On Jun 11, 8:24�pm, badger08757 <badger08...@hotmail.com
> �don't get me wrong.Ayn Rand was right about so much,and I see the first chapters of "Atlas Shrugged"happening around me.as
,no doubt,you do too. back in 08,when I heard that Oboma was voted most liberal senator,I knew he was too dangerous for office.even I didn't think it would be this bad!
> �however,I do have a question about Objectivism.it seems to work out pretty well for people like Rourke and Reardon,Dagney Taggart and Francesco d'Arcona.and people like Gates and Jobs.but what of those with no talent? what of those with genunie handicaps? what of those who have had a run of bad luck that made them broke? i understand the concept of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps,but doesn't that presume you had boots to begin with?
Sigh. This place needs the regulars back. I miss Fred. I miss Agent
Your question clearly has a certain amount of envy in there. You
and get rid of that before you go on. "He's richer than me" is not an
to advocate anything, at least once you get rid of your envy.
The thing is, you are fixating on a supposed problem and trying to get
it from the middle. The justification of capitalism isn't that it
greatest good. It's true that it does, but that's not the
justification is that it's moral, and that it's the only system that
It is the only system that is based on individual freedom as opposed
some form of govt control of everything and everybody.
But let's stop and examine the case of material improvement of this
individual with "no boots."
So people like Bill Gates are a problem for capitalism? How did Gates
rich? He got rich by creating something that millions of people
buy at a price that was profitable for Gates. And they wanted to buy
than they wanted to bother with creating competing products. There is
nothing stopping a company like IBM from sitting down and writing a
competing operating system. Or, come to that, a company like Bank of
America or AGO or any other large company that, currently, spends many
$millions on Microsoft products.
Microsoft corp has an unusual feature of having dozens of millionaires
there. Because MS follows a policy of rewarding people who do things
are good for the company. You have an idea that makes the company a
ton of money? Here comes a pile of cash and stock options. You are a
startup software company with a new product that makes using MS stuff
better/easier/more productive? Well, here comes a huge cash offer for
your product, and a VP position at a new division of MS.
It is my fondest dream to create a software product that attracts the
attention of Microsoft.
Bill Gates, and his partners at MS, created his wealth. It's brand new
wealth that didn't exist before. And as a result, 10's of millions of
are far more productive than they were before MS. His efforts lowered
prices and raised pay for many tens of millions of people.
Gates didn't get rich by taking away people's "boots." He got rich by
making "boots" cheaper and more widely available to many more people.
By making a new *kind* of boots that nobody had ever had before.
And by making it possible for literally tens of millions of peopel to
afford them, to the extent that things like a home computer are so
ubiquitous that it is surprising to find somebody who does not have
access to the internet, for example.
So, which situation does the person with "no boots" prefer? This case
of MS existing, providing tens of thousands of high paying direct
and enhancing millions of indirect jobs. Or the hypothetical case of
the world without MS (or some replacement) where there are many
fewer jobs, much lower productivity, and a smaller economy in many
An individual who is in fact broke, with no possible leverage or ways
to borrow money, must depend on charity. Which of those two cases
is he likely to get charity?
As a result of the massive production of wealth created by capitalism,
we now see as "poor" somebody who can only afford dial-up. Someobdy
with a crappy old, cheap, computer, is seen as poor. Somebody with
a material condition that was, only a century ago, only available to
richest of the rich. These days, somebody with a crappy little "tube"
color TV and basic cable is considered poor. Somebody who can't
afford central AC is considered almost destitute.