This is a very well written article.  I like the idea of depriving the progressives and socialists of any claims that the Bible gives explicit support to socialism.  Cut them off from the Bible, and they must justify their forced sacrifical altruism with some philosophical foundation other than faith-based.  And this article kicks the box out from under them when they try to seduce the large Christian community.

The article has eloquently drawn arguments - like the distinctions between voluntary socialism and government-imposed socialism. And that make clear the real nature of socialism isn't in the giving, but in the taking.

The article is well worth reading for the arguments.

Ayn Rand pointed out that Objectivists and Christians share certain basic principles:

• There are some universal and absolute moral values,
• Individuals have the capacity to choose between good and evil,
• And that individuals have a responsibility to exercise that capacity to choose in favor of good over evil (although the responsibility for Objectivist is to ones self, not to something external like a God).

These commonalities are contrasted with secular progressives who usually tend towards relativism and subjectivism in morality, and towards either nature or conditioned behaviors in place of any form of free will in human nature.
-------------

But Objectivists also know the dangers of ignoring some of the fundamental elements of Christianity:

• Altruism: which weakens the moral argument for capitalism and individual rights and even high self-esteem. 
• Faith: which undercuts reason, the very means of grasping reality and creating a sound and rationally justifiable morality. 
• Sacrifice: The part of altruism that destroys individualism and individual rights.

-----------

The aspect of the article I didn't like was that by the end it had the feel of justifying Christianity, almost but not quite proseletizing, and leaving the distinct impression that scripture was being used not just to destroy the claim that Christianity supports Socialism, but that scripture is a source of revealed truth... but to be fair, that might just have been just my reaction.  I suspect that it might have been written in more persuasive form for destroying the socialists' claim to Christianity if it had been written by an Atheist :-)

I received this article in e-mail and shared it here mainly because John Allison, an Objectivist and ardent ARI supporter, was quoted as recommending it as explained in the article summary.

Whether hoisting the economic Christian fascists on their own petard is the best intermediate strategy toward creating an Objectivist world is another question.

I was told long ago by an ARI insider that it is not a good idea to scare prospects away from Objectivism with an immediate focus on its atheism which suggests they may have learned this the hard way.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 3/29, 5:31am)

Manfred wrote:

Jesus... was not only a socialist but a communist as well, for the Judaic-Christian-Islamic religion evolves from communist concepts of how society should be structured. Marx, probably unwittingly, simple secularized the “Sermon of the Mountain” in his Communist Manifesto and the procedures and laws it prescribes. Further on, the reader can find a long stretch of socialist/communist ideas in the works of Thomas More, Campanella, Rousseau and Comte, to mention only the better known.

I think that it is good to render unto philosophy what is philosophical, and unto Caesar what is a call for force.  What Objectivism calls for is freedom from the initiation of force, and reason, and egoism.  From that perspective we would deplore a group of individuals choosing to form a voluntary association based upon communism, or socialism, or theism.  These are bad philosophy.  But we would support their right to do so.  We only require that they not attempt to force others to participate. 

This clear distinction is very important if we want to see Objectivism spread.  To spread it requires that people who aren't Objectivists encounter it, consider it, and began a process of adopting it (rarely, if ever, is it understood fully and accepted completely, all at once – it's is a process that occurs over some time).

So it is a good thing that a benevolent view of the universe and man's nature are demonstrated in the political tolerance we show for these flawed 'isms' that we only demand be voluntary.  This is more attractive (as well as principled) and doesn't drive people away, and that lets them come in for a closer look.  It also focuses the argument on the key issue.  A socialist doesn’t want to focus on the issue of guns and prisons and re-education camps and so forth.  So, an argument that goes like this brings exactly those things squarely into focus: “I don’t believe that calling on others to give up what they’ve earned, as a moral duty, as a sacrifice, on behalf of those who haven’t earned is a good system.  But if you want to practice that in some kind of commune, or co-op, or on-line association, go ahead, as long as no one is forced to participate.  Do you disagree that people should be free to follow their own beliefs?”

When we separate philosophical views into those parts that are epistemological from those that are moral and from those that are political we can be more precise, more effective, and model a more attractive philosophy than any of the others.  Nothing in that prescription calls for sanctioning or even ignoring what we don't agree with.

Manfred,

I'm not presenting a different philosophy. When I said 'separate philosophical views into those parts that are epistemological from those that are moral and from those that are political' I was talking about the same things as Ayn Rand.  She wrote about ethics and she wrote about politics and she wrote about epistemology - not as if these are air-tight, unrelated fields with no connection to one another, (which I would not agree with) but as separate fields that do connect with each other.  Nor did anything I wrote imply a compromise of any principle.

Teresa: Thanks for stating your request on Post 7, for this gives me the right chance to provide the full statement of my standpoint, not just in relation with Reed’s article, but also with the full background to FEE’s unmentioned purpose, an aim they might themselves know about, though they cover it up, a target Ayn Rand, clearly recognized and motivated her to send the lengthy letter to Leonard Read. She took up the theme again in her articles on “Conservatives” and “’Conservatives’ vs. ‘Liberals’“ (See http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/conservatives.html and http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/conservatives_vs_liberals.html). I will merely deal with it from another perspective, by slicing the whole into three intimately united angles: Economic, biblical and moral. Most of my comments on Reed’s article were sluiced already into my replies to Steve Wolfer, but I appreciate the opportunity to expand my views a little bit more.

Economic: FEE’s position, as well as some practically unnoticed deeds in relation with the free market that are most significant, is basically and practically the essence of the conservative’s final purpose, while pretending to show what they aren’t and hiding what they are: like the Fabians, wolves under a sheep’s skin. Since a simple example will suffice to clear this fact. I will now quote at length from Part 6, Chapter 27, Sub-chapter 3: “The Delimitation of Governmental Functions” of Ludwig von Mises' “Human Action”:

   “The intervention is a decree issued directly or indirectly, by the authority in charge of society’s administrative apparatus of coercion and compulsion which forces the entrepreneurs and capitalists to employ some of the factors of production in a way different from what they would have resorted to if they were only obeying the dictates of the market. Such a decree can be either an order to do something or an order not to do something. It is not required that the decree be issued directly by the established and generally recognized authority itself. It may happen that some other agencies arrogate to themselves the power to issue such orders or prohibitions and to enforce them by an apparatus of violent coercion and oppression of their own. If the recognized government tolerates such procedures or even supports them by the employment of its governmental police apparatus, matters stand as if the government itself had acted. If the government is opposed to other agencies’ violent action, but does not succeed in suppressing it by means of its own armed forces, although it would like to suppress it, anarchy results.”

The following part (1949 edition) was erased from the 1998 edition with the evident purpose of hiding FEE’s standpoint promoting what is generally called “Crony Capitalism” (!):

   “The interventionist doctrinaires repeat again and again that they do not plan the abolition of private ownership of the means of production, of entrepreneurial activities, and of market exchange. Also the supporters of the most recent variety of interventionism, the German “Soziale Marktwirtschaft,” stress that they consider the market economy to be the best possible and most desirable system of society’s economic organization, and that they are opposed to the government omnipotence of socialism. But, of course, all these advocates of a middle-of the-road policy emphasize with the same vigor that they reject Manchesterism and laissez-faire liberalism. It is necessary, they say, that the state interfere with the market phenomena whenever and wherever the “free play of the economic forces” results in conditions that appear as “socially” undesirable. In making this assertion they take it for granted that it is the government that is called upon to determine in every single case whether or not a definite economic fact is to be considered as reprehensible from the “social” point of view and, consequently whether or not the state of the market requires a special act of government interference.

   “All these champions of interventionism fail to realize that their program thus implies the establishment of full government supremacy in all economic matters and ultimately brings about a state of affairs that does not differ from what is called the German or the Hindenburg pattern of socialism. If it is in the jurisdiction of the government to decide whether or not definite conditions of the economy justify its intervention, no sphere of operation is left to the market. Then it is no longer the consumers who ultimately determine what should be produced, in what quantity, of what quality, by whom, where, and how—but it is the government. For as soon as the outcome brought about by the operation of the unhampered market differs from what the authorities consider “socially” desirable, the government interferes. That means the market is free as long as it does precisely what the government wants it to do. It is “free” to do what the authorities consider to be the “right” things, but not to do what they consider the “wrong” things; the decision concerning what is right and what is wrong rests with the government. Thus the doctrine and the practice of interventionism ultimately tend to abandon what originally distinguished them from outright socialism and to adopt entirely the principles of totalitarian all-round planning.“

Rothbard characterized Mises’ position as follows:

   “When Mises presents us with the choice between the free market and socialism, he is saying that in-between systems of a hampered market are not coherent, consistent systems. He demonstrates that any measure of government intervention in the market creates problems and consequences which present the people with a further choice: repeal this measure, or effect another measure of governmental intervention …. Interventionist measures logically lead to one or the other [Free market or socialism]. Since a socialist system cannot exist, the only intelligent choice is the purely free market. Mises demonstrates that every form of government intervention in the market creates consequences that lead to an economy worse than that of the free market. … For Mises, all government intervention in the market is irrational and therefore contrary to economic law” (Rothbard. M. N. 1951. “Mises’ ‘Human Action’: Comment,” American Economic Review 41.1: 181–185.).”

As stated before, the erasure in FEE’s “Scholar Version” follows the clear aim of wanting to protect the “Soziale Marktwirtschaft”-System, which is the German name for what Americans would call “Crony Capitalism,” a system that has no connection with Capitalism as Objectivists defend it, for it’s nothing else but a production and marketing system closely related with Feudalism, where government (formerly kings, princes and their coterie, and nowadays political ministers, the state bureaucracy, etc.) allows certain activities, prohibits others and steps in as soon as those related with it sense that the market turns into an alley where those established won’t let it go.

Mises recognized this clearly in his statement (Chapter 3: “Economics and the Revolt against Reason,” Sub-chapter 3: “The Praxeological Aspect of Polylogism”) that: “The rich, the owners of the already operating plants, have no particular class interest in the maintenance of free competition. They are opposed to confiscation and expropriation of their fortunes, but their vested interests are rather in favor of measures preventing newcomers from challenging their position. Those fighting for free enterprise and free competition do not defend the interests of those rich today. They want a free hand left to unknown men who will be the entrepreneurs of tomorrow and whose ingenuity will make the life of coming generations more agreeable. They want the way left open to further economic improvements. They are the spokesmen of material progress.”

Biblical: Reed is one more among those believers who do all in their power to convince people that Christianity is the basis itself for the establishment of the free market. In short: it’s the position held by conservatives wherever in the world there is some sort of “free market” allowed to operate. But such “free” markets are not such but, as said before, what is called “Crony Capitalism,” which produced an evident amount of wellbeing but is increasingly shakily standing on false grounds, continually tottering on the brink. Objectivists know precisely why it has a shaky existence. The wrong basis is the immoral basis promoted by Christianity. “Reed type” believers sense this, which is also the reason why they present half-truths and/or cover up what they pretend to promote by leaving things unsaid. I will just pick up a few of the apparent “cherries” from Reed’s article:

“What about the reference in the book of Acts to the early Christians selling their worldly goods and sharing communally in the proceeds? The New Testament states: ‘There is still one thing you haven't done. Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.’” (Matthew 19:21, Luke 18:22) – This sounds very much as an invitation to be poor oneself, a full contradiction to the general human wellbeing promoted by Capitalism and, thus, a complete opposition to create a society of people enjoying good life. Besides: “Heaven”: There is no poof that such a fantasy thing exists, Jesus never provided a proof and, thus, we must come to think that he duped his followers., Furthermore, this is stressed by the fact that he condemned every possible kind of richness. In Matthew 19:23-26, Jesus says, "Truly I tell you, it will be hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven." And here Reed silences the following sentence stated by Jesus, which is the most significant part of the statement: “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Parallel versions appear in Mark10:24-27, and Luke18:24-27. It’s easy to recognize why Reed silences this part.

Can the whole become even more spine-chilling? Yes, it can, for here we should remember a very damning part that Reed again silences, for Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23 state that Jesus said: “"Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me and for me scatters.” This looks very much to the parts in the Bible where those who are against a certain position or neutral to it are subject to the law of the sword and smitten. (Some examples: EXODUS 12: 29 God killed the first-born in every Egyptian home that wasn’t marked with lamb’s blood; EXODUS 32:27: After seeing the golden calf, God commanded the Levites, ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’ 3,000 were slaughtered, and God was pleased; LEVITICUS 26:7-8: God rewarded obedience with assurances that enemies would all die by the sword; NUMBERS 15:32-36: A man gathered sticks for a fire on the Sabbath. By God’s command, he was stoned to death; NUMBERS 16:27-33: The men were rebellious, so God caused the earth to open and swallow up the men, wives and children; NUMBERS 16:35: A fire from God killed 250 men; NUMBER 16:48: A plague from God killed 14,700; NUMBERS 21:3: The Lord gave the Canaanites over to Israel, who ‘completely destroyed them and their towns’; NUMBERS 21:6: God sent venomous snakes, which bit and killed many Israelites. (Well “Numbers” is a true feast of malignity. I don’t think it’s necessary to go on.)

Reed writes: In Matthew 5:17–20 Jesus declares, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." In Luke 24:44, he further enhances this when he says, "Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." Should we now take a short look at these “laws”? I warn you, Theresa, this will be utmost unpleasant, for we will be directly in the middle of Sharia and Jihad. Well, for those who haven’t looked up the Bible to follow the laws Jesus promotes Reed’s proposal seems quite acceptable, but a few examples will show the truth behind it:

Deuteronomy, Chapter 25 11-12: "If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.” (Come to think of it: What sense is there in what she did?); Exodus 21:7 allows me to sell my daughter as a slave; Lev. 25:44 allows me to have slaves of both sexes, as long as I buy them from neighboring countries (Canada/Mexico in your case, Teresa, Germany/Switzerland, etc. in mine); Exodus 35:2 declares that I have to kill those who work on Saturdays. I should remember this the next time I visit a supermarket on Saturdays; Lev. 19:27 forbid males to trim their hair and shave their beards. Am I to kill those who shave their faces?; Lev. 19:19 forbids wives to use two different cloths for one dress. Should she do so she must be put to death by lapidation, but I’m unaware if this must be done privately or if I’m obliged to gather everybody in town to participate (After all, we’re about a million people around here!)

These are just some of the JUST laws Jesus came to impose. Do you agree with them? Does Reed agree with them? Why doesn’t his article get into particulars? For more biblical atrocities I suggest you to visit Seth Andres’s Webpage “The thinking Atheist,” where this former promoter of religion and nowadays sturdy atheist mentions a few additional such niceties.

Is THIS the basis for Capitalism conservatives’ promote? Evidently it is, else they would have given up their beliefs since long. I myself prefer to follow Objectivism’s morality. I stand by reason. Which brings us to the last of the angles mentioned above:

Ethics: Jesus father (‘God’) forbade Adam and Eve to taste the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of right and wrong. But KNOWING right from wrong IS the basis itself of MORALITY. Objectivism is very precise when it comes to distinguish right from wrong. To follow Reed’s guidance I would have to give up Objectivism. Let him try to whitewash his beliefs. I won’t for I stand by reason!

I will now point out the interconnected relation of the three points mentioned, proceeding from Economy to Ethics. In the area of economy conservatives are not at all interested in following the decisions of a free market, a market where each consumer determines what he needs, what he requires, what he wants to buy (thus exercising a direct daily vote through each item he acquires), but a controlled market, a market where conservatives determine what buyers can buy or are forbidden to. The related two additional points – biblical and moral – back this rule of command, control and obedience to the master, a position identical to what socialists adhere to on the political level, which confirms how and why conservatives and socialists always stick together whenever and wherever they find the way to share their power over each of society’s naïve individuals. Basically, both sides adhere to the same principles of command. As Ayn Rand/ Nathaniel Branden named them, they are the empowered Attilas and the Witchdoctors.

Biblically this is proved by the fact that religion articulates in its own way these commands. The biblical laws reek of command and cruelty over a population that is not respected as individuals, but treated as a herd. This same principle is upheld as well by socialists and only when unrest among the population endangers it, both parties become cautious, in an effort to keep their dominance under the new circumstances.

Is such behavior moral? Neither conservatives nor socialists can be termed as moral. They stand against what Objectivists recognize as moral. Thus, by opposing morality for what it is, they uphold the standpoint that morality is nothing more then the rule of commands originating mainly from whims and their purpose of keeping a firm control over the reins of dominance. The main religious views correspond to this. Just have a look at Genesis and remember what Jesus “father” forbade Adam and Eve to do? Only when they decided to taste the fruit of the knowledge of right and wrong did they become truly humans. The legend teaches those aware that they began to voluntarily use the faculty of reason, which was prohibited in that cage that had been imposed on them as a “paradise”. By denying obedience they reached freedom. This rebellion against the imposed master is strongly symbolic. It marked the end of slavery. Now they were proceeding on a free market, the free market of ideas. And this is precisely what conservatives and socialists (both basically merely variants of the same adherence) fear most: individual freedom, personal choices. Individual liberation is to them a frightening novelty, a different way of behavior, a new outcome of evolution, the point at which those within mankind that have reached the status of full humanity, constitute a separate species that has finally freed itself from instinct (obedience) to act now on the basis of reason. The confrontation among these two groups is, thus, unavoidable and terrible, for precisely at this point will mankind’s demise or survival be decided. So you see, Teresa, here’s the reason why Objectivists cannot side neither with conservatives nor with socialists. We ARE a different species. Ayn Rand knew this, and, thus, she classified those who are halfway between instinct and reason as “missing links,” something in-between using reason for some practical purposes but otherwise holding to instincts and irrationality and the immorality of paying obedience to masters, a steadfast adherence to governmental “planning”. This is, of course, totally contrary to Objectivism.

I understand that these are sufficient motives not to follow Reed’s intentions to justify Christianity as the basis of Capitalism, for Christianity isn’t the basis of it, but Objectivism is.

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

From personal experience, an additional suggestion to Objectivists who are eager to promote Objectivism: Of course we have to contact everybody to find those who are willing to lend an ear to our position, but it’s useless and senseless to lose time with those who, from the very start, present a full opposition and have no interest in learning something new. On the contrary, spend all the time needed with those who show interest for what you are divulging. The method I use to separate so-to-speak the wheat from the chaff is to pay attention to incoming queries. Here’s fertile ground, but be aware to not exceed your exposition. Remember Scheherazade, who kept the king eager to hear her disclosing a riddle she had set up just at the time of interrupting her story. There are also those who present a full opposition at the beginning and later come back, now eager to find out more of what you’re ready to tell. Present her/him with one of Rand’s books and/or invite him to a small talk meeting with other people eager to promote Objectivism. Spreading the good news can be a nerve-racking and exhausting job, but once you’ve reached success it’s just fabulous. 

FEE’s position, as well as some practically unnoticed deeds in relation with the free market that are most significant, is basically and practically the essence of the conservative’s final purpose, while pretending to show what they aren’t and hiding what they are: like the Fabians, wolves under a sheep’s skin.

Manfred, it is very difficult to follow a sentence like that. When I strip off the phrases to pare it down to subject and predicate, it says, "FEE's position is the essence of the conservative's final purpose."  Not that that is so clear.  After all, we might still be trying to find out for ourselves what FEE's position is, or which position of theirs you are referring to.  And even if we have some fuzzy understanding of what you meant by that subject, the predicate is equally fuzzy.  What do you mean by "Conservative's final purpose"?  And if we figure out what was in your mind for that, what is it's essence?

If you were to say, instead, "The religous right's purpose is to use the government to enforce religious beliefs while pretending to support free enterprise," I'd not only understand you, but I'd totally agree with you.  However, your words don't tell me enough to know if that is what you meant.
--------------------

As evidence of "FEE's position" being "the essence of the conservative's final purpose" - which is still not clear - you quoted Mises as follows:

“The intervention is a decree issued directly or indirectly, by the authority in charge of society’s administrative apparatus of coercion and compulsion which forces the entrepreneurs and capitalists to employ some of the factors of production in a way different from what they would have resorted to if they were only obeying the dictates of the market. Such a decree can be either an order to do something or an order not to do something. It is not required that the decree be issued directly by the established and generally recognized authority itself. It may happen that some other agencies arrogate to themselves the power to issue such orders or prohibitions and to enforce them by an apparatus of violent coercion and oppression of their own. If the recognized government tolerates such procedures or even supports them by the employment of its governmental police apparatus, matters stand as if the government itself had acted. If the government is opposed to other agencies’ violent action, but does not succeed in suppressing it by means of its own armed forces, although it would like to suppress it, anarchy results.”

Are you are misreading Ludwig?  His few sentences are a description of government intervention. He says it is in the form of a decree issued by the government which forces entrepreneurs and capitalists to something they otherwise wouldn't have done.  He says it is either an order to do something, or an order to refrain from doing something.  You don't disagree with that do you? He hasn't said it is good or bad - just that this is what he is talking about (government agency performing coercion and compulsion directed at business).

He goes on to say, "It is not required that the decree be issued directly by the established and generally recognized authority itself. It may happen that some other agencies arrogate to themselves the power to issue such orders or prohibitions and to enforce them by an apparatus of violent coercion and oppression of their own."  I'm not entirely clear what 'agencies' he is referring to - only those that are part of government, or agencies that are private, but the logic is clear. The logic is that if someone acts in this interventionist fashion and the government allows it, then it is as if the government were to sanction the act.  One example might be when the EPA goes beyond what was authorized by legislation and neither the administration nor congress stops it, then it becomes as if were authorized. That seems to be a reasonable interpretation given the next sentence: "If the recognized government tolerates such procedures or even supports them by the employment of its governmental police apparatus, matters stand as if the government itself had acted."  It might apply to the pre-WWII actions of the brown shirts who were not official government, but the government in effect sanctioned them.

Mises then concludes by saying, "If the government is opposed to other agencies’ violent action, but does not succeed in suppressing it by means of its own armed forces, although it would like to suppress it, anarchy results.” The meaning here is simple. If a government does not enforce its laws, then it is in effect not a government.

------------

You quote Rothbard, an anarchist.  Would I be wrong to assume that you, as an advocate of Objectivism, and a supporter of Ayn Rand agree with her when she said "Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction..."  She was very strongly opposed to anarchy and a staunch supporter of a government that acted to prevent violations of its citizen's individual rights, and the retaliation against those who had violated individual rights.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 4/03, 9:39pm)

Thanks, Teresa.

Just for the record, for whether it’s read or not lacks any importance at this stage:

1 - My statement opposing Reed’s article as a typical believer’s subterfuge to slide in misleading facts to the unaware reader is complete beyond Mrs. Summerlee Isanhart’s claim that I “ignored” what he said about “combing Scriptures with a fine-tooth comb and find nary a word from Jesus that endorses the forcible redistribution of wealth by political authorities". There wasn’t much that was necessary to proof it isn’t so, so I opposed his claim by merely ADDING to what Reed states that Jesus said, what Jesus said to all those that either followed him or were still unsure of wanting to follow him. What is it that I added? Simply: “In Matthew 19:23-26, Jesus says, ‘Truly I tell you, it will be hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.’ And here Reed silences the following sentence stated by Jesus, which is the most significant part of the statement: ‘Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.’ Parallel versions appear in Mark10:24-27, and Luke18:24-27. It’s easy to recognize why Reed silences this part.”

This is the equivalent of a command to the undecided to give up all eartly goods and become paupers, if they want to enter “heaven”. Moreover, if the undecided don’t do what Jesus said, he fall directly into the category of what Jesus also said: “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me and for me scatters.” This looks very much to the parts in the “Bible” where those who are against a certain position or neutral to it are subject to the law of the sword and smitten. History is very clear about this and I even gave some examples, directly out of the “Bible”. As the saying goes: A word to the wise is enough, but it seems that to some what I stated wasn’t at all clear.

2 – It’s totally unimportant whether the Ludwig von Mises Institute or FEE cut the passage on the “Crony Capitalism” I mention from Mises “Human Action”. The fuzz is not about who made the cuts but WHY they were made and WHY does FEE present the scholar version – that doesn’t contain the paragraph I mentioned – and not the original one. Besides, Mr. Wolfer insists in talking about various versions, while the original one can be read fully at http://www.cmi-gold-silver.com/pdf/humanaction.pdf. Moreover, he states that it’s “probably not worth the time it takes to read it”. Why not? Does he want to induce the readers not to look at what Mises said?

Besides, when it comes to Rothbard’s comment of “Human Action” I never cared whether he was an anarcho or not, for I never paid any attention to this but only to the comment itself as such, which contained the important point.

Further on, I never confused “Read” with “Reed,” but merely mentioned the evident fact that just as Leonard Read didn’t follow Ayn Rand’s wise comment in her letter of 1946 to him, neither did Lawrence W. Reed, who probably isn’t even aware of the existence of said letter. But even if he would be, he also wouldn't follow her good advice.

3 – The whole recent posts after mine at No. 8 evidence an open intention to whitewash conservatives as “promoters of individual liberty”. Since I don’t regularly follow the content of RoR, I was surprised as I read on the “Messages out of the last 50” that Mr. Joseph Rowlands himself had published an article on the subject on January 15, 2015 “Conservatives Are Not Friends of Freedom”, reaching the same conclusion as I – and much, much earlier - Ayn Rand herself did.

4 – Well, perhaps Mr. Wolfer doesn’t understand well the sentence of mine he mentions in Post 10, but it’s really utterly clear.

I think all this suffices as a statement for the record, to which I could have added a few more items. For reasons not too arcane to me, I know how to recognize that there are several people at RoR and its forums that dislike my participation on this webpage, which is the reason why I keep silent, excepting those few times when I consider to have a few important things to communicate. I will refrain from now on permanently to participate, and understand that my latest piece (“There are no gods”) will also remain unpublished.

(Edited by Manfred F. Schieder on 4/06, 11:46am)

@ Steve Wolfer: OK, let’s shake hands and start anew. While I don’t agree with everything you wrote in Post 15, I do understand your position. Btw, Mises was,as you would view it, in a position similar to mine, being of German origin and writing English… but then, come to think of, RoR and those participating with it, follow a philosophy developed by a Russian AND Jew writing English. If this goes on, the Objectivist world will be a real mess …

I will specifically enter here your request for an answer to “By the way, you never answered the question about whether or not believe in anarchy.” There’s a perfect German word as my answer: Jein, which is a cook up of Yes and No. There are several articles of mine that touch this theme, for I’ve never been satisfied with Rand’s idea that a government (You will read my comment on this in one of two articles I will mention below – I’ve published these articles also in other languages and not merely on the Internet) is needed to protect the citizen, nor with the anarchist position of a free-for-all-scramble. So I thought about it for quite a long time, and then I caught an idea which, at least as far as I know, never came up elsewhere. The idea I developed eliminates government as it is known and establishes an anarchy that no anarchist would call as such and would disgust Rothbard as well as all other anarchists. You see, it could be called, tongue-in-cheek, a “Jein administration” (Hahahaaa!).

You will probably not agree with it, but, at least, it will give you a view of my way of peacefully and productively solving a problem. I explained it in a two-sequence article: “Preparing for Capitalism” and “Implementing Capitalism”. RoR published both but neither one nor the other made a great hullabaloo. If you feel like doing so, please read it. It’s also contained in my book “Ayn Rand, I and the Universe,” of which RoR published chapterwise a primeval version (There’s an updated version available now, but there’s no need to bother about it).

Please view the articles mentioned above at: http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Schieder/Preparing_for_Capitalism.shtml and http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Schieder/Implementing_Capitalism.shtml

@ Steve Wolfer: As my way of considering a new mode of defense structure to protect the rights of the individual in an Objectivist society, I speak of „Administration“, not of „Government,“ for the reason given in the articles I mentioned in Post 16. I consider that people are far too obsessively hanging to “There must be a government” and there is no need at all to do so, particularly not in a country such as the United States, for it wasn’t created by a government or legislature. The Declaration of Independence was mainly the work of just one person (Jefferson). Precisely Americans should pay the proper attention to such a great feat. After all, this was the beginning of the development of a great nation, and what this nation accomplished, in spite of so many doing all they can to make it stumble and fall, isn’t at all bad and despicable, right? At least, that’s the way I see it.

Now let’s turn to my administration project and your insistence to have a legislation to set up the required laws. From my articles you will notice that I shift the organization and management itself mainly and just about exclusively to the insurance companies who have, after all, been always involved in protecting the life and goods of the individuals. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but while there have always been wars between countries, religions, etc., so far I haven’t heard of any insurance companies wars. Matter of fact, Wikipedia doesn’t even carry an article of such a contraption, for whenever insurance companies disagree on something they meet, probably talk things over at lunch, and have some convention or pow wow where matters are civilly straightened out, an agreement reached (as a law or whatever you may call it) and mutual behavior regulated. No weapons are involved; no shoot-out complicates matters, and all of this teaches a lesson of peaceful, productive and profitable behavior. Sometimes certain conflicts come up, but these originate mainly at decisions imposed through government legislation that oblige the insurance companies to find some roundabout way to keep business operating.

I’m sure that other problems will also come up, but I think that the present United States would be in a much better situation if there wouldn’t be so much government interference with peaceful and productive individuals. Very specifically, I consider that my “administration proposal” would provide a very good basis to enhance the growth of wellbeing in any country that would apply it. Perhaps I’m wrong, but history provides an ample basis to favor my idea. Well, of course, it’s not government, as Rand would have liked, nor anarchy, as Rothbard would have had it, not even some middle of the road procedure. It’s just a thing different from everything else.