Tristam Ewings “Whether or not capitalism is 'naturally' a better system than socialism is questionable.”

Capitalism is a better option to the piffling drivel which your post (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4944 ) espoused.

I would note even the Israeli kibbutz collectivism has collapsed. The reason was the collective zeal broke down once individuals formed intimate relationships and had children.

I guess that just goes to confirm what one famous anti-socialist said

“There is no such thing as Society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.” (Margaret Thatcher)

Alternatively the idea you espouse that

“Neither a 'pure' market nor a Stalinist command economy provide the necessary social protections and economic liberties.”

I would observe it was Lenin who said “The goal of socialism is communism.”

And certainly, history records, the consequence of communism was Stalinism

I would observe, your rhetoric implies you are biased against giving any “market economy”, regardless of how “pure”, a real chance.

Of course, along with

"A lie told often enough becomes truth”

Lenin also said

“While the State exists, there can be no freedom.
When there is freedom there will be no State.”

From which we can conclude

A socialist “State” only exists by eliminating the freedom of the people it directs and commands.

Whereas an (Ayn Rand) capitalist “state” exists, on a smaller scale, to support the people it was created to serve.

I have to burst the bubble of "Plaza-Toro" who said the following:

"Capitalism was Pinochet murdering workers in support of free market, Bolivians workers being suppressed for the same cause, Chinese suppressing their own people to ensure a free market, South Africa, Poland, Iraq - all in the name of the free market."

This indicates a misunderstanding of Ayn Rand's capitalism. I'm not attacking you for making this mistake; you would only be expected to know this if you'd read her philosophy books. Most people haven't. So let me clarify.

Capitalism, as defined by Ayn Rand, is an economic & political system that respects the rights of individuals -- fundamentally. No man can take another man's life or property. This means you cannot steal; it means the government cannot enforce taxation; and it most certainly means a government cannot kill its own people, regardless of which slogans are chanted or which greater good it is supposedly in the name of.

I realize this is different from what we presently call "capitalism" in my country (The United States). I do not approve of the US's current system, but please do not call it capitalism. It is a discombobulated mixed economy that would horrify (but not necessarily surprise) Ayn Rand were she alive today.

Of course Ayn Rand's philosophy is not perfect. But the imperfectly perfect is incomparably better to the IDEALISTICALLY perfect. The philosophy of the freedom of the individual, Rand's writings embody, is the powerhouse of human creativity. It's the 'locomotive of history' which has moved peoles and nations from materially and spiritually poor lands to the rich lands of individual freedom on whose wealth were built the great achievements of Western civilization which so many from the Left so doltishly decry.
http://australiacalls.blogspot.com

For a rational objectivist, Ryan wasnt particularly objective. She was big on Aristotles concept of A is A. She has some intoxicatingly romantic notions on individualism, her philosophy is a bit shallow.

Makes no reference to the idea that there is no such thing as objectivity, all objectivity being necessarily clouded by the viewers perception. Driven as it were, by self interest... rationalised.

Shrugged runs 1000+ pages, approximately 600-700 of which are self indulgent dribble of no illucidation to plot. There are some excellent ideas beyond the fluff. Has a penchant for text that goes something like... 'he looked at her and fealt as if he was feeling what he was feeling, which could only be fealt by looking at her and seeing in her eyes the acknowledgement that she understood that he understood what she meant with a simple gesture and look in her eye'. A capacity for skim reading is indespensible.

Her philosophy is too idealised for practical use. She admitted that she sees man as an idealised highly romantic embodiment of the power of his (rational) mind. Doubt she ever envisaged much practical use for her concepts of rugged individualism. Her concept of rational self interest based on reasonable values are very useful. Tho, self interest needs no rationalising, afterall... A is A.

The main point in her philosophy is personal responsibility. Which is hard to deny. And not making the strong, intelligent and able, slow down so the weak, stupid and less capable can pretend to be equals. Given the current trend of not keeping score in juniors sports and handing out blue ribbons to everyone, and the rabid PC behind which everyone hides their pretentions to mediocrity inspired sameness, l'd say its a message long overdue.

l like her idea of shrugging off the worries and burdens of the world, instead of going thru life like Atlas. Constantly being punished for one's good deeds. People often bite the hand that feeds and spin a gift into an entitlement, help into obligation.

Blanchett would be a better choice than Jolie for the movie.

She was also absolutely spot in in the idea that society destroys the individual. It uses the individual as a sort of fuel. Nurtures the individual to the point at which it can steal from him.

This is the nature of society... it nurtures our innate capacities in service to itself. Raises us up, steals the contents of our minds, the sweat off our backs, the babes from mother's arms and destroys the individual.

The individual is to society what a blade of grass is to a dairy cow.

The individual can never grow... society will not allow it. Ironically, stunting itself in the process. Society made the Dark Ages. It is only individuals who can lift it out of the dark, toward that light, at the end of the tunnel. Tho 'society' will constantly have you believe that that light is a train coming the other way.

Society rarely if ever embraces the original thinkers, the ground breakers, those that go against the flow. The very same people who actually shape this world and bring to pass everything we take for granted, eveything whic creates and supports 'society.'

Society mates with the individual and then devours it.

Who wants to actually ever grow up... not society, thats for sure.

Arguing about the ideology of individualism vs socialism is never going to prove anything. I'll admit myself that individualism generally *sounds* much more appealing, but ideologies are one thing...reality is another.

As it is, the Scandinavian economies collectively prove Rand (and Hayek and Friedman et al) wrong: they tax at very high levels, provide very generous social welfare, have high levels of government involvement, yet are among the most successful in the world.

Further, a look at the various approximation of laissez-faire capitalist economies that have existed from time to time (e.g. the US in the late 19th century and early 20th century) demostrates that it simply doesn't work. Too many individuals determine to beat the system, to get ahead no matter what the cost, insufficient well-paid workers to act as markets for the capitalists, etc. etc. And ultimately, letting wealth disparities grow to the massive levels that unregulated capitalism would is just a recipe for social unrest and, ultimately, revolution.