Everyone is selfish, even non-Objectivists

Thanks, Teresa. I think Sam and Dale have some issues they need to work out

Post 81

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 6:42am

Bill:

the borrower gets something -- the money to make a purchase sooner rather than later

Of course, but the hidden cost to the borrower is the loss of flexibility in making choices in life.

As well, any competent financial planner giving counsel to clients will tell them the first priority for them is to pay off their credit cards. Why? Because there is no investment that provides the same interest rate that credit cards charge. The most secure investments nowadays run, say, 5% while credit card interest is around 10-12%. It's 100% sure (apart from declaring bankruptcy) that you're going to have to pay up.

So, by merely having a period of austerity while paying off your credit card and never having to incur further consumer debt, you can improve your financial well-being to the extent of 12% of your former debt for the rest of your life. Instant gratification seems to grabbed hold in the culture with the advent of easy credit. Perhaps it's not an accident that Mike, Dale and I seem to be the oldest of the posters on this topic and who have a conservative view of personal finance.

Sam

(Edited by Sam Erica on 10/17, 8:27am)

(Edited by Sam Erica on 10/17, 8:43am)

Post 82

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 10:03am

I wrote, "So, if someone offers you a lower price, because you're a senior and he thinks he can attract your business better than if he offered you a higher price, are you saying that if you accept the lower price, you're acknowledging that you're his inferior?? Seriously." Sam replied,

But this offer is based on the generalization that seniors require special consideration.

"Require" special consideration in what respect? Yes, it's based on the generalization by the seller that seniors require his special consideration in order to attract their business. But that's true of any form of price discrimination. Price discrimination is special consideration. I wrote, "Suppose that the owner of an Indian restaurant wants to attract more non-Indian patrons, so he offers them a discount. Would you refuse to pay the discounted price?

No, because I would assume that he wanted to introduce Indian food to a broader ethnic group and not because of any perception that non-Indians weren't capable of paying the regular price.

Now we're covering old ground, because I already addressed this objection. Your reply to me (in Post 66) was, "You've missed the point entirely. It has nothing to do with money." Well, apparently I didn't miss the point entirely, because it does have something to do with money. Your objection is that it's patronizing for a seller to offer you a lower price in order to attract your business, if he doesn't think that you're willing or able to pay the higher price. How is this patronizing?? He wants your business and doesn't think he'll get it at the higher price, so he offers you a price that is more attractive. By that logic, stores like T.J. Maxx are patronizing, because they don't cater to the same clientele as Neiman Marcus.

I wrote, "How does being a beneficiary of price discrimination rob you of your efficacy and independence?"

It is an acknowledgement that you, yourself, also believe that you are not efficacious and independent.

No, it isn't! There is no acknowledgement that you lack efficacy or independence if you take advantage of a discounted price in order to buy something which the seller thinks you'd be less likely to buy at the higher price.

But let's suppose that you couldn't buy it at the higher price, because you don't have enough money. In that case, are you less financially efficacious than if you had more money? Yes, but this should have no adverse implications for your independence or your self-esteem -- unless your self-esteem depends on how much money you make.

I asked, "What's wrong with borrowing money? It's way of obtaining goods and services sooner rather than later."

A loan is an encumbrance, i.e. a constraint, by definition. Those who value independence and freedom shun encumbrances. It constrains their options and flexibility in dealing with life's little vicissitudes.

What are you talking about? A loan enhances your options. With a loan, you have the option and the flexibility to buy something now instead of having to wait for it in the future. Without the option of borrowing money at interest, you're constrained to buying only what you have the money for right now. If there were no loans, many people could not afford to buy a home, to go to college, or to buy a car that they need for transportation to and from work. Banks and financial institutions are an important part of the economic system, because they increase people's options and provide much needed financial support and flexibility.

Capitalism, as an economic system, doesn't depend on consumer credit � consumer credit just grew out of it. Capitalism was thriving long before the advent of credit cards. If all consumer credit were voluntarily and gradually diminished, the benefits of capitalism would still accrue.

Yes, but the benefits wouldn't be as great. Credit cards have made my life much easier than it otherwise would be. For example, moving is a big expense, which I may not able to afford at the time I need to move. Credit can enable me to move when I need to, and then to pay off the loan when it's more convenient.

But, putting it all in perspective, there's more to life than trying to obtain some ideal of perfection of independence and there has to be compromise with the practices of the day.

Sam, it's not clear to me what you mean by "independence." Rand defines the term as follows:

"Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it -- that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life -- that the vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind to the mind of another, the acceptance of an authority over your brain, the acceptance of his assertions as facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as middle-man between your consciousness and your existence."

In other words, Rand defines "independence" as independent judgment. You're employing a different definition, obviously -- which is fine, but you've never defined it, so what exactly do you mean by "independence" in this context? It doesn't seem to be financial independence, because to take advantage of price discrimination is not to surrender your financial independence. You're still paying your own way. So how would you define the term?

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer on 10/17, 10:07am)

Post 83

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 11:00am

Bill:

I'm getting rather tired of this very long thread. I think I've expressed my opinions and everyone is free to pursue whatever personal financial strategy they wish and it appears that the position I take is more conservative than others take.

Your position is that debt does not constrain your life � it liberates it and "Debt is not the slavery of the free." If debt liberates you then why not take your credit limit to the max? Buy everything you have a whim for. The answer is that you will have no discretionary income � everything is spoken for so, when any unforeseen incident at all comes along, you are in deep doodoo. If you have somewhat less than the maximum consumer debt the argument is similar except your situation is correspondingly less dire.

I can't make my argument clearer than that and if you can't agree that consumer debt lessens your options we'll just have to agree to disagree.

As far as the discrimination and patronizing issue goes, I maintain that whenever the government or a vendor assumes that fully-functional adults cannot do for themselves what they clearly should be able to do then it is detrimental to society. As well, there is a subtle price to be paid in accepting that unwarranted assistance. As I said before, the principle is a general one and isn't restricted to money, although money seems to be the most prevalent form.

As far as the independence issue goes, you can use whatever definition you want, but when you are beholden to someone you are not independent.

My syllogism is:

Objectivists value freedom
Debt decreases freedom
Therefore Objectivists should shun debt.

Sam

Post 84

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 1:13pm

Your position is that debt does not constrain your life � it liberates it and "Debt is not the slavery of the free." If debt liberates you then why not take your credit limit to the max? Buy everything you have a whim for. The answer is that you will have no discretionary income � everything is spoken for so, when any unforeseen incident at all comes along, you are in deep doodoo. If you have somewhat less than the maximum consumer debt the argument is similar except your situation is correspondingly less dire.

Sam,

My position is that the opportunity to borrow money gives you options that you would not otherwise have. But like anything else, how well it serves you depends on how you use it. Because I support the opportunity to borrow money and think that it has certain advantages does not mean that I believe it should be abused and that you should, therefore, run up your credit to a point that is counterproductive for your life and your finances.

A car has certain advantages, but that doesn't mean that if you own one, you should drive it recklessly and irresponsibly. The argument that you're making against debt can be made against any valuable part of your life.

Dining at restaurants is a value, but it too can be abused if you eat out at every meal and don't have enough money left to pay your rent or your mortgage. That doesn't mean that restaurants are a constraint on your freedom. I could multiply examples, but I think you get the point.

As far as the discrimination and patronizing issue goes, I maintain that whenever the government or a vendor assumes that fully-functional adults cannot do for themselves what they clearly should be able to do then it is detrimental to society. As well, there is a subtle price to be paid in accepting that unwarranted assistance. As I said before, the principle is a general one and isn't restricted to money, although money seems to be the most prevalent form.

What do you mean, "should" be able to do? It's not an issue of "should" or "shouldn't." The less money people have, the less inclined they'll be to purchase certain goods or services. If a vendor knows this and wants to profit off their patronage, there is nothing wrong with his charging them a lower price. This is not detrimental to society. On the contrary, it is beneficial, because it increases the economic benefit both to producer and consumer. The producer benefits, because he gets more business and increases his profits, and the consumer benefits, because he gets the good or service and increases his utility or satisfaction. The relationship is one of mutual consent to mutual advantage, which is the hallmark of free exchange in a capitalist society. One of the ways in which capitalism benefits the poor is precisely through the practice of price discrimination.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 10/17, 1:21pm)

Post 85

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 4:35pm

This is not true in Michigan, Sam:

Wrt the hypothetical car insurance of Dale's � this is a different kettle of fish. The mandatory insurance isn't protecting you. It's protecting the person you have injured; thus it's not patronizing.

In Michigan, compulsory insurance also covers and protects the policy owner. I'm sure this is true in other states as well. Even the cheapest of policies here cover medical expenses of all those who may be injured in an accident.

Glenn's analogy holds true. So, maintaining your principle would mean paying for your own injury out of your own pocket, while also paying for insurance coverage of the same.

Post 86

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 5:07pm

Sam:

The unmistakable message is that you aren't as capable as the rest of society and need special consideration.

Bill:

Suppose that the owner of an Indian restaurant wants to attract more non-Indian patrons, so he offers them a discount. Would you refuse to pay the discounted price, because by doing so you're acknowledging that you're his inferior? And if not, then how is this any different from the senior discount? You say that your refusal to accept the senior discount has nothing to do with money (i.e., with your level of income). If not, then's what the difference?

Sam:

No, because I would assume that he wanted to introduce Indian food to a broader ethnic group and not because of any perception that non-Indians weren't capable of paying the regular price.

I don't see any difference either, Bill. Either one is "incapable" of paying full price, or incapable of appreciating ethnic cuisine. I don't see any difference between the two uses of discriminatory pricing.

Sam,

There are lots of reasons merchants and service givers offer senior discounts, the least of which is the perception that seniors are poor folks. Business owners that I know do it as a show of respect. It's a way to drum up business as well as saying "thanks" for everything you've done (fighting wars, keeping people employed, innovating, raising a great family, whatever.)

Cops often get their meals at a discount, or even for free. So do firefighters, and military personnel stationed nearby or passing through. It's a show of appreciation and respect, which has nothing at all to do with who is or isn't "capable."

Post 87

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 6:46pm

Teresa:

From the NM DMV regulations, emphasis mine:

All states have a minimum amount of liability insurance that each driver must carry on a vehicle that they operate on public roads and highways. There are almost no exceptions to the rule, and the penalties for not having insurance�or not having enough�are hard on the wallet. New Mexico law sets the minimum levels of liability coverage that motorists must maintain:

$20,000 per person for bodily injury to or death of one person
$50,000 per accident for bodily injury to or death of two or more people
$10,000 per accident for property damage

There is no requirement for other insurance.

The requirement is clearly to compensate the injured party. I completely agree with the regulation because I want to be compensated if I am injured, and am willing to pay up in a like fashion. I would guess that Dale would agree. So this isn't a case of me being forced to pay, even though it is a regulation to do so. The other difference with a retirement plan that one is forced to contribute to is that no third party is involved.

I think I'm done in commenting on the age discrimination thing. My reaction is, "I'm fully capable of paying the regular price and if you are to maintain your profit levels you're making others pay more." If you turn around the US Indian restaurant scenario to the proprietors giving discounts to Indians I think you'd perhaps interpret that they were not giving Indians a discount at all but instead were charging non-Indians more. In both of the above cases you could come to the conclusion that there was no discount at all and that the other group was being discriminated against by being charged higher prices.

Of course, the underlying objection of mine is that the discrimination reeks of collectivism.

I'm done on this thread. Carry on if you wish.

Sam

(Edited by Sam Erica on 10/17, 7:10pm)

Post 88

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 8:31pm

I do *not* have House Insurance and I have *not* purchased Car Insurance from an Insurance Company.

Reference:   http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.29.550

Reference: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.30

I deposited $60k in https://www.becu.org/, filled out and got notarized some forms from http://tre.wa.gov/ and created my own "Insurance Identification Card" as per instructions from http://dol.wa.gov/

Made the card on photo paper, same size as a normal insurance card so it fits in my billfold. I have not been stopped my a Patrolman yet but am looking forward to it. Maybe I will remove one of my tail lights to give him an excuse to stop me. I assume that I will have to educate him and possibly the Judge he sends me to. Or they will educate me.

Insurance is a modern day example of communism.  Not Socialism, not Fascism, not the Welfare State but Communism. Communism occurs when we have evolved to a higher stage where each of us will work to our maximum ability and only use what we need. As the state withers away for there will be no requirement for protection of private property.

Reason about it. The only way you are going to get your lifetime insurance payments back is to be less careful, less lucky, or less healthy than the other folks in your insurance pool.  I am more careful, luckier, and far more healthy that other folks so being a Very Selfish Person I am not a member of any insurance pool. At least not voluntarily.    Dale

Post 89

Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 8:42am

Dale Reed wrote:

I do *not* have House Insurance and I have *not* purchased Car Insurance from an Insurance Company.
I deposited $60k in https://www.becu.org/, filled out and got notarized some forms from http://tre.wa.gov/ and created my own "Insurance Identification Card" as per instructions from http://dol.wa.gov/

In other words, you are "self-insuring."

Insurance is a modern day example of communism.

I guess that makes you a communist. :-)

Have you ever bought an extended warranty, e.g. on a car or computer? If yes, I guess that makes you a communist. :-)

More seriously, following are two definitions. There is no necessary connection between them.
insurance - a system of protection against loss in which a number of individuals agree to pay certain sums (premiums) periodically for a guarantee that they will be compensated under stipulated conditions for any specified loss by fire, accident, death, etc.
communism - any economic theory or system based on the ownership of all property by the community as a whole

Most insurance is voluntary. It protects against unexpected losses. From the insured's perspective, it is a trade of a small, certain amount for a larger, contingent amount. It is rational to insure if one cannot afford to self-insure.

What is your view of financial options, e.g. a put option on a stock? Are they beasts of communism, too? I think not; they are insurance-like and a significant part of a free capital market.

By the way, do you own your home? What will happen if you are in an auto accident and successfully sued for much more than $60,000?

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 10/18, 8:53am)

Post 90

Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 11:21am

We did not have insurance on our home or vehicles for decades. Lots of hauling and adventuring with many neighborhood children, climbing our tall cedar trees, trips to the beach...

Then auto insurance became mandantory.

So I bought some insurance. But then PEMCO started increasng the price dramatically until it became $600/year for about the same liability as my present BECU CD. But the CD I earns 5% per year for me where PEMCO gets to keep my $600.

Not a reasonable investment, especially not for a capitalist like I am who does not want to join with commies who are looking for someone else to pay their bills.   Dale

PS Please tell where I can learn what Atlas Points are and how I can Sanction(maybe the same thing as Atlas Points?) other folks posts.   Thanks, trying to learn how to play the Reason game.

---
$ dale-reed@worldnet.att.net Seattle, Washington $

Post 91

Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 11:41am

Please tell where I can learn what Atlas Points are and how I can Sanction(maybe the same thing as Atlas Points?) other folks posts.

http://rebirthofreason.com/About/AtlasFAQ.shtml
The check mark is to the left of "Reply" at the top of a comment.

Post 92

Friday, October 19, 2007 - 11:18am

Sam wrote,

I think I'm done in commenting on the age discrimination thing. My reaction is, "I'm fully capable of paying the regular price and if you are to maintain your profit levels you're making others pay more."

No seller maintains his profit levels by �making� others pay more. Unlike the government, a business is not a coercive institution; it cannot �make� anyone do anything.

Secondly, sellers do not offer seniors (or other groups) discounts for charitable or altruistic reasons. I thought I made that clear in my previous posts. They do not charge them lower prices at the expense of their profits (thus requiring that they charge their regular customers more, which they couldn�t do in any case, because they�d lose money). They charge the lower price to those who would not otherwise buy their product, in order to attract more business and increase their profits. It goes without saying that they continue to charge their other customers the regular price. Of course, they would not lower their price to seniors if the marginal revenue they received from each additional sale fell below their marginal cost � i.e., if it caused them to lose money. They would do it only if it increased their net revenue.

A good example is a movie theater in which the marginal cost of filling each additional seat is zero. The theater owner who fills only half his seats at the regular price could fill more seats and increase his total profit by charging seniors a lower price, thereby increasing his marginal revenue at no increase in his marginal cost. The theater owner does not increase the price to his regular customers in order to �compensate� for the lower prices to seniors, since (a) he�s already charging his regular customers the highest price that he thinks they will pay and would lose money if he increased the price, and (b) he doesn�t lose any money by charging seniors less, since he couldn't get them in at the regular price. That�s why he�s charging them a lower price to begin with; it�s the maximum price that he thinks they will pay in order to attend the movie.

That�s what price discrimination is: it�s charging particular individuals or groups the highest price they�re willing to pay. In doing so, the seller gets the patronage of customers who refuse to pay the regular price, without losing the patronage of those who are willing to pay it. He gets the best of both worlds, and makes more money than if he were to charge every customer the same price.

Of course, the underlying objection of mine is that the discrimination reeks of collectivism.

In fact, it�s just the opposite. Price discrimination rests on the premise of individualism � on the fact that individuals differ in their ability and willingness to pay. The only reason sellers charge a uniform price is that in many case they have no convenient, cost-effective way to identify people's different demand prices. The transaction costs of haggling with each individual buyer to determine the most that he or she would be willing to pay are simply too high.

However, there are certain easily identifiable groups � like teens or the elderly -- who will tend to buy a product only at a reduced price. So producers can make money by offering these groups a discount. Also, the practice of discount coupons is another way to separate customers with different demand prices. If you�re a poor mother with a large family, you�ll take the time to clip coupons and shop for bargains. Wealthy customers wouldn�t waste their time clipping coupons. So poorer customers with a lower demand price will self-select in buying products at a discount that they wouldn�t buy or wouldn�t buy as much of at the regular price.

Discount department stores are another way to gain the patronage of poorer customers. If there were no discount stores, clothiers wouldn�t make as much money and poorer customers wouldn�t be able to buy as many clothes for themselves and their families. Wealthy customers don�t shop at discount stores and could care less whether or not they exist. But they exist, because entrepreneurs perceived a market for lower-priced apparel, and sought to profit from it.

- Bill

Post 93

Friday, October 19, 2007 - 4:48pm

In the Good Old Days youngsters honored older people for their Been There Done That wisdom. Unfortunately organizations like http://www.aarp.org/ paint us as unfortunate victims in need of help.

Whenever you spend your money you are "voting" for the service or product with your pocketbook. And especially in the Information Age your votes are being counted.

If you are *not* a victim but a hero as I am then I expect that you will not accept Senior Discounts.    Thanks,    Dale

PS A useful book is "The Politicization of Society," 1977, Edited by Kenneth S. Templeton.   Available from www.mises.org for $15.   Sorry no Senior Discount.

---
$ dale-reed@worldnet.att.net Seattle, Washington $

Post 94

Friday, October 19, 2007 - 10:44pm

Dale wrote,

Whenever you spend your money you are "voting" for the service or product with your pocketbook. And especially in the Information Age your votes are being counted.

If you are *not* a victim but a hero as I am then I expect that you will not accept Senior Discounts.

Dale, are you reading anything I've been saying on this subject? If you are, then how can you make statements like the above? I don't know how I can make it any clearer that senior discounts are not based on viewing seniors as victims. They are based on the recognition that seniors tend to have less money than non-seniors and that by charging them discounts, a seller can gain business from them that he would not otherwise get if he charged them the regular price.

Just because you're willing and able to pay more does not mean that there is anything wrong with paying what the seller is charging. He is charging the highest price he thinks people will pay. If it happens to be lower than the price that you'd be willing to pay, so much the better for you. It is silly to pay a higher price, if he is asking a lower one.

I'm sure there are many products you buy whose price is lower than the price that you'd be willing to pay for them if you had to. In these cases, do you feel obligated to pay more than the asking price, just because you'd be willing to pay it if the seller were to charge it? If not, then why in the case of senior discounts do you feel obligated to pay more than the asking price, just because you'd be willing to pay it if the seller were to charge it? What's the difference?

- Bill

Post 95

Saturday, October 20, 2007 - 10:33am

http://library.osu.edu/sites/archives/polar/oralhist/interview.php?cat=interviews&page=reed.htm

Bill, it is very important(to me) that you understand my last post. Actually all of my posts because I am trying to convince all of you that Ayn Rand's definition of "selfish" was different that most folks. My choice of Geezer Discounts may have been a poor example but now I am stuck with it.

Let me put my last post in a different way.

Briefly, there are other solutions to the rapidly developing(all over the world) Geezer Problem. Instead of youngsters being forced to carry oldsters on their economic backs they could simply vote to kill them. Privately and Officially. Make them feel bad so they will kill themselves. Whatever.

I recommend that you youngsters save your money for your old age and discourage discrimination on the basis of age.

I am attempting to tell you that as a Great Big Admirer(but not a Worshiper) of Ayn Rand I am using *some* of her ideas to improve the rest of my life here on earth and I recommend that others do also. For their enlightened self interests personally, socially, and politically. Dale

PS Bill, I understand what you have been saying. You need not try to explain again. By and large I agree with you but they are not on thread. At least my thread.

Unless you are trying to convince me that Ayn Rand means "Selfish" in the conventional way. If so I do not understand your interpretation. As I said before I am a simple engineer and not a Philosopher so maybe I will never understand what you and and Ayn are saying. If so I apologize for butting into the thread in the first place.

Sorry about that. Story of my life. I am kind of a maverick and one example is the first two years of my engineering career briefly described at:

Gets even more interesting and I wish I could write a book. Unfortunately some of the best parts I cannot not tell about because of Government Security Concerns.

"In the animal kingdom, the rule is:

eat or be eaten; in the human kingdom:

define or be defined."

Thomas Szasz, libertarian psychiatrist http://www.szasz.com

"The Untamed Tongue A Dissenting Dictionary" page 55.

First printing 1990 by Open Court Publishing Company.

---
$ dale-reed@worldnet.att.net Seattle, Washington $

Post 96

Saturday, October 20, 2007 - 11:34pm

Bill, it is very important(to me) that you understand my last post. Actually all of my posts because I am trying to convince all of you that Ayn Rand's definition of "selfish" was different [than] that [of] most folks.

Dale, Ayn Rand's definition of "selfishness" is "concern with one's own interests." If you're concerned with you own interests, then why would you want to pay more for a good or service if the seller is charging you less?!

- Bill

Post 97

Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 7:42pm

Bill

...senior discounts are not based on viewing seniors as victims. They are based on the recognition that seniors tend to have less money than non-seniors and that by charging them discounts, a seller can gain business from them that he would not otherwise get if he charged them the regular price.

Right on Bill. Price discrimination maximizes profits, it is not an effort to be charitable or treat some individuals as "victims". In my industry we couldn't survive without actively engaging in this important economic principle. Senior discounts, corporate rates, AAA rates, distressed inventory rates, I could go on all day on the number of discounts offered by hotels. I myself would take advantage of any discount available to me. Sorry but I'm not willing to pay one cent more than a seller is willing to sell to me for whatever reason, whether it's a senior discount or a discount for people with brown hair, I really could not give a crap. To not take advantage of that and just give them more money? Then I'd consider myself a victim. I value my wealth. Heck whenever I can I always haggle for the lowest price I can get any good or service I'm looking for!!!

Post 98

Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 10:44pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Under capitalism the customer determines the price.

Are you telling me that you use:

http://tinyurl.com/

http://rebirthofreason.com

without making contribution$?

On my afternoon walks for exercise and boomerang throwing I walk through a beautiful garden with colorful flowers, interesting trees and other plants, and a waterfall that I partially paid for. I did not have to make a donation but I enjoy looking and listening to the waterfall confirming that I do not believe in free lunches.

Yes my Daddy shopped various dentists to find the cheapest price to fix his three son's teeth.

Yes I have negotiated a cheaper price at my dentist because I pay cash rather than use a credit card or insurance. SameOsameO for the shade-tree mechanic that keeps my diesel 4x4 humming.

As a selfish, greedy, capitalist I attempt to buy low and sell high. As a general rule I search for the lowest price but I also consider if there are any other issues in the transaction that are important to me. I have listed some of these for specific cases in previous posts.

I have always wondered about Ayn's emphasis on Objective Truth when in fact capitalism rests on Subjective Decisions by individual consumers. Dale

---
$ dale-reed@worldnet.att.net Seattle, Washington $

Post 99

Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 11:21pm