Posted on 06/06/2009 7:23:17 AM PDT by Publius
I don't think so. It seems compatible with my definition, at least, where it is not taking from one at gunpoint and appropriating it (not giving, a thing which is freely done) to another. She might have chosen a better word than "give", but she had no doubt seen plenty of usage in her Soviet Russia upbringing similar to the way it and the companion "ask" have been so famously used by Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and so many others of the political class.
* We’ve seen Rand’s ideal Objectivist society operating in Galt’s Gulch. How well would it work in the real world?
It does seem to be carried to an extreme in the gulch, there's no doubt about that. In any functional society there will always be some measure of forced behavior and (dare I say) socialism. Here, our constitution is the agreement of the collective creating a government and spelling out those things we expect it to do, and in essence those are things we expect it will force us to do. Of, by, and for the people, after all.
* Dr. Hendricks, one of America’s best surgeons, left the profession because the government nationalized the health care system. Is there a cautionary tale here?
I have no doubts. I don't know how it is in most places, but in my town the medical community circled their wagons long ago and developed a general business model that maximizes their personal financial benefit. Even though the area's major medical center is a "not for profit" enterprise operated by the Sisters of Saint Joseph, the professionals, doctors and nurses, are among the most financially successful in the nation. I imagine a good number of them would not take kindly any efforts to limit that.
“But giving because some government official tells me to, or some United Way rep comes around to my cubicle and tries to shame me into giving, no thank you.”
I assume we are all in agreement on that. I do not like the shakedowns. I don’t give to them, either.
I can’t go grocery shopping any more without being asked for a donation at the checkout. If the grocery store wants to be charitable, why don’t they donate? They take all these donations at the cash register, then say “Safeway gave $23,492 to Juvenile Diabetes last month!” I go to several different grocery stores, too, including Costco. They all do it.
I have strict instructions that if there are any signs of a problem with an account I want to have the account on my desk pronto. Dodging or delaying appointments, late paying on an invoice, anything at all, I want to know. Right now, for a great number of accounts, I am billing light or not at all. I'm in a position that I can do this. I'm not desperate for the money. I wish things were better but they aren't. I am erasing one problem from the huge pile that my customers face.
If we do have a customer with a problem we take care of him anyway. I use any plausible excuse. I'll show up with a toolbox and tell them “Hey, I'm in the area and I've got time to kill, if you let me do it now, I won't have to bill you.” or “I've got a six pack in the car. Help me drink it and I'll do this while we're talkin'.” I will drop it in conversation that a lot of my accounts are in trouble and I really don't give a damn if a payment is late, short or not made at all. I'll handwrite across an invoice “Information only. Catch me when you can.”
Will they be grateful? In a word, no. I will lose most of these accounts. I know that. They will be uncomfortable around me. They will bolt at the first opportunity and blame it on me. Gratitude is not what I am after. I get my reward when the look of anxiety comes off a customer's face or when I see his family in Church on Sunday or his kids on the ball field on Saturday night. I am giving these guys a little more room to cope and that is what I am after. I am big enough to handle the detritus.
Is this counter to what Rand is saying? I don't think so. In a way it reinforces it. It makes some of my customers feel like moochers. Old friends will avert their eyes or avoid me. It will take years to reestablish bonds that I am breaking by my “charity”. The language, or at least my command of it, is inadequate to explain how the relationships have changed. At times like these I wish I had a few more IQ points to explain the contempt that I am generating. If I could explain it it might go to the contempt that the moochers in our society can have for the hands that feed them.
I will be very interested in your publication if it comes to fruition. Your observations have been very inspiring to me.
http://www.wboy.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=60289&catid=181
btw, I loved this chapter. Loved, loved, loved it. After spending so much time reading and guessing about what was going on, it was the reward. It was worth it.
In that sentence, you've just defined the American Experiment. It started out with a series of compromises that most of the founders deemed deplorable, until it was found to work and evolve. It was never perfect, but for the first 200 years, it proved better than anything tried before by any other country.
And now we find ourselves with a President and Government that is willing to throw all of the principles and founding assumptions of our great Republic out the window while pursuing its own view of the great Socialist State. Very depressing.
Charity begins at home. When I'm asked I reply that I've already given and let it go at that. It's the truth.
I was out of town, over on the coast, which is why I’m late replying.
I would argue that envy and greed are not necessarily sins, if applied correctly.
It is okay to envy your neighbor, then put in the work to equal or surpass his achievement. However, if that envy is used to take from your neighbor, then, that is frowned upon.
Greed is much the same way. One can work and acquire material goods. Nothing wrong with that. If, however, the acquisition of material goods is coupled with unethical behavior, fraud, murder, etc., then, greed is bad.
I contend our current society has a lot of greed and envy. However, the greed and envy is used by our political class to justify taking from those who produce and giving to those who envy through greedy redistribution policies.
I am troubled by this metaphor. Gravitationally, would be a better fit. Gyroscopically would better describe a rudderless ship. The allusion that the ballast of debt to keep the fiscal ship upright is good, in that, without the debt, there is little to keep the ship in service except the need to service the debt. Gyroscopically would imply an inability to get to the destination.
The ownership of a house, forces one to pay the mortgage and upkeep on it. Without that assumption of debt, people would pickup and move on.
Unfortunately, I see the government removing the ownership of property and distributing it on a temporary and arbitrary basis to favored constituencies. The government will assume the debt and convert it to an asset it bestows, removing the ballast from the people, leaving them to flounder at the whim of government.
The attitude of society toward the giver has deteriorated as well. Take away the voluntary aspect and today they're viewed anywhere from a communistic "you have more, therefore you can afford it", to a more antagonistic attitude where the possession of wealth is evidence that it was taken illegitimately from the Jerry Springer devotees.
I think this is exactly the problem today. Philanthropic societies were created by those "with' to help those without. It was understood that there was a benefactor-beneficiary relationship. If you found yourself without - in deep need - you went with your hat in your hand - a humbling event - and requested aid.
Someone was lauding FDR [spit] the other day that he was motivated to make the US communist (my hyperbole, not his) because he saw the indignity of poor houses. Moron. It was supposed to be humiliating! That way if you were able you wouldn't go there.
Not if they're libertarian first and alpha dog second. Libertarians are absolute tyrants about their own lives and if they're intellectually honest, disinterested in the corresponding decisions others make about their lives. Now I'm not necessarily saying that the Gulch society could be functional overall, because I probably have to agree that it would probably not, just addressing this one particular issue.
That annoyed me too. I could see it killing her alternator (did they use alternators or generators in 1957?) and obviously her compass, and probably her radio, but her motor and flight controls, which probably would have been cables and linkages, should have been clicking along just fine.
I've used this in argument with affirmative action believers. If they're willing to include professional and college sports, then I'll discuss the merits of affirmative action with them. If they're going to pick and choose where it applies, they're not honest enough to debate.
While I admit I don't like being asked for a donation at checkout, at least if everyone in town is doing it, I still prefer that to Target's model. They do what you suggest and give their own money, but it's still mine in a way. I'd bet dollars to dimes everything they give money to is something a liberal would approve of, so it means that into every purchase I make is in effect built in a donation to a group supported by only half their customers. Better if they lower their prices by that percentage and maybe Cato, or GOA, or some conservative Congressional candidate might get the money instead of some home for hags that think all men are rapists because they have penii, yet somehow they're not all prostitutes.
I think you are doing the right thing, anyway.
I think the reference was to the magneto type ignition system which uses magnets to generate electricity and therefore spark. The magneto system is used in aircraft due to it's utter reliability, permanent magnets being very dependable.
Reference Wiki-"The magneto is now confined mainly to lawnmowers, chainsaws, and internal-combustion aviation engines."
Thanks, Kirk! Learn something new every day.
Oops, NOT Kirk. Mixed you up with woodnboats.
“But I don’t think someone who feels righteous due to the fact that they charge for every little thing is a person to be emulated.”
Well, I think here AR is simply making the point that the books must balance, whatever the commodities involved in the trade. A bit overdone, perhaps.
Kirk
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.