RoR: Forum

This ties together with -- and may even be the foundation for -- these other quotes:

http://rebirthofreason.com/inc/Galleries/Quotes/1843_t.shtml

http://rebirthofreason.com/inc/Galleries/Quotes/1851_t.shtml

http://rebirthofreason.com/inc/Galleries/Quotes/1852_t.shtml

Ed

Post 1

Sunday, July 29, 2012 - 9:34am

His "market value" may depend on others, e.g. what others are willing to pay for his products or services.

As for his "moral worth," that judgment will vary from person to person with freedom of association dictating who will or will not transact with him.

If Hobbes wants to use this idea to "hobble" the principle that the individual is ultimately an end in himself rather than merely the means to the ends of others, then that is bad news.

I have never read Hobbes so cannot comment further.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/29, 9:48am)

Post 2

Sunday, July 29, 2012 - 9:55am

Luke,

In a sentence, Hobbes was an anti-individualist who thought of men as savage beasts who needed to be tricked -- by a Noble Lie from a Machiavellian Philosopher King -- into living under a totalitarian dictatorship: being told that it was for their own good (i.e., in their long-run, wide-range self-interest).

:-)

Ed

Post 3

Sunday, July 29, 2012 - 11:28am

Contrast these quotes with that from Calvin Coolidge (our 30th president) speaking to the nation in 1924:

I want the people of America to be able to work less for the Government and more for themselves. I want them to have the rewards of their own industry. That is the chief meaning of freedom. Until we can re-establish a condition under which the earnings of the people can be kept by the people, we are bound to suffer a very distinct curtailment of our liberty.

That was when the annual cost of all government (federal, state, and local) was only $7.5 billion a year -- and with the cost of federal government amounting to only $0.7 billion a year. Now imagine Barack Obama saying that, with an annual cost of federal government of over $3600 billion (when not adjusted for inflation, that is over 5000 times the $0.7 billion cost of federal government in 1924).

I have to repeat that. If you do not adjust for inflation, then the cost of federal government has increased 5000-fold from where it was in 1924.

Ed

Available in black-n-white video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNQn86vL5zE

Post 4

Sunday, July 29, 2012 - 11:28am

Ed observed:

In a sentence, Hobbes was an anti-individualist who thought of men as savage beasts who needed to be tricked -- by a Noble Lie from a Machiavellian Philosopher King -- into living under a totalitarian dictatorship: being told that it was for their own good (i.e., in their long-run, wide-range self-interest).

Sadly, tricking the masses in this way often turns otherwise rational people into savage beasts, thus serving as a confirmation bias for Hobbesian social experiments.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/29, 11:30am)

Post 5

Monday, July 30, 2012 - 8:05am

"You may call me by name or call me by value."
Niklaus Wirth, developer of Pascal, Algol,
and other computer programming languages

(Just a pun. Do not make too much of it here.)

Ed wrote: "... needed to be tricked -- by a Noble Lie from a Machiavellian Philosopher King -- into living under a totalitarian dictatorship..."

You do like to mix metaphors and allusions. Is this a banana split or a stew or a cocktail? And while I do not wish to defend Thomas Hobbes, I caution you against accepting someone's translation of his works. As I have proposed, our common English uses of "morality" and "ethics" confuse the two. What did Hobbes mean by the words he chose? If you read any Shakespeare, you know that you need liner notes to explain the nuances. Hobbes: 5 April 1588 � 4 December 1679; Shakespeare: 26 April 1564 (baptised) � 23 April 1616. (Wikipedia on both.)

I say that because, indeed, your ethical worth is your market value in society. You might have great moral worth (to yourself) but if your fellows reject you, your market value will fall. This is well-known, and widely accepted, and in fact, might truly be one of the "noble lies" upon which our society is founded, the story of the Martyr, from Jesus to John Galt, really, that whole "different drummer" thing.

Do not ascribe to me views I do not hold. I only caution you against what appears to me to be your religious devotion to Objectivist catechism.

Ayn Rand disliked Thomas Hobbes.
Thomas Hobbes (supposedly) said this.
Therefore, I will rant against this context-free statement.

In Machiavelli, the prince is not a king. The prince rules a town and is the "first citizen" or principal citizen. Machiavelli could have called his book The King, but he did not. We confuse the meaning from our ignorant assumptions of royal descent and inheritance in which the sons of the king (princes) inherit the throne. But that confuses two different meanings of the word prince. And like Hobbes, Machiavelli was writing in an older dialect of a modern language. Moreover, you would be hard-pressed to find anything like the "noble lie" in Machiavelli, though he does speak of deceit as a useful tactic. He does also caution against it. It is not absolute. Machiavelli alludes to ancient history, but says nothing of Plato or Socrates who were the sources of the noble lie theory of statecraft.

Similarly, "totalitarian" and "dictatorship" are also conflated. Dictatorship is ancient and honorable. The town of Cincinnati was founded by Revolutionary War veterans of the Society of Cincinnatus, named for the Roman farmer who led his state through hard times and returned to his plow.

The idea of a "totalitarian" government is wholly modern

The notion of "totalitarianism" a "total" political power by state was formulated in 1923 by Giovanni Amendola who described Italian Fascism as a system fundamentally different from conventional dictatorships. The term was later assigned a positive meaning in the writings of Giovanni Gentile, Italy�s most prominent philosopher and leading theorist of fascism. He used the term �totalitario� to refer to the structure and goals of the new state. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism)

Given a time machine, you might explain it well to Plato. Machiavelli would think you really overstepped your bounds and think too highly of your abilities to direct all aspects of an entire society, when all you really want to do is rule without losing your head. Also, as the Wikipedia article points out, both capitalism and liberal democracy are accused of being "totalitarian."

I am not a Hobbes scholar by any stretch, but I do understand something of his historical context. To condemn all of his ideas from our point of view is to miss the opportunity to appreciate his attempt at a rational derivation of politics. By the same standard, I point out that at this time the magnetic field was demonstrated by Robert Norman and explained by William Gilbert, they still had incorrect ideas about magnetism and had no idea that it related to electricity. It would be wrong to denigrate them. And I caution against condemning Thomas Hobbes without a close reading of his work. For one thing, he did offer the social contract theory of government. I think that most here would agree that without government, life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.�

Find Hobbes' works in the Online Library of Liberty here.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 7/30, 8:18am)

Post 6

Monday, July 30, 2012 - 12:47pm

Michael:

You've provided insight with the WIRTH/WORTH pun; there is a difference between an imperative model of government and one based on Evaluate/Apply. Perhaps the difference is, libertarians at one time in their life were exposed to Lisp.

That is what makes us so fringe.

A government unfettered by principles and able to assign at will is an imperative model, and leans towards totalitarianism, like Pascal.

A government defined by principle is fettered, and in no need of assignment; it can be purely functional, like Lisp.

Freedom has a definite need; not only government, but fettered government, functionally driven by a principle to which it constantly Evaluate/Applies.

Here is one such axiomatic principle: enhance free association/inhibit forced association. Evaluate/Apply...

Laws are functionally generated by repeated evaluation and application of those axiomatic principles; murder, rape, slavery, extortion, theft, the offering of false value for real value in commerce, the fouling of the commons... all fall out from Evaluate/Apply directed by those principles. Even, and I have argued this elsewhere, laws against racial discrimination on the public commons fall out from these principles.

I am not asserting that is our fettering principle; our fettering principle is not nearly so clear. It is not simply 'majority rules' but it leans towards it, loosely fettered by a written constitution of individual liberty.

But too loosely, and as we are seeing, even with the USSC, ultimately influenced by simple majority rule.

Compare the axiomatic principles 'enhance free association/inhibit forced association' with the fettering principle only of 'majority rules.' Or, offer up an alternative fettering principle.

I can't get behind 'the biggest mob gets to appoint a barely fettered emperor empowered to use assignment to run 'the' economy' but that is just me, probably.

What competing models of ethical fettering principles would find a prohibition against forced association an impediment, and why?

If not, then we should cast those fettering principles in concrete, then turn our government to evaluate/apply...

and we'd never need to lose any sleep over government assignment.

regards,
Fred

Post 7

Monday, July 30, 2012 - 12:53pm

Michael:

I'm not being coy; the upshot of all of that is, to shine a light on the fact that competing models of ethical fettering require access to 'forced association' and so, as a necessity, must rail at libertarian principles.

What is it about 'forced association' as a fasces to march behind that makes its adherents so unable to proudly claim it as theirs? If it's a requirement, it's a requirement.

It's adherents should be able to defend it as a requirement, if their ethical alternatives are defendable.

regards,
Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 7/31, 12:03am)

Post 8

Monday, July 30, 2012 - 5:28pm

Mike M.,

Hobbes said it was never right to revolt. Think about that for a moment. Picture in your mind's eye what that means. Rand said a lot of things about how Kant denigrated thinking and reason -- building a chasm between the mind and reality. That was basic stuff. Hobbes is another level. Hobbes is merely "applied Kant." You may want to exercise your own judgment. Hobbes tells you "no." What you need to do -- because of a boogeyman we call the oh-so-terrible "state-of-nature" -- what you need to do is comply with higher authority. Take these guys at their word, Mike. Don't be such a namby-pamby, holier-than-thou, snooty, pretentiously high-minded critic (e.g.,):

Oh, Ed, you clearly haven't thought things through.

Oh, Ed, you clearly haven't read Hobbes (or you clearly do not understand him).

Oh, Ed, you are blinded by Rand-worship.

Instead, if you disagree, make a good argument. Bring something more than "Old English writers need to be understood by highly-trained literary critics who speak Middle-English fluently." to the table. You are reminding me of Ted, who so often said that only certain people should be able to speak about certain topics -- people who have already earned some kind of official laurels.

You conclude:

I think that most here would agree that without government, life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.�

I think that that goes too far. It's fear-based. It's fatalist. It's nihilist. It's existentialist. You have to view man in a certain negative way in order to say that Hobbes' notion of the "state of nature" was so unfortunately correct that indeed life for man really (and always) was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.�

Ed

Further:
A 'YouTube' I made about Hobbes and the so-called Social Contract

And here are bullet points from my video, because it is my understanding that you do not like viewing YouTube arguments (and may not wish to view mine):

*****************************************
1--the idea of a social contract began with Hobbes
2--Hobbes viewed a "state of nature" as a universal bloodbath (where no human was safe)
3--Hobbes viewed dictatorship as the best anti-dote to his version of the "state-of-nature"
4--Operationally, there is a premise in the argument for any given social contract: This particular contract is the precise one that you should be signing (because the things that this particular State agrees to give you are the precise things you objectively needed)
5--the argument for a social contract is transferable to all forms of government, even those guilty of genocide
6--this transferability reveals that the idea of a social contract is morally vacuous
7--when you operate under the presumption that there is an unspoken, unwritten contract -- then you may fill-in the details and create perceived injustices (create or pander to special interest groups in the name of "social justice") in order to justify the limitless centralization of arbitrary power into your hands
8--this is currently being done in America
*****************************************

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/30, 8:29pm)

Post 9

Monday, July 30, 2012 - 6:44pm

Michael, these quotes of yours tell me that when it comes to Objectivism you think of yourself as a 'different drummer.' Fine.

But that isn't a good platform to stand on when choosing to criticize people at this forum. You'll get more mileage if you stay on a logical chewing of ideas, and not on casting loose allusions to Objectivism or Ayn Rand as somehow understood to be negatives.

You might have great moral worth (to yourself) but if your fellows reject you, your market value will fall. This is well-known, and widely accepted, and in fact, might truly be one of the "noble lies" upon which our society is founded, the story of the Martyr, from Jesus to John Galt, really, that whole "different drummer" thing.

...your religious devotion to Objectivist catechism

Post 10

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 - 2:03pm

Steve, as with the Hobbes quote here, I am likely to look for truth in something I instinctively reject. I do so as not to fool myself via the confirmation bias or the attribution fallacy. ("Hobbes just said that because he was a monarchist and monarchists are evil.". Maybe he was, and maybe they are, but his motives, such as they may or may not truly have been, are independent of the veracity of his claim. So, do I find any merit in this context-free statement, this Zen koan floating out in space...)

By the same standard, my own deep regard for the works of Ayn Rand includes my willingness to question almost anything. A is A, but maybe a woman should be President. Objectivism is rational-empiricism, but it can still serve the same function as a religion. We know from her own works that Rand dismissed the idea that her cult could become a cult specifically because of its rational-empirical tenets. And yet...

I get the irony, of course, in your point about my differently drumming. Ain't no doubt.

Fred, your point is well-made. We have many synonyms for our agenda: capitalism, free enterprise, personal enterprise, free market... but freedom of association is a powerful label. It is what makes cities work: the rich tapestry of cultures (plural) in an urban environment offers more opportunties for association than any village. Monoculture is weak. Conversely, as you say, those opposed to freedom of association do not make their case explicitly: forced association is a tough sell.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 7/31, 2:32pm)

Post 11

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 - 2:17pm

Hobbes�s Leviathan reprinted from the edition of 1651 with an Essay by the Late W.G. Pogson Smith (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909).

CHAP. X. Of Power, Worth, Dignity, Honour, and Worthinesse.

The Sciences, are small Power; because not eminent; and therefore, not acknowledged in any man; nor are at all, but in a few; and in them, but of a few things. For Science is of that nature, as none can understand it to be, but such as in a good measure have attayned it.

Arts of publique use, as Fortification, making of Engines, and other Instruments of War; because they conferre to Defence, and Victory, are Power: And though the true Mother of them, be Science, namely the Mathematiques; yet, because they are brought into the Light, by the hand of the Artificer, they be esteemed (the Midwife passing with the vulgar for the Mother,) as his issue.

The Value, or Worth of a man, is as of all other things, his Price; that is to say, so much as would be given for the use of his Power: and therefore is not absolute; but a thing dependant on the need and judgement of another. An able conductor of Souldiers, is of great Price in time of War present, or imminent; but in Peace not so. A learned and uncorrupt Judge, is much Worth in time of Peace; but not so much in War. And as in other things, so in men, not the seller, but the buyer determines the Price. For let a man (as most men do,) rate themselves at the highest Value they can; yet their true Value is no more than it is esteemed by others.

The manifestation of the Value we set on one another, is that which is commonly called Honouring, and Dishonouring. To Value a man at a high rate, is to Honour him; at a low rate, is to Dishonour him. But high, and low, in this case, is to be understood by comparison to the rate that each man setteth on himselfe.

From the Online Library of Liberty here.

Post 12

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 - 8:48pm

Mike,

Thanks for finding that larger context for the quote. Now, let's look at that larger context. When we look inside it, what do we see, but this:

The Sciences, are small Power; because not eminent; and therefore, not acknowledged in any man; nor are at all, but in a few; and in them, but of a few things. For Science is of that nature, as none can understand it to be, but such as in a good measure have attayned it.

This set-up -- or background, if you will -- laments that special things like science don't have much value or worth -- because common people do not value, or find worth in, science. Did you catch that? That's social metaphysics. What makes something good, of value, or of worth?

The sentiments of common folk.

But the sentiments of common folk are things that can change, and one of the things that can change the sentiments of common folk is well-displayed science or philosophy. Now, if well-displayed science or philosophy can change the sentiments of common folk -- e.g., where the 600 million-person power-blackout in India becomes an "unacceptable" thing among common folk (but wasn't unacceptable 100 years ago) -- then that means that it's not really the sentiments that make something good, of value, or of worth; but whatever it is that alters the sentiments. In this case, well-displayed science is what it is that is good, of value, or of worth -- what Rand called "philosophically objective" value, to differentiate it from "socially objective" value.

Hobbes wants to convince you to think like a second-hander -- to think that such things as importance, goodness, value, and worth come from the opinions of other men. To set up his case, he uses science. Science is something that relatively few people know much about. Not knowing much about it, they may not know how good it is for them. They may not know how much worse it would be for them to attempt to live in a world where science didn't exist. Under this veil of ignorance, they may not think highly of science. But that says nothing of its value or worth. In truth, science is really very valuable for people. It is really good for them. It has a lot of worth.

You can't say that something isn't good until or unless it has grabbed hold of most (if not all) of the minds of the masses. If you argue that, you condemn man to living in fear in the dark, cold comfort of caves.

Ed

Post 13

Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - 11:35am

Half full... half empty... or twice as big as it needs to be... how you view the glass is up to you. Reading through Leviathan, I found a dense thicket of Biblical quotations, citations, and allusions, all pointing to the rule of kings here on Earth. OK... but you know, Thomas Hobbes was no man's fool.

Does McDonald's make the best hamburger? ... or even the best salad? Or do they just appeal to the most people? And what does that take? Fooling the boobs? Ripping people off? Catering to the vanities? Well... maybe... and maybe something else...

Did IBM have the best computers? No. Everyone knows that IBM machines, mainframes, midrange, and micros were second-rate. Other computers were much better. Why did IBM succeed? They supported what they sold. That meant that "you never get fired for recommending IBM." It was the safe route for the corporate manager who needed to please his bosses. Second-handing Peter Keatings made IBM successful. That only goes to show the ultimate weakness in capitalism. Capitalism delivers trash to the masses.

... or maybe the matter is more complicated than that...

As both Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises said, creativity is not an economic enterprise. The man who pursues truth - even Thomas Hobbes - follows his own conscience. You apparently disagree with Hobbes on many points. I know that I could as well. But I also found some truth in what he said. ... half full, half empty, or twice as big as it needs to be... take your pick.

Post 14

Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - 2:55pm

Michael:

Did IBM have the best computers? No. Everyone knows that IBM machines, mainframes, midrange, and micros were second-rate. Other computers were much better. Why did IBM succeed? They supported what they sold. That meant that "you never get fired for recommending IBM." It was the safe route for the corporate manager who needed to please his bosses. Second-handing Peter Keatings made IBM successful. That only goes to show the ultimate weakness in capitalism. Capitalism delivers trash to the masses.

Another example of why IBM succeeded is the story of IRS 1706.

You and I and Steve have been impacted by IRS 1706 for years, without even being aware of its existence. But the story of where and why it came about leads straight to IBM.

In the 80s, Congress was on a 'all legislation must be paid for' Gramm-Rudman-Hollings kick. (What a joke...) So when IBM went slithering to COngress by way of Moynihan to ask for special treatment of its overseas operations, that gift had to be 'paid' for with other legislation. What these scumbags dreamed up was IRS 1706. Their theory was that:
� Engineer
� Designer
� Drafter
� Computer programmer
� Systems analyst
� Other similarly skilled worker engaged in a similar line of work.

...and nobody else, were especially likely to be tax cheaters, and so, should specifically be targeted by law to inhibit them from being self-employed small businessmen. So, unlike attorneys, accountants, physicians, photographers, painters, gardeners, etc., these Americans needed a special tax law drummed up in order to keep the as employees at places like IBM for example. By doing so, it was claimed, the government saved millions in uncollected taxes by way of payroll tax and other taxes that otherwise these scum would avoid by going into business for themselves.

So, to pay for IBM's special treatment of their overseas operations, a second law that helped maintain IBM resources as wage slaves on the IBM reservation was passed.

The chilling nature of this confusing law was not the extra 20 hurdles; the chilling nature was the confusing exposure to entanglement with the IRS by the clients of such small businesses, especially since the IRS was judge, jury, and executioner. The facts of the law did not matter; it was the exposure to capricious interpretation by the IRS that mattered.

And if you ever tried to sell your services as a contractor, unlike an attorney or physician or photographer or almost anyone else in America, a statutory barrier was placed in front of just you as an:

� Engineer
� Designer
� Drafter
� Computer programmer
� Systems analyst
� Other similarly skilled worker engaged in a similar line of work.

In this America.

That plane in Austin wasn't nearly big enough.

"We're IBMe'rs: managed by talentless hacks who rely on tyrannical legislation, hiding their fat asses in the comfy cut of American fascism."

regards,
Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 8/01, 2:59pm)

Post 15

Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - 3:12pm

"The value, or WORTH of a man, is ... not absolute; but a thing dependent on the need and judgment of another."

Especially when 'another' is slithering to the state and buying access to its guns to get the best deal.

This nation easily tolerates this nonsense.

I just had lunch with a fellow engineer who's also been in business for himself since the mid 80s, and his message was clear: fuck that nation for even trying, much less, tolerating such nonsense.

No worries; this isn't a trend of any kind.

regards,
Fred

Post 16

Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - 7:43pm

Michael,

What is your point?

There are times where I come away from one of your posts with a sense of having encountered epistemological-anarchy - that everything is right - that anything can be argued if one is agile enough with words - that all things can be put into a half-empty, half-full, or twice as big as needed glass. Maybe it's just that you possess a contrarian urge that you enjoy letting loose?
-----------------

On IBM, there are clearly negatives that company deserves to own (see Fred's post above - and I could deliver tales of my own), but their success for supporting what they sold was obviously a wise market decision. If you condemn a company for what made them popular isn't it really more of a condemnation of those who purchased? Isn't a market place about supply of what is demanded?

In this case, in the early years of computers, I, as a former computer professional, applaud IBM's attention to support. I loved them... for that. I had enough problems at the software end without having to fight a failure to be fully responsible at the hardware end by this or that vendor. (Been there, done that.)

I loved the equisite detail and clarity of their manuals - which made my software job so much easier. I've never feared being fired and resented that nonsense you wrote about IBM being chosen for cowardly reasons. I loved competence, and IBM had competence in spades when it came to keeping their equipment up and running and helping those who leased or bought them. It wouldn't have mattered to me if there were far superior engineering or creativity in some competitors hardware, if they didn't show up when the product was down.

You wrote, "Second-handing Peter Keatings made IBM successful. That only goes to show the ultimate weakness in capitalism." [emphasis mine] And you suggest we modify capitalism in what way? Or that we replace it with what? Actually, I think your statement only reflects your strangely critical nature of economic free association, which is the only aspect of capitalism you're attacking.
------------------

You wrote, "Capitalism delivers trash to the masses." Again, what's your point? Are you saying that we need to modify or abandon Capitalism? Is Captialism somehow supposed to rise above the tastes of the masses and deliver something better suited as per the tastes of some elites somewhere? How exactly does that work?
------------------

You wrote, "As both Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises said, creativity is not an economic enterprise." Could you be so kind as to help us with a bit of context here? Where, specifically did Ayn Rand make this comment?

Post 17

Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - 8:33pm

Mike,

I sanctioned you because I agree with the truth that you do tell in post 13, if only tempered by the counterpoints in Fred's subsequent posts. Like Steve, I am often miffed to read you -- as it often seems like you "over-nuance" things. Sometimes I feel I'd have as much satisfaction talking to a Buddhist monk, or a postmodern existentialist college graduate (or PECG, for short) -- someone who believes that even axioms are meant to be broken. I once had a "convo" with a new-age gal who told me that contradictions can exist. That stuff can be off-putting at times. Now, you're nowhere near like her -- she chained herself to a tree in order to prevent a new highway project -- so I'm not trying to equate you with such an assertive, expressive, new-age flower-child. But you do seem to play pretty fast and loose at times.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/01, 8:49pm)

Post 18

Thursday, August 2, 2012 - 4:12am

First, on creativity as an economic enterprise: I said before that one of my professors, Ron Westrum, made a special study of inventors. Successful inventors are not Gyro Gearloose types in attics and garages putting everything into One Big Idea that no one wants - although they do exist and can be successful. The successful inventor is a serial entrepreneur, holding several to many patents, and licensing, manufacturing directly, or contracting for, depending on the objective market needs. So, creativity can be an economic enterprise, Mises and Rand notwithstanding.

Steve, and Ed: Thus while contradictions cannot exist, many things in life are multifaceted and contextual. I, too, support IBM for their success. The 360 was perhaps the perfect machine at that time. And their willingness to support what they sold was innovative and important. (The frosting on the cake was the book about the creation of OS/360: The Mythical Man Month.)

But capitalism is amoral in the sense that the market rewards people who sell whatever other people want. As Hobbes (and Mises) pointed out: it is the buyer, not the seller, who sets the price. Thus, Mises and Rand on the Inventor, point out that the greatest ideas in the world often go unappreciated in their time. The innovator follows her own truth -- and you never lose money underestimating the public. Both are true and they are not contradictory, but complementary.

Fred, another consequence of IRS 1706 was the creation of headhunters and body shops. They become the employers of record for those specialists. They pay the taxes, mark up the labor, and pass you along to their client... and sometimes to that entities' client... It is possible to fly your own flag: get licensed as an LLC for free to $100 in most states; buy $250,000 to a million in liability insurance for about $1000 or two in most places; file quarterly taxes. If your wife owns the company, you can be a minority business and get special treatment, get on the approved vendor lists, and receive RFQs from large entities. ... but you are right, it is not at all like being a doctor, lawyer or accountant. On the other hand, those professions are regulated in ways that programmers and others are not. It not just one bad law, but a cultural orientation.

Steve, the question here is whether your worth is determined by others. Rand said to always pass moral judgment. You seem to have no problem telling me your verdict. Do you determine my worth?

Ed, thanks, point taken.

Post 19

Thursday, August 2, 2012 - 5:12am