Scandals lead execs to 'Atlas Shrugged'

USA Today ^ | 9/23/02 | Del Jones

[gdc61]

Charlton Heston when he was younger would do well i think.

[Misterioso]

There has to be someone with a better recollection of economics around here who could help sort out the missing pieces. It was not really my field, and my memory is gone.

I should have your memory.

[Misterioso]

I'm saying that if the very well off do NOT give to others as the Bible asks them to do, they create a situation where others seek to redistribute their wealth, aka socialism.

Not socialism, in America it is known as theft, and is illegal and immoral. Our laws are not taken from the Bible, they are taken from the Constitution. If a man's earnings belong to him, who has the "moral" right to take them from him? Names please. Is yours one of the names? Explain where you got that power. Do you have the moral right to take his property? Is that what the Bible teaches you? I would like you to support your claim with a quote or two.

Thanks in advance.

[Misterioso]

Might be a good time to liquidate, or move all holdings to heavy metals (lead, brass, copper, steel, and such).

Don't forget the primers and wadding.

[nopardons]

Morality seldom, id EVER " tempered our brand of Capitalism. Before you embarass yourself further, learn historical facts.

It's no business of your's or the government's, how much anyone legally earns. Just because you have decided that some people take out more than one family can possibly need ( in whose judgement ; your's ? ) doesn't mean that that family doesn't " need " that much money. If a company can hire people to work for X, they aren't compelled to pay Y, because that would be " moral ". Whose " morality " ?

Phianthropy, on a grand scale and for the benefit of most of the populace , died out , for the most part, if not entirely, with the " ROBBER BARONS ".

This system, must therefore, in your estimation, must then have failed almost a century ago. Right ? Has it ?

[copycat]

. If a man's earnings belong to him, who has the "moral" right to take them from him?

I guess you're missing my point. My bad.

No-one has the moral right to take anything from him. We agree. (Perhaps you missed that part about govt not having the power to redistribute wealth)

My point is that, morally, the rich man should be giving of his own free will, and if he is not, he creates a vacuum in which the weaker amongst us will attempt to loot him.

I do not count myself amongst those who would use the power of govt to loot the rich, and I hope you no longer will.

FReegards...

[copycat]

I'm tired of arguing this point. I am not arguing for redistribution of wealth. Please read more carefully. I am arguing for CHARITY.

[Misterioso]

Your view of capitalism, whether you can grasp this or not, is Marxist. You say a man is immoral, based on your Christian belief in altruism, to keep what he has earned when others come to him in need of what they have not earned. Your ignorance of economics could not be more plain. Your "morality" is that of a thief. I expect you to "turn the other cheek" now, in response to me, to remain consistent with your belief that your right to self defense is selfish, just as you believe that my right to keep all that I have earned is selfish (immoral). Do you still think I have missed your point?

[Richard Kimball]

it wouldn't take much for people like Gates to pick up shop and move to more friendly locale.

If America falls, where do you go? Australia, New Zealand, Europe, Japan, Canada, etc, are already more socialistic than the US. With California requiring six weeks paid family leave per year, now, though, expect the new California Gold Rush to be all the achievers leaving, which will only make the state more socialistic. Third world countries are a possibility, but political instability is a real risk. Could be exciting, though.

[MJemison]

Except that I've always pictured Francisco as dark-haired with deep brown eyes. Of course, with his Cherokee heritage and wide cheekbones, maybe Kilmer could pull it off anyway.

[Norman Conquest]

If it's voluntary, it's charity. If it's compelled by veiled threats, it's extortion. And you suggest that those threats are justified, or to be expected, or that I'm obliged to give this money because YOUR religion, conscience or moral code compels it, you're complicit in that extortion.

If I choose instead to spend my money building a business and employing more people at a wage they're eager to accept, lifting the overall average standard of living, isn't that between me and my conscience?

"Charity" makes people helpless and dependent on a dole. Working -- people exchanging their best efforts in a free marketplace -- creates wealth, self-esteem, pride, honor, dignity, self-reliance.

I have no problem with whatever moral choice you make for YOUR ACTIONS. But when you try to bully or shame me into sharing that choice, well, shame on you.

[gdc61]

he could easily move corperate HQ a few miles north , i'm sure Canada would make room, as to his product, how much is actually made in the U.S. i don't know , i doubt very much . the way the gov. went after him , i'm surprised he's still here. I never said anything about the U.S. "falling", just pissing off corp. giants like Gates for no reason , except to keep him from making more money , which unknown to the dems is GOOD for the country.

[gdc61]

thats the whole point of "trickle down" economics , when your cup runnith over , were do you thinkith the extra goes?

[Aquinasfan]

The book sells extremely well in pockets such as the Atlanta suburb of Acworth, Ga., according to Amazon.com. Acworth residents are far more likely than the general population to own tax-sheltered annuities and subscribe to Forbes magazine, according to market research company Claritas.

LOL!

With his right hand Hank the Hero, sweat breaking on his brow, plunged his pencil into the paper. With workman-like efficiency he laid down lines both bold and neat. Within hours he would have completed his plans for the Hank the Hero memorial skyscraper. But that was in the future, and Hank had no use for the future. He wanted the present. And his present was Dabney. In his left hand he held the supple waist of the young, headstrong realist, Dabney the Dame. With each thrust of his pencil Dabney cried, "Oh Hank!"

[borkrules]

But when you try to bully or shame me into sharing that choice, well, shame on you.

The man just got done saying he wasn't advocating government coercion, and now, some Randians can't even deal with moral suasion and efforts at non-coercive argumentation. Pussies.

I see both sides of the argument here. I don't believe in a world view that says CEO Smith has "too much" money. Conversely, I don't think it's a bad thing for religious and cultural influences to push those same successful folks to found Hospitals, Universities, libraries and the like. But evidently, even the slightest whisper of conscience and responsibility to a larger community is beyond the tolerance of some who follow Prophet Rand.

[gdc61]

well said

[copycat]

Do you still think I have missed your point?

I think you're clueless.

[copycat]

If it's voluntary, it's charity. If it's compelled by veiled threats, it's extortion.

Thank you, that's exactly what I'm trying to say. Can you point me to the part where I said it should be compelled?

[Misterioso]

I think you're clueless.

Touché (snicker). Au revoir.

[Norman Conquest]

Can you point me to the part where I said it should be compelled?

Well, how about this sentence? "My point is that, morally, the rich man should be giving of his own free will, and if he is not, he creates a vacuum in which the weaker amongst us will attempt to loot him."

Perhaps YOUR morality tells you YOU "should be" giving. If so, feel free. I won't stop you. But once you tell someone else they "should" do something against their moral standards, that's the start of compulsion.

And when you blame me for "creating a vacuum" where someone else will therefore attempt to loot me, that's shifting the blame for the crime of theft from the looter's actions to the lootee's behavior.

Telling me I'll be in any part responsible for his offense is where the veiled threat comes in. It makes it easier for him to loot me, harder for me to oppose him.