Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robin Plunder who wrote (96012)	10/28/2012 4:02:36 PM
From: bart13	3 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 218863

No thanks. If you can't address one or two key ones, it's pointless. And if you want to falsely assert that I have given up and admitted that Rand is correct, be my guest. I've spent many hours, for example, debating MV=PT with diehard Austrians and they're so convinced that it's wrong that no points that I make are given any credence, ever. Some even reject that velocity itself exists, in spite of objective reality. Super strongly held religious beliefs/ideologies are like that. Randians that I have debated over the years are so enamored of her work that it literally is their religion/faith and none ever gave an inch regardless. You or others want to believe in it - fine with me, but don't expect me to believe that's she's a be-all or end-all, or even that her work consists of a truly workable and encompassing philosophy without numerous faults... and yes, I can name them very specifically - laissez-faire capitalism being just one, since it has never actually existed, and I have seldom found two Randians that can even agree on a clean and specific definition of it (much like two libertarians can seldom agree across the board). If you even want to also call my alternate views a 'faith' - again, fine by me.