Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by wiggys 9 years, 8 months ago
    Ayn Rand was simply put brilliant. She was able to see things so clearly and then present them equally clearly for all to easily comprehend, that is of course those who seek to join the political arena. They of course have a serious eye sight problem. They can not see beyond the tip of their noses, also have relocated their brains from their head to their rectums. And finally they have a comprehension problem, they do not understand what they are doing.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bassboat 9 years, 8 months ago
    So the 1800's were free. For some unknown reason mankind thinks that he/she needs someone to make decisions for them. On the surface you need a government but then the politician rears its ugly head. It starts spending other people's money and it spirals down from there. There is little chance for a remedy, things will have to implode. The voting class will see to that.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 8 months ago
    Had the libs allowed the freedoms of the 19th century alone, and capitalism to become fully attained, you can hardly imagine what America would be like today. I often daydream of seeing Diamond Jim walking into Delmonico's and taking out a 12 inch ruler and measuring the distance from his belly to the table, and eating until his belly reached the table. (True story) I like the image not because I enjoy old Diamond Jim's unhealthy habits, but to illustrate how capitalism can provide such an excess of wealth as the man who said of diamonds, "If you got 'em, show 'em."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 8 months ago
    Actually, the entire nineteenth century was a period of explosive growth, due to innovation, immigration, and wealthy risk takers. Steam made huge improvements in transportation and production, telegraphy enabled much more rapid information relay for decision makers. War always drives technology, and the quality of metals required for the engines of destruction made great advances in construction and commercial machinery possible. Rapid production of firearms and ammunition laid the groundwork for mass production. The birth of the electric power industry and telephones were the grand technical finale.

    What lagged behind (or was completely absent) was the ability of the political systems (not just in America) to adapt appropriately to the new world that was rushing into existence. Rather than creating an environment that enhanced the benefits of the new technologies and economies, governments reacted in fear of change, creating roadblocks in the form of bloated bureaucracy and stifling regulation, and that disease is only getting worse.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ Terraformer_One 9 years, 8 months ago
      @Dr Zarkov
      War does NOT drive tecnology!
      What actually happens is that the mercenary/warrior allow the 'nerds'/tinkerers 'greater freedom' to create new weapons that they hope to use to conquer their opponents.

      Another 'benefit' of war, particularly the industrial-scale wars(post 1915) was the destruction of previous generations of technical capacity that is replaced with the newer more efficient version.


      [As an aside, the bankers win again - after the 'FEDERAL RESERVE CARTEL' gains control and finances the arming for war and later financed the reconstruction efforts.]
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 8 months ago
        I'm somewhat confused by your reply, because all of your statements after the leading declaration completely contradict it. War is not a positive element, being a failure of diplomacy and intelligent interaction, as well as depriving us of a generation or more of individuals who might have achieved greater advances. Nonetheless, it does, as you correctly state, provide the opportunity for what you derisively refer to as the "nerds and tinkerers" to experiment with technologies intended to kill more efficiently, but also provide advances in non-violent products.

        As you also note, war results in the destruction of existing older technologies (at least for the losers). The Soviet Union fumbled this opportunity to improve efficiency, by stripping remaining production machinery from Germany after WW II, using the older technology to replace what they had lost, instead of proceeding to rebuild with newer equipment. That was one of the elements that led to the collapse of the USSR.

        During the last century, medical technology to provide better care for trauma patients was a result of effort made during the major military conflicts to improve survival rates for military casualties, just as one example. I stand by my statement - wars do provide added impetus for advancing technology.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by $ Terraformer_One 9 years, 8 months ago
          I am sorry, I probably should have placed the second and third paragraphs in a different post.

          I am not derisive of either 'nerds' or tinkerers as a group, I am favourably disposed towards them.

          What really rankles me is those 'nerds' and tinkerers that solely strive to improve methods for destruction of both people and property (swords).

          An exemption needs to be made regarding technology for self-defence; after all we live in a world with predators and their sycophants (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Obama).
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 8 months ago
            President Reagan's aim with the Strategic Defense Initiative was to place an emphasis on defense. In his ideal system, and enemy would be wasting his time trying to attack us if we could be protected from their destructive efforts. While he was trying to provide an impetus for abandoning nuclear weapons, it did accomplish an unintended goal of bankrupting the USSR as they overspent trying to defeat the defense system they feared.

            Scientists and engineers rely on money to invent, and if the money is in developing weapons, there will always be some who build what the money is intended for. There's a lot of effort being spent in the defense arena to make our troops better able to survive, and to deter an enemy with less violence, with the idea of discouraging violent conflict, but that gets less publicity.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by Rex_Little 9 years, 8 months ago
    "Mankind" is a bit of an exaggeration. Large sections of the world were no freer then than now.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 8 months ago
      What word would you use? She wasn't referring to ALL of mankind (just the ones that made it happen), but for the first time freedom happened and people were free to be what ever they made the effort to be..not ALL people, but it still happened. Point being...the possibility is there.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo