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: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (169239)	3/6/2021 11:20:35 PM
From: sense	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217735

Ayn Rand looks only to one side in my opinion. That's clearly true... ironically or not, that often leaving her pretty much all alone in advocacy for her ideas, in opposition to the herds forming up in the opposite... still requiring her ideas being heard AND RESPECTED to give us any ability to attain balance. There is very little danger inherent in humoring Rand... and as I noted, there can be great danger in humoring her opposites too much... As a libertarian, I find myself often in disagreement with Rand's proponents, not because they're dangerous or repugnant in the sort of rugged individualism they espouse... or wrong in advocating that ideal as useful... but, because life is, in fact, not more austere than an Eastwood Spaghetti Western, or more demanding of rugged individualism than a John Wayne movie... in which his actions are almost always selfless... in confronting overly greedy ranchers violating others boundaries... while requiring X number of confrontations and gun-fights per hour... to keep the audience awake. Who would Rand root for in a John Wayne movie... and why ? Where that error is most destructive in libertarian thinking... I alluded to in prior post... mention often in others... is that the idea of laissez-faire is not an experiment we need to try... that experiment being what got us what we have... "Capitalism"... is NOT the same thing as a "Free Market"... A free market cannot exist without conditions precedent being met: no fraud, no monopoly, no barriers to participation is the short version. But you can't get there... without government providing the conditions precedent... because broad social agreement accepts the value and insists upon it... Otherwise, the winners impose what they will... as we see today, as robber barons in tech companies have Upton Sinclair turning in his grave... and if in his outrage, he managed to crawl out of it... he would find himself banned from Youtube and Twitter. Economies and markets are not different than other games... there are rules... and a need for them... or there is never really a game... Leagues, teams and players along with officials and facility managers etc., all agree to abide by the rules... to make the games fair... and the outcomes dependent on the elements in fair competition that we want the outcomes dependent upon... and not other things... Cheating... is not a "clever" way to win games... ? Good faith in agreeing to abide by rules... is a necessary element of enabling success. Not everyone understands that. And games are ruined by their mistakes. But, where I will disagree with you is on the religious elements... also even in context of free markets, by pointing out that both capitalism and communism are inherently amoral and entirely materialistic economic systems... wolverines and killer bees if you will... while free markets are not an "economic system" but a moral system... fostering the concept of freedom... of which free markets are only the economic expression. They are that point of balance... not just between the wolverines and bees... but between a "flat" view of the world and a more dimensional reality than those at the extremes perceive. Religion, as faith... oddly, has more in common with its committed opponents than other types of thinking.. Faith is not a bad thing... as long as the tenets of faith are utilitarian enough... and encourage positive behaviors, like (real) tolerance, and foster useful balances between competing extremes. Most of faith is simply long term memory of human experience become wisdom distilled into lessons. Religion is the simplification of those lessons... in much the same way politicians are our representatives... each instance one in which others relieve us each of the burden of necessarily becoming philosophers and politicians ourselves... It's just outsourcing some bit of thinking... to save time in areas where others have greater interest and/or expertise. So, religion and politics become the "team sports"... we expect them to prevent. As a scientist, i recognize the value of faith... because I know intimately the greater limits of science... which prevent science seeing much that is obvious without the filters science mounts upon the overly narrow tube that holds its lens. But, today, many people, quite wrongly, have faith in science... and indeed convert belief in science into a more rigidly dogmatic and demanding religion than most actual religion would ever think to impose... all in the interest of "amoral and materialistic" drivers. The use of animals in my alliterations... hopefully helpful. Your mention of humans as the dominant species... reminded me of a fun video I watched this week... in which Stephen Fry mentions humans as the only species that are aware of, have interest in, and care about all the others. It was a brief moment, only, but close to what we are discussing. He was pitching a book he's written about an endangered species of bear in Peru... and had the misfortune of having set that task on a show where his appearance follows Robin Williams. Williams, also, discusses a couple of animal related issues... about which... well... you should watch it: Robin Williams/Stephen Fry/James Taylor UK TV Appearance