You Can't Build That: The Anti-American Stance of President Obama

It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. The facts are what they are. You can't argue with the truth. And you say that no company would regulate itself when I can offer yet another self-regulating company in Yelp, which does just that. The reviews enable individuals to make decisions on what pizza to eat, shoes to buy, or school in which to enroll. Everything from plastics to eye wash stations to emergency levers to sprinkler systems have served as innovations. Not government. It creates, builds, or makes nothing. It is in a company's rational self-interest to implement these expressions of a thinking brain. The profit motive drives a producer to protect his or her employees and consumers. In order to make money, and as a cosequence of production, stay ahead of competition, corporations take steps to ensure that their factories, plants, and products meet top safety standards. It's all about selfishness. May government butt out, permanently.

Now, it's unfortunate that you "feel" that way about Ayn Rand. I write feel because it appears that you've stopped thinking about her. But would you please give me specific examples of where Miss Rand exhibits "bat dung crazy" ideas and where she is "as wrong as wrong can be"?

Adam Smith, like the Founding Fathers, provides a political understanding of capitalism. He also views it as a system which promotes social utility. What advocates of free markets ought to profess is morality. It is the ethical stance of capitalism which ought to be considered. Yes, this system works but it is also about justice. People may be people, as you say, but this country is not a nation of people. It is a nation of laws. So, when there is a disagreement, men and women can settle these matters rationally through the law courts.

The conditions of the textile and manufacturing industries improved over the last century due to the technolgoical advancements in safety. Regulations constrain, prohibit, and limit the productive powers of people in the market. They do not promote life but impede progress. Today we have a form of slavery in regulations which force individuals to comply with the edicts of some bureaucrat who hasn't a clue how to run a business.

While the incidents involved in Uber may be tragic, the virtue of this company shines through. It challenges the established notion of the regulated taxi industry. By providing a volitional, contractural service, both drivers and passengers benefit.

I offer Uber as well as Angie's list to illustrate the examples of companies which self-regulate. Government does not have to act as Father State and Mother Fed and look over the shoulders of private individuals. Angie's List relies on a review system which determines the best. Both companies show that government regulations violate viciously individual rights.

Check out this thorough explanation of the difference between laws and regulations:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dKpbmm8Iqv0

I would suggest that you re-read Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness" particularly "The Objectivist Ethics" and "The Nature of Government." As she demonstrates, reason ought to reign supreme in the lives of men and women. As selfish, greedy individuals, pursuing their interests, Rand holds that their own lives will be enriched. She displays that with rationality a person can achieve the only moral purpose of his or her life: happiness. For that (and a plethora of other reasons) she is right.

Sir, you don't have to be dismissive. And I don't believe in luck. What I do support, however, is laissez-faire capitalism. All governmental regulations or intrusions or interventions within the economy are immoral. They undermine and undercut the role that the individual plays in a free market. Just take for instance Uber. By selecting which driver you want to ride with and the driver choosing which passengers he would like to trade with, both the producer and consumer are regulating. Angie's List is another example. The consumer writes reviews based on the performance of professions raging from landscapers to physicians. Government has no business in the lives of private citizens except to guard them from coercion. How much of any Ayn Rand have you read?

History might show that government has played a role in regulating the economy, but that does mean that it is right. All regulations are evil and unnecessary. They exist as insults to the intelligence of producers and consumers. They disrupt and damage the free market and undermine the actions of forward thinking individuals. What is this "short-sighted business?" If a private company is in fact "short-sighted" then it will either work to plan for the long term or go out of business. The only position government ought to hold is in protecting citizens from force and fraud. That's it.

Here correlation does not imply causality. Just because a Democratic administration is in office does not mean the economy improves just because a Republican isn't. Private sector individuals determine whether or not a country's economy gets better or worse. Since there exist so many controls and regulations in business, the state is only in the way of economic progress. The government does not make or create or build. It is a gun. It has a monopoly on force and it's sole role is to protect rights.

Just as there ought to be a separation between church and state, so ought there be a separation of state and economics. Since there is no God, there ought to be only rational individuals who do not fuse their beliefs with policy. I agree with you on that point. But what makes you think I haven't done the reading?

I disagree. My stance is fine the way it is. My view is simple and direct. It actually has one dimension: objectivity. Businesses have been strangled, throttled, and controlled under both Republican and Democratic administrations. The key difference in liberal or conservative administrations is that conservatives advocate for business and capitalism to serve God. Liberals promote welfare statism to grow government in order to serve society. Both assertions are immoral. Do you have any specific examples of your claims about these two political movements?

Government ought to have no role in the economy. It ought to do its one job which is to protect individual rights. And do it well. Sadly, instead of doing this President Obama disregards businessmen and the profit motive and entrepeneurship by saying, "You didn't build that." Now, with the case of the pipeline, he has barred individuals fron pursuing their futures with respect to the oil which would've been produced. That is simply wicked.