.
And then there's your 'brother-love' morality.
Why is it moral to serve others, but not yourself?
If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but not by you?
Why is it immoral to produce something of value and keep it for yourself, when it is moral for others who haven't earned it to accept it? If it's virtuous to give, isn't it then selfish to take?
Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is rightfully his.
You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the dollar he's keeping is rightfully yours. Your code has made it impossible to know when to give and when to grab.
You know that you can't give away everything and starve yourself. You've forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt.
Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. [This is the real difference between liberals and conservatives!]
This country wasn't built by men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is possible on Earth.
Then it began apologizing for its greatness and began giving away its wealth, feeling guilty for having produced more than its neighbors.
Twelve years ago, I saw what was wrong with the world and where the battle for Life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality and that my acceptance of that morality was its only power. I was the first of the men who refused to give up the pursuit of his own happiness in order to serve others.
To those of you who retain some remnant of dignity and the will to live your lives for yourselves, you have the chance to make the same choice. Examine your values and understand that you must choose one side or the other. Any compromise between good and evil only hurts the good and helps the evil.
If you've understood what I've said, stop supporting your destroyers. Don't accept their philosophy. Your destroyers hold you by means of your endurance, your generosity, your innocence, and your love. Don't exhaust yourself to help build the kind of world that you see around you now. In the name of the best within you, don't sacrifice the world to those who will take away your happiness for it.
The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath:
I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,
nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.
“I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.”
Ah, music to my eyes!
I am not even going to try to approach doing an NLP primary cogitative analysis of that. :->
:)
I think you misunderstand her point with this. This is a case where she discusses how the collectivists ensnare producers by holding them back on their main strengths. They do it by what you say, it is almost yin-yang. They attack a producer’s generosity by accusing them of being greedy. They accuse a producer’s love by accusing them of being hateful, etc.
I have read and studied Rand all my life and I don’t see her having a rage against God or religion, only a conflict through her own definition of rationalism. I actually find no conflict in being an Objectivist politically and a Christian. I don’t believe all of Objectivist philosophy, but we all have things with we disagree with, with Republicans or Libertarians as well.
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.