DallasCowboys

Anarcho-capitalism VS Objectivism

Recommended Posts

I was just curious what the differences between these two ideas is and why one is the better then the other? Is the only difference that Objectivism would support states and Anarcho-capitalism wouldn't? If this is a bad question I apologize I am still new to Objectivism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just curious what the differences between these two ideas is and why one is the better then the other? Is the only difference that Objectivism would support states and Anarcho-capitalism wouldn't? If this is a bad question I apologize I am still new to Objectivism.

You have it approximately correct, if you mean the Zionist Objectivism preached by Peikoff and Brook.

Whether John Galt and Midas Mulligan were anarcho-capitalists is debatable :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was literally just gonna ask that about John Galt, you beat me to it. :) I have another quick question, was Ayn Rand in favor of private security services, like the police and military because isn't that what Anarcho Capitalist's support? Thanks for your answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was literally just gonna ask that about John Galt, you beat me to it. :smile: I have another quick question, was Ayn Rand in favor of private security services, like the police and military because isn't that what Anarcho Capitalist's support? Thanks for your answer.

In her nonfiction writing, Rand defended government as an impartial arbiter and guarantor of liberty, i.e., courts and cops. In my opinion, it was the weakest, least cogent element of her philosophy. I don't believe she was well acquainted with the history of law or philosophy of law. Her advocacy for a government monopoly of public justice and law enforcement flowed from an ethical idea that was later taken up by Murray Rothbard and miscellaneous libertarians, who likewise argued against initiation of force (Non-Aggression Principle) sometimes as a moral imperative, or utilitarian "maxi-max" game theory, and occasionally as a historical continuity in pursuit of peaceful commerce. To the best of my knowledge, neither Ayn Rand nor the Libertarians gave detailed thought to constitutional law and the sorry track record of what democratic governments actually do. Supreme Court case law is a blithering mess that alternately bows to legislation and frustrates it.

As a question of defacto anarchy and private responses thereto, in the U.S. we have more private security guards than cops, and oodles of U.S. commercial and employment contracts stipulate that disputes must be settled out of court by arbitration.

On the street, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wolf wrote:

On the street, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

end quote

If two private defense forces or two individuals are involved in the use of force, all investigations of the incident require an outside look for justice to be more accurately determined. Government as the agreed upon final arbiter as is explained in Objectivist Politics in no way invalidates self defense, so, simply put, an impartial investigation is required after the use of force. If one watches TV shows like any of any variants of Cold Case or Bones, you might even consider Government agents, heroes, as the final arbiters. Who ya gunna trust?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If two private defense forces or two individuals are involved in the use of force, all investigations of the incident require an outside look for justice to be more accurately determined... an impartial investigation is required after the use of force.

Not necessarily. If no one complains, there's no cause of action. [The Freeman's Constitution, Art. IV]

In the current state with maximum high tech multi-agency policing deployed, FBI statistics show that somewhere between 35%-40% of homicides in the US go unsolved. In the District of Columbia and Illinois it's slightly higher, over 50% of murders annually go unsolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wolf wrote:

Not necessarily. If no one complains, there's no cause of action. [The Freeman's Constitution, Art. IV]

end quote

Thats an interesting complication. That article IV sounds reasonable if it is two guys duking it out out at a bar.

Rand Paul is anti-Israeli, yells Ari!

Take it back or Ill pop you in the nose, says his Daddy Ron.

Take it outside, youse guys, says the owner of the Adam Smith Bar and Grill.

But what if a police officer sees an assault and the assaulted person is afraid to press charges?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what if a police officer sees an assault and the assaulted person is afraid to press charges?

Happens all the time in Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, D.C. ... except the cops aren't there to see anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just curious what the differences between these two ideas is and why one is the better then the other? Is the only difference that Objectivism would support states and Anarcho-capitalism wouldn't? If this is a bad question I apologize I am still new to Objectivism.

Hi! I consider myself an AnarchObjectivist, which is essentially anarcho-capitalism with an objectivist justification. Here are some great resources on the topic from my sub http://www.reddit.com/r/anarchobjectivism :

AnarchObjectivism:

Genus: Objectivism

Differentia: Anarchism

What is AnarchObjectivism? -

An AnarchObjectivist is one who accepts the fundamental principles of Ayn Rands philosophy, but rejects her advocacy of minarchism as inconsistent with those basic positions in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.

The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman -

This excellent 23 minute video gives a brief introduction to anarcho capitalist concepts and answers the most common objections, such as "wouldn't there be constant gang warfare?"

Ayn Rand “The Objectivist Ethics:"

“The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man——or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense.”

Open Objectivism

Objectivism is a body of rational knowledge rather than a fixed, closed set of doctrines like a religion. This fact is implied by the very nature of human knowledge, which Objectivism teaches us is contextual, fallible, and open-ended. The philosophy itself must therefore be open to expansion, refinement, and, if necessary, revision in the same way as any other body of knowledge, such as Newtonian physics, the theory of evolution, market economics, etc.

Answers to Ten Objections to Libertarian Anarchism

(4) Ayn Rand: Private Protection Agencies Will Battle

(5) Robert Bidinotto: No Final Arbiter of Disputes

(6) Property Law Cannot Emerge from the Market

AnarchObjectivist's on the Web

Related subreddit's

Anarcho Capitalism

Agorism

Libertarian

Objectivism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man——or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense.”

No wonder I get ignored, being an advocate of murder (the right of revolution, Freeman's Constitution, Art. V)

"...including but not limited to flight, armed rebellion, sabotage, and use of disguise to avoid capture. No

man shall be prosecuted for crime or sued for damages in respect of his service in a revolutionary war..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man——or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense.”

Bwahaha! :cool: a black-hearted villain, advocate of physical compulsion (summons as defendant or witness, production of evidence)

http://www.stumbleupon.com/content/7KonEY Nothing to see here. Stumble on!

"The Non-Aggression Principle is a comfortable daydream without hope in hell of disarming the U.S. government, a local school district, or any of the street thugs you fear most... NAP denies the existence of any legal regime other than or prior to 'non-aggression.' It's a child's view of the law: You be nice and I'll be nice, okay? No rule for bankruptcy, property, probate, or family law... NAP deems all possessors to be unchallengeable and exempt from legal inquiry. NAP kills compulsory production of evidence, jury duty, execution of court orders by bankers in a civil case or law enforcement officers in a criminal case... In sum, NAP is the death knell of all legal due process, all inquiry, all defense of the innocent..." [COGIGG, pp. 49, 59, 63-64]

"The so-called Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is Randian, Kantian, and Mosaic, as old as written history. For thousands of years 'Thou shall not kill, steal, covet, or trespass' was held to be universally binding on all men, either as a moral principle or the express will of God... I've never been a compromiser. As far as I'm concerned, liberty is non-negotiable and I am not susceptible to universal moral principles, utilitarian or otherwise. I view morality as a personal matter, in the context of my unique situation, inquiring What shall I do? (not what must all men and women in all circumstances do)... Liberty is your first absolute right at birth and the last thing to go when you die or become incapacitated... " [Laissez Faire Law, pp. 211-213]

"Men are incapable of confessing openly that they want to escape justice. Friend or enemy of due process, we declare with one voice that our conduct is fair and honorable, with malice toward none. The claim is usually false. In simple, 18th century language: Men are not angels. Our protestations of innocence and truth are frequently exaggerated and unwarranted. That's why we need courts of justice with compulsory production of evidence, cross-examination, and felony penalties for perjury. Men lie. We also remember wrongly, forget, etc. Evildoers should not be allowed to judge their own innocence." [op cit., p. 177]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cowboy, never mind the theoretical arguments. They are fallacious. The Market for Liberty by Linda and Morris Tannehill was a nice attempt in its time and place. But if you read it closely, you will see how they glide from "should" or "could" to "would" and then "will." I mean, they were just guessing and then claimed it was accurate without any empirical evidence. Empirical evidence did exist. They were just ignorant of it.



Realize also that Roy Childs repudiated his "Open Letter" on anarchism and became a mini-archist. His original arguments might still be valid, objectively, but his renunciation makes the essay problematic at best.



Wolf came closest to the truth: In America, today, since about 1980 or so, for thirty years, private security has outnumbered public police, sometimes 2 to 1, even 3 to 1 in California. Figures today are somewhat iffy because of the ramp-up in policing tempered by the financial woes of many cities. You can easily find stories of cities that have out-sourced their police. That, too, is an old trend, however, as school crossing guards were once cops, but have not been for 30 or more years. Dispatchers and other clericals used to be cops, but have become civilians. If you call 9-1-1 that may be handled by a private nationwide dispatching service contracted by many local agencies.



So, what would a world of private security look like? You are in one!



Moreover, multinational corporations shop for laws and most contracts specify arbitration. Read your lease or mortgage. Read your car loan. Read a credit card contract. Read an employment agreement. They say whose laws the contract will be interpreted under. Those laws might not be where the company is and easily is not where you are.



Even more: find out about the Uniform Commercial Code. It was created from whole cloth by a self-appointed committee of jurists to be offered to the business community as a way to resolve contractual problems. Every purchase order has its terms on the back. Every sales invoice has its terms on the back. What happens when they disagree? The UCC was adopted in part (sometimes whole) by many US states for their commercial law.



Do a local google search or a Yelp for "Arbitration" and for "Adjudication" and for "Negotiation services." (Terms vary.) Many law firms offer this service. The best lawyers keep their clients out of court.



What would a world of private arbitration look like? You are living in one.



Do we have governments? Of course! We still have churches, too... You can find tarot card and astrology online. They have not gone away. You can even find college classes in them. What would a world of science look like? You are living in one. (And allow me to suggest that if you were a Catholic priest and if you embezzled from the Church, you would be lucky to come to a government court... Just sayin'...)



The problem with these rationalist idealist is that they never worked in private security. They were just guessing. I have facts. I have a decade of experience in private security, an associate's and a bachelor's in criminology. I got my master's in social science focussing on transnational white collar crime -- which Objectivist Roger Donway says does not exist. (See my PowerPoint "Private Security for Data Centers" here.)



(By analogy, Mises and Hayek and the others all just guessed about the empirical facts about money. Oh, they have good theories. And the facts of economics do support laissez-fairte over government intervention. But in many of their claims about monetary media, coins, banks, gold, etc., etc., the free market economists were just ignorant of history. "Numismatics informs Economics" on my blog here.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reason occupies the highest level in the hierarchy of values. Non-participation is not an option.

David Friedman himself does not state that a workable anarchist society is possible. Unless he's said it recently. I have his updated Machinery of Freedom but have yet to read it. Still reading Wolf. I have a great deal of respect and interest in David Friedman. His "ideas" blog is always interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cowboy, never mind the theoretical arguments. They are fallacious. The Market for Liberty by Linda and Morris Tannehill was a nice attempt in its time and place. But if you read it closely, you will see how they glide from "should" or "could" to "would" and then "will." I mean, they were just guessing and then claimed it was accurate without any empirical evidence. Empirical evidence did exist. They were just ignorant of it.

Realize also that Roy Childs repudiated his "Open Letter" on anarchism and became a mini-archist. His original arguments might still be valid, objectively, but his renunciation makes the essay problematic at best.

Why is it problematic? Since we don't know what logical demonstration (if any) led Childs to change his mind about anarcho-capitalism, it hardly follows that his original argument is questionable.

For comparison, consider that Alan Greenspan is a former supporter of laissez-faire capitalism. Do his present views make the 1966 essay "Gold and Economic Freedom" "problematic at best"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cowboy, never mind the theoretical arguments. They are fallacious. The Market for Liberty by Linda and Morris Tannehill was a nice attempt in its time and place. But if you read it closely, you will see how they glide from "should" or "could" to "would" and then "will." I mean, they were just guessing and then claimed it was accurate without any empirical evidence. Empirical evidence did exist. They were just ignorant of it.

Realize also that Roy Childs repudiated his "Open Letter" on anarchism and became a mini-archist. His original arguments might still be valid, objectively, but his renunciation makes the essay problematic at best.

Why is it problematic? Since we don't know what logical demonstration (if any) led Childs to change his mind about anarcho-capitalism, it hardly follows that his original argument is questionable.

For comparison, consider that Alan Greenspan is a former supporter of laissez-faire capitalism. Do his present views make the 1966 essay "Gold and Economic Freedom" "problematic at best"?

Thank you for calling this out. I swear every time the open letter is mentioned, objectivists rush to this ad hom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. Might have to initiate some physical force (and deny travel) to get this under control.

If I was an ancap judge, I'd issue a TRO blocking air travel by marshals in a heartbeat.

20140805_ebola2_0.jpg

It is one of the most deadly/dangerous of the hemorrhagic viruses.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/spb/mnpages/dispages/vhf.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ferrer and Hughes both err. In the first place, I allowed that Childs' original arguments might remain valid, even if he repudiated them. The arguments stand or fall on their own merits, always.

That being as it is, the fact remains that when the person who posits a claim changes his mind and refutes his original thesis, you have to wonder why. Galileo always comes to mind. Unless you want to make a new claim that Childs was under duress, all we have is his own statements. I do not know them, either his Open Letter or his retraction. Perhaps one of you does.

Greenspan's essay "Gold and Economic Freedom" was incomplete at best. In the context of the times, it had merit for raising questions. However, as a thesis to be considered now, it largely fails to address the current situation. First, gold was never "illegal." Ownership was restricted for some individuals, though not for most others; and it was prohibited to banks to hold their own gold: they were required to deposit it with the Treasury. (See "Gold Was Never Illegal" here on OL.)

None of that matters any more.

K15_detailed.jpg

Three-fourths of an ounce of 24-carat gold for sale by the US Mint right now.

Read more at the USMint.gov sales site here.

The main point, here, is that nothing in Greenspan's policies as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board contradicted anything he wrote in that essay. Indeed, it was from the influence Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan that the USA began striking its new Eagle series of gold and silver (and then platinum and palladium) coins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ferrer and Hughes both err. In the first place, I allowed that Childs' original arguments might remain valid, even if he repudiated them. The arguments stand or fall on their own merits, always.

That being as it is, the fact remains that when the person who posits a claim changes his mind and refutes his original thesis, you have to wonder why. Galileo always comes to mind. Unless you want to make a new claim that Childs was under duress, all we have is his own statements. I do not know them, either his Open Letter or his retraction. Perhaps one of you does.

The main point, here, is that nothing in Greenspan's policies as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board contradicted anything he wrote in that essay. Indeed, it was from the influence Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan that the USA began striking its new Eagle series of gold and silver (and then platinum and palladium) coins.

In the absence of an explanation from Childs himself, wondering about his repudiation of anarchism is pointless. Perhaps Childs was in recruitment mode and didn't want to scare Middle America away from liberty. Childs, after all, is the one who famously said to an audience of libertarians, "If lying helps, I say lie."

Yes, Galileo did change his mind, but only in response to recorded observations which contradicted earlier views. Yet so far no one has provided the first clue about what Childs might have observed, discovered or reconsidered to change his endorsement of anarchism. And without such evidence, Child's renunciation carries no more weight than moaning, "Oh, I just got tired of being against the state."

As for Greenspan, until this moment I had no idea that anyone except a few leftists believed that his term as Fed Chairman had any relationship with a return to laissez-faire capitalism. What exactly did he do at the Fed to get us back on the gold standard (which he praised in "Gold and Freedom")? How did keeping interest rates below the rate of inflation for two years get us back to responsible government?

If his term as Chairman contradicted nothing he wrote in the 1966 essay, then why did he admit to the U.S. House Financial Services Committee that he was wrong about predictions of dire consequences for the fiat U.S. dollar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roy Childs had a lousy life, much worse than mine or yours ("weighed over 400 pounds, and rarely left his apartment" -- Wikipedia)
Jeff wrote a flattering bio transcribed here that ain't so flattering ("a pretty good writer...seems less brilliant than it did at the time")

I don't think it matters what Childs thought or unthought about anarchy. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-mariotti/as-doma-collapses-i-remem_b_3537107.html

On the other hand, he was an engaging speaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always urge Rational Anarchists to look at historical reality then compare two political ideals: Limited, Objectivist Government, and Rational Anarchisms no government. Can a quest for both philosophical ideals have intermediate steps leading to the ideal? Could the intermediate steps be the same for both ideals?

Historically human social units have evolved from families, to clans, and then into empires, monarchies, or governments. Many times over the millennia these existing governments have dissolved leaving a state of free-range anarchism. However, that state of nature has never turned into Rational Anarchism. To the contrary, naturally occurring anarchism (or no laws and no leader over a majority of the residents of any territory) has always evolved from lawlessness to too much law, not to universal *natural rights.*

If Rational Anarchism demands its existence NOW, via a revolution of a few, it will always be viewed as not serious, or just a bunch of terrorists. A rebellion as occurred before our Revolutionary War would need a majority of our citizens to be sympathetic. The Tea Party Movement is a good example of a philosophical shift towards more freedom. But how many people would support anarchy? Perhaps a couple of thousand people in a nation of three hundred million.

Philosophically and historically, The United States Constitution is a major step on the road to an Objectivist Government. I suggest a new strategy for Rational Anarchism because constitutional government is also the intermediate step towards Rational Anarchism. Without an intermediate step, the Rational Anarchists theoretical premise and promise of universal *natural rights* is but a prayer. If the Philosophical Rational Anarchist cannot articulate one intermediate state, other than revolution, then his premise is shallow.

Adopt the Objectivist intermediate step of working with the facts that exist. The steps are not controversial. Educate the populous about Objectivism and a strict interpretation of the existing Constitution. Elect a new President and Congress. Amend the Constitution. Get rid of laws that infringe on individual rights. Get rid of regulations that infringe on individual rights. Lessen taxation, and over time, keep lessening taxation, until government earns its keep through payment for services from its citizens.

So, the final step of Objectivist Government would encompass all those who now call themselves Objectivists and Rational Anarchists. On the surface, and deep down, there would be no difference. I would call our quest for freedom by a new name, not beholden to a single philosopher - not even to Ayn Rand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read his "Open Letter" and again Childs, like all the other ideologues was ignorant of the facts. He pointed out, logically, that if a citizen of Canada and a citizen of the USA have a disagreement, we do not go to a higher level of government over the two, lest, by reductio, there would have to be one universal government. Indeed, there could be; and I submit that there will be one government for all of Earth. But that is not the problem.



The fact that Childs missed - that all the other anarcho-whatevers ignore - is the Hague Conference on Private International Law 1893.


http://www.hcch.net/



Private International Law is also called "the conflict of laws". Occasionally, it is called "the fourth book of law" because the three books of the Codex Justinianus did not cover these problems. Most of the nations of the world are direct members or cooperating signatories.



It is just one more fact out of many that I have cited so far. I do not "advocate" anarchy or anarcho-capitalism. I only point out that these other institutions and modes exist. So, do communes and collectives. I do not advocate for those, either, but if there were a discussion in which the philosophers rationalistically attempted to argue whether other people could live like that, I would point to some examples.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always urge Rational Anarchists to look at historical reality then compare two political ideals: Limited, Objectivist Government, and Rational Anarchisms no government. Can a quest for both philosophical ideals have intermediate steps leading to the ideal? Could the intermediate steps be the same for both ideals?

Historically human social units have evolved from families, to clans, and then into empires, monarchies, or governments. Many times over the millennia these existing governments have dissolved leaving a state of free-range anarchism. However, that state of nature has never turned into Rational Anarchism. To the contrary, naturally occurring anarchism (or no laws and no leader over a majority of the residents of any territory) has always evolved from lawlessness to too much law, not to universal *natural rights.*

If Rational Anarchism demands its existence NOW, via a revolution of a few, it will always be viewed as not serious, or just a bunch of terrorists. A rebellion as occurred before our Revolutionary War would need a majority of our citizens to be sympathetic. The Tea Party Movement is a good example of a philosophical shift towards more freedom. But how many people would support anarchy? Perhaps a couple of thousand people in a nation of three hundred million.

Philosophically and historically, The United States Constitution is a major step on the road to an Objectivist Government. I suggest a new strategy for Rational Anarchism because constitutional government is also the intermediate step towards Rational Anarchism. Without an intermediate step, the Rational Anarchists theoretical premise and promise of universal *natural rights* is but a prayer. If the Philosophical Rational Anarchist cannot articulate one intermediate state, other than revolution, then his premise is shallow.

Adopt the Objectivist intermediate step of working with the facts that exist. The steps are not controversial. Educate the populous about Objectivism and a strict interpretation of the existing Constitution. Elect a new President and Congress. Amend the Constitution. Get rid of laws that infringe on individual rights. Get rid of regulations that infringe on individual rights. Lessen taxation, and over time, keep lessening taxation, until government earns its keep through payment for services from its citizens.

So, the final step of Objectivist Government would encompass all those who now call themselves Objectivists and Rational Anarchists. On the surface, and deep down, there would be no difference. I would call our quest for freedom by a new name, not beholden to a single philosopher - not even to Ayn Rand.

Nicely written, clearly articulated, and echoes what Roy Childs said 30 years ago (in above video).

But does it jive with any "facts that exist"?

-- A recent US survey of surveys by Stanford University Professor Jon Krosnick has analysed public opinion on climate change in 46 of USA’s 50 states. Krosnick found to his surprise that, regardless of geography, most Americans accept that global warming is happening and that humans are causing it... Most Americans also supported government curbs of greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Broad-consensus-climate-change-across-American-states.html

-- The consensus envisions a capitalist economy tempered by government intervention to reduce inequities and soften cruelties that the normal workings of the market can sometimes inflict. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-the-social-justice-majority/2014/01/05/fd5838c0-74d4-11e3-9389-09ef9944065e_story.html?hpid=z4

-- Large majorities support spending on infrastructure to create jobs. Majorities backed the core ideas in the American Jobs Act, which included spending on road repair and tax credits for job training, paid for by taxes on the rich. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/01/06/how-polarized-is-the-american-electorate/

-- During the 1960s, conservatives were the culture and liberals were the counterculture. Today that’s been flipped, but progressives still behave like they’re sticking it to the establishment, even when they can’t actually locate anyone who disagrees with them. http://spectator.org/articles/59926/our-boring-secular-consensus

-- The [2008] election of President Obama is a joyful break from bigotry in American politics and an affirmation of the best of the American tradition... Today also marks the start of a new consensus on religion in politics and hopefully an end to radical secularism that would force any mention of God or Christ from public spaces. http://www.civitate.org/2009/01/one-nation-under-god-the-american-consensus-and-president-obama/

-- According to a new Gallup Poll released on August 1, when asked about the Gaza War, 93% of American Jews said they sympathize with Israel... Furthermore, most American Jews voted for Barack Obama. http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/08/06/the-gaza-war-and-the-new-u-s-jewish-consensus-on-israel/

Atlas Shrugged was published over 50 years ago. If it had any impact on America, I can't see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...