Is a $70,000 Base Salary Unjust and Corrupting?

[Brant Gaede]

If a doctor didn't accept third party payers and restrictions that come with them he could afford to charge you less per visit, maybe 50% less. Why would he need any office staff? When you call he picks up the phone.

--Brant

My dentist offers me nice discounts for direct payment outside of the corrupt liberal third party payer healthcare insurance sucker scam.

Greg

Does he do any brain surgery?

--Brant

[anthony]

From my perspective all that is nonsense. Unless you have actual numbers than all you have is speculation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against prediction or even betting on an outcome, where I have a problem is when moral considerations are attached to it. You can say that I predict this company or decision will fail but I draw the line if you say that they will fail because their decision is evil or corrupting.

p.s. I'm talking about individuals making decisions in a free market. Of course true evil can come into play when you have a over powered, force driven socialistic scheme that for the greater good breaks people's spirits.

If it works, it works, and no harm done if it doesn't. Is that your drift? Nobody can detach morality from this since, for starters, the CEO instigated his scheme with his particular moral view in mind. Then look down the road a little, and you'll see copy-catting by many more "moral" companies like his, all averaging-out income in an effort to make all people equal - and you have the start of "for the greater good" utilitarianism. The State happily enforcing the policy on a national scale, usually will arrive next - laissez-faire capitalism is its enemy, after all.

If this is all too moralistic, remember what would be immoral, a large scale manipulation of people's incomes, out of context of their individual ability and drive: anti-reality, anti-mind, anti-individual and freedom limiting. Yes, the CEO has the right to do as he pleases, and we have the right to judge his actions and consider the consequences..

[moralist]

Example Moralist, who from a business perspective I respect, jumped in immediately claiming that the decision to give people money without performance was morally wrong but then in his last post (#70) says that he happily undercharges customers simply because he feels like it. If we took the strict Objectivist, black or white, right or wrong stance shouldn't his actions be considered immoral as well? If his customers have not done any more than usual then rewarding them with cheaper prices is wrong. Not according to me, but according to that logic.

I make more money per transaction than a larger business because my overhead is lower than a larger business. And the people I serve are not just faceless nameless customers you take advantage of and throw away. They're my friends and my neighbors in our small community. And since this is my own business and I'm the sole proprietor, I am completely free to run it any way I see fit. The business model I chose consistently follows the prime directive of cultivating the goodwill of others by earning, upholding, and honoring their trust in me.

The gratitude of others is a precious treasure stored in Heaven more valuable than anything on Earth. And this is why I never need to worry about money. God promises prosperity and happiness to anyone who pleases him by doing what's morally right... and He kept His promise to me by blessing my life far beyond my wildest dreams.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Isn't it more productive to talk about Wal Mart on OL from what I think is your primary perspective than that CEO incompetent in Seattle? So this is my question to you: Just what do you want to talk about? A moral issue per a business, a moral issue per any individual? Any moral issue? It can't be just nuts and bolts.

--Brant

I think my biggest problem with the 20th century comparisons and the claims of separating pay from performance is the lack of allowing freedom of different businesses or individuals to choose and experiment on how they run their lives/businesses. I wasn't attempting to discuss nuts and bolts as far as the business success or failure is concerned. I make no analysis or prediction on whether this decision was supported by the companies financials or by how canny or profession the CEO is.

I simply feel that the article is written in a clearly biased fashion, trumping up the fact that two employees out of hundreds has quit over the decision, and I have a problem when people blindly jump on the bandwagon condemning someone (in moral terms) for a decision that the commentators don't agree with. Especially when we can easily find other examples in history or even possibly in those commentators lives where they would justify those exact same decisions.

Example Moralist, who from a business perspective I respect, jumped in immediately claiming that the decision to give people money without performance was morally wrong but then in his last post (#70) says that he happily undercharges customers simply because he feels like it. If we took the strict Objectivist, black or white, right or wrong stance shouldn't his actions be considered immoral as well? If his customers have not done any more than usual then rewarding them with cheaper prices is wrong. Not according to me, but according to that logic.

The raising of the base pay could very well be a disaster from a nut and bolts view but that's what the market is for. People make decisions, and either those decisions weed those decision makers out (providing precedence for later decision makers) or they rise. Hindsight will then attach all sorts of justifications as to why this or that situation is different. "Paying these employees much higher than market rates helped x company attract and retain the best talent" or "Paying these employees much higher than the market rate was the fatal decision that broke x company's back"

From my perspective all that is nonsense. Unless you have actual numbers than all you have is speculation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against prediction or even betting on an outcome, where I have a problem is when moral considerations are attached to it. You can say that I predict this company or decision will fail but I draw the line if you say that they will fail because their decision is evil or corrupting.

p.s. I'm talking about individuals making decisions in a free market. Of course true evil can come into play when you have a over powered, force driven socialistic scheme that for the greater good breaks people's spirits.

Reviewing the story in AS of Starnesville I see a problem. The workers of the Twentieth Century Motor Company turned themselves into something of a Jim Jones cult and John Galt would have none of it. Rand was trying to dress out the idea consequences of from each according to his ability to each according to his need. What happened in Seattle was real life and only partially overlapped Starnesville superficially. Historically Plymouth Colony started out on the premise of communal labor and common distribution regardless of contribution creating a bunch of layabouts and starvation. Bradford's On Plymouth Plantation described the situation and the solution.

The problem with Rand's great novel is she took a slew of great ideas and back fitted arbitrary and contrived circumstances and situations to craft her story. Taken literally all her facts consist of forced dynamics. Her actual understanding of business was as deficient as her understanding of psychology. A car manufacturing company like the one Galt worked for would have gone out of business almost immediately with that added on system. Someone like Galt would never have worked for an auto manufacturer. The three heroes who went on strike to start things off just wouldn't have, especially Francisco. You don't give up the love of your life--Dagny--for such selflessness. You don't build a steel mill on the seacoast for any reason than to make it vulnerable to Ragnar's naval bombardment. But all this abstracted goofiness married to her outstanding ideas makes it all a wonderful, thoughtful, read and work of art.

So. What's the actual matchup and commonality that is important? The CEO's (alleged) incompetence. The incompetence in AS was so pervasive as to stink up the whole country and it was incompetence everything. So, is incompetence coming to America? I think so. And, ironically, I think Alan Greenspan had a lot to do with it thanks both to his service to his country and what that service consisted of--to wit, what is going on economically right now all around the world economically. The double, deeper irony is that he took the job de facto de jure John Galt refused to take de jure de facto under duress of torture. Rand knew better. Rand was right. Rand was vindicated, both her ignorance and what she knew and how she mixed them up in art to a proper result. That's the greatest irony of all: she defeated empiricism, using philosophy and art to push aside non-apropos facts revealing apropos facts previously obscured. Facts can always be adduced to your cause. Facts were the result of hers. Of course, she did have a lot of facts of her own to start in so many ways.

I'm tired. I think I'm going to just let this stand without defense or revision. It's probably worthy of deletion, editing, gross revision, additions, and not publishable as such.

--Brant

fun: what did I mean by "de facto de jure" (Greenspan) and "de jure de facto" (Galt)--and should the proper names be switched and why?

[Derek McGowan]

From my perspective all that is nonsense. Unless you have actual numbers than all you have is speculation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against prediction or even betting on an outcome, where I have a problem is when moral considerations are attached to it. You can say that I predict this company or decision will fail but I draw the line if you say that they will fail because their decision is evil or corrupting.

p.s. I'm talking about individuals making decisions in a free market. Of course true evil can come into play when you have a over powered, force driven socialistic scheme that for the greater good breaks people's spirits.

If it works, it works, and no harm done if it doesn't. Is that your drift? Nobody can detach morality from this since, for starters, the CEO instigated his scheme with his particular moral view in mind. Then look down the road a little, and you'll see copy-catting by many more "moral" companies like his, all averaging-out income in an effort to make all people equal - and you have the start of "for the greater good" utilitarianism. The State happily enforcing the policy on a national scale, usually will arrive next - laissez-faire capitalism is its enemy, after all.

If this is all too moralistic, remember what would be immoral, a large scale manipulation of people's incomes, out of context of their individual ability and drive: anti-reality, anti-mind, anti-individual and freedom limiting. Yes, the CEO has the right to do as he pleases, and we have the right to judge his actions and consider the consequences..

Why not,

please please please listen to me

YOU ARE JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS

there is no mention of averaging out incomes, read the article. The decision in question is the raising of the base pay. Do you understand what base pay is? What was the last job you applied for, was there a minimum amount that those in that field get paid? That is a base pay.

The decision was to raise that base pay. That does not mean that everyone will get paid the same. Initailly maybe, because at that point in the article the long term employee who left was only getting 41000 so he gets a raise along with everyone else BUT that doesnt mean that raises based on merit will not take place. AND that doesn't mean that those who already get paid more than 70 grand take a paycut. They get a raise too!

[anthony]

The worst result of an experiment like this, would be that 'it sorta works' for some years. The company does quite OK, and most employees are quite satisfied with the arrangement, etc..

It is in an environment of government influence in business (and business influence in government) that it has its best chances of survival, with encouragement from the State (probably tax breaks and other benefits)... where it would be a dead loss in a free economy.

If it 'sorta works' it attracts others to follow the "new model" - since many would say "It is a moral idea, it is fair and equal, it doesn't allow a few damn elitists to get the big share of the pie". (And gets the company free PR for being "unselfishly moral").

A compromise brings more compromises, until we wonder one day what ever happened to capitalism and freedom. Not with a bang, but with many whimpers.

[Derek McGowan]

And the people I serve are not just faceless nameless customers you take advantage of and throw away. They're my friends and my neighbors in our small community.

I agree with your ability to choose what to do with your money and I would argue against anyone who decided your above statement was immoral, evil or corrupting

[anthony]

From my perspective all that is nonsense. Unless you have actual numbers than all you have is speculation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against prediction or even betting on an outcome, where I have a problem is when moral considerations are attached to it. You can say that I predict this company or decision will fail but I draw the line if you say that they will fail because their decision is evil or corrupting.

p.s. I'm talking about individuals making decisions in a free market. Of course true evil can come into play when you have a over powered, force driven socialistic scheme that for the greater good breaks people's spirits.

If it works, it works, and no harm done if it doesn't. Is that your drift? Nobody can detach morality from this since, for starters, the CEO instigated his scheme with his particular moral view in mind. Then look down the road a little, and you'll see copy-catting by many more "moral" companies like his, all averaging-out income in an effort to make all people equal - and you have the start of "for the greater good" utilitarianism. The State happily enforcing the policy on a national scale, usually will arrive next - laissez-faire capitalism is its enemy, after all.

If this is all too moralistic, remember what would be immoral, a large scale manipulation of people's incomes, out of context of their individual ability and drive: anti-reality, anti-mind, anti-individual and freedom limiting. Yes, the CEO has the right to do as he pleases, and we have the right to judge his actions and consider the consequences..

Why not,

please please please listen to me

YOU ARE JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS

there is no mention of averaging out incomes, read the article. The decision in question is the raising of the base pay. Do you understand what base pay is?

And who pays for the increased base income for untested new employees? Somebody always pays. If it comes out of profits, the business disadvantages itself. So it has to come at the cost of the higher earners' increases, who (one assumes) have already proven themselves and deserve their place. This is a private model of the public re-destribution of wealth, ultimately bringing down the good. Business with a social conscience.

[anthony]

I haven't seen a better idea for including incoming employees in the success of a company, stimulating and rewarding their long-term effort, than guaranteeing them shares in the business after the first year (based on some criteria, i.e. innovative ideas, years worked).

[Brant Gaede]

I haven't seen a better idea for including incoming employees in the success of a company, stimulating and rewarding their long-term effort, than guaranteeing them shares in the business after the first year (based on some criteria, i.e. innovative ideas, years worked).

Tell us then about the business you run using this "better idea."

--Brant

or are you a top-downer not on top?

[Derek McGowan]

And who pays for the increased base income for untested new employees? Somebody always pays. If it comes out of profits....

Who pays?! Of course it comes out of profits. WTF?!! Thats the way businesses operate WhyNot. Businesses hire people and they pay salaries, not out of some magically pot of gold but out of the money they make. Surely you must be joking cause if not, your business crediblity is quickly heading for laugh out loud land.

If the business cannot pay for salaries/ raises/ inventory/ lights then that is one thing (and it happens to poorly run businesses all the time) but to say that base pay come at the expense of someone else's raise ..... Guess what, according to your logic, anyone's raise comes at the expense of someone else's. The CEO's pay comes at the expense of the employees, the executive staff's pay comes at the expense of the CEO's pay. The stock buy backs come at the expense of shipping costs. The cost of licensing of a famous name comes at the expense of the art department. Rent at one location comes at the expense of expanding the business.

Thats called the cost of business

But again, are you really trying to say that the concept of base pay is socialistic and immoral? Have you ever hired anyone? Did you start them off at voluntary status until they proved themselves? Did you start off as a volunteer until you proved yourself on your job or when you went in was there the expectation of a minimum salary though the businesses didn't know you from Adam? Why do you think you deserved a base salary when you started? And if you are really trying to say that base pay is fine unless it reaches 70,000 the next question is why do you think that that particular number is too high? What do you think of Goldman Sachs decision last year to raise the base pay of their first year analysts from 70,000 to 85,000?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/wall-street-banks-lift-pay-for-junior-bankers-1408577017

Evil is everywhere.....

[anthony]

I haven't seen a better idea for including incoming employees in the success of a company, stimulating and rewarding their long-term effort, than guaranteeing them shares in the business after the first year (based on some criteria, i.e. innovative ideas, years worked).

Tell us then about the business you run using this "better idea."

--Brant

or are you a top-downer not on top?

Until I've personally done it, how do I know it's a good idea? Ha! Do you mean that?

Sure, I have known of small service-type business owners to give a small share to a top employee and it seems to operate well - anyhow it is obviously a good, self-interested, idea to involve one's employees and see them content.

Business-wise, I had several scores of opportunities to listen in on interviews with high level management and CEO's (MD's then) of the biggest SA corporations, during years of employ with two financial weekly magazines, so I heard their objectives and concerns (even if a lot of economic-speak went over my head) . Employment - strike action is the killer of this economy - was one major concern. For some years I was privately doing public relations, industrial and other photography, so I've had further entree to companies' boardrooms and plants. In SA for almost 20 years, you can't get the smallest contract unless you have an Affirmative Action rating (necessitating taking on a black partner) given by the State. That eventually spelled the end of corporate work for a one man band like me.

[anthony]

And who pays for the increased base income for untested new employees? Somebody always pays. If it comes out of profits....

Who pays?! Of course it comes out of profits. WTF?!! Thats the way businesses operate WhyNot. Businesses hire people and they pay salaries...

Does the over all payroll stay the same? Yes?No?

If yes, it means less increases for previously existing staff.

If no, it means less profit.

Which is it?

There's no free lunch.

Yup, I'd say minimum wage, or any fixed, blanket starting wage is anti-capitalist and anti-individualist. One person applies for employment, one person assesses his worth to the firm and offers him a salary - and that's all. I have not much interest in how some companies do operate, it only solidifies the present mixed economy to take them as the standard. They don't represent an objective standard. If one gets stuck in how things ARE run now, one loses the principle of what laissez-faire means and gives up on capitalism's future.

[Derek McGowan]

Does the over all payroll stay the same? Yes?No?

If yes, it means less increases for previously existing staff.

If no, it means less profit.

Which is it?

There's no free lunch.

what? What does this have to do with anything? Of course there is no free lunch. Who said there was. Your statement above is the same thing from my statement. Its called running a business.

If one gets stuck in how things ARE run now, .....

Have to agree with you here but I get the distinct feeling that you are throwing this in as a stretch, as a desparate attempt to be correct. Why don't you just admit that your opening posts were too broad and moralizing especially when those posts were based on your assumption that Dan Price's decision was to average out salaries.

Now you are trying to say that anything that falls outside of your ideal is wrong? I thought we wanted a free market. A free market has people of different wants, needs, desires and abilities making many different decisions. Not following your book of life

Base salaries are the RESULT of the free market. Outside of minium wage none of the other bases are enforced by anything other than the market. Businsses say what they will pay, workers either accept it or not. The amount that is accepted becomes precendent and the norm. That number is constantly negotiated down the line which causes the base/norm to rise or fall.... like magic

....evil magic

[Mikee]

Derek,

It's a matter of perspective. Every company culture is top down. The guy on top runs it however he wants, the people he hires take the culture as a given, they self select whether that's a culture they want to work in or not. Sometimes you're guessing, it's hard to know up front how what the environment at a given workplace is going to be as far as recognition of good ideas, hard work, organizational and interpersonal skills, innovation etc. If simply being a warm body that "deserves" a living wage is more important than all of the rest, and your values are different, you move on. I've worked for a couple of dozen companies and moved on many times. I haven't worked paycheck to paycheck since I was a teenager. I am a capitalist and a businessman, my business is my skill at problem solving, my customers are my employers. If you have employees and think they aren't paying attention to how you run your business you may be losing the better ones. If your attitude is it's none of their business, then say goodbye to the best.

[anthony]

Does the over all payroll stay the same? Yes?No?

If yes, it means less increases for previously existing staff.

If no, it means less profit.

Which is it?

There's no free lunch.

what? What does this have to do with anything? Of course there is no free lunch. Who said there was. Your statement above is the same thing from my statement. Its called running a business.

If one gets stuck in how things ARE run now, .....

Have to agree with you here but I get the distinct feeling that you are throwing this in as a stretch, as a desparate attempt to be correct. Why don't you just admit that your opening posts were too broad and moralizing especially when those posts were based on your assumption that Dan Price's decision was to average out salaries.

Now you are trying to say that anything that falls outside of your ideal is wrong? I thought we wanted a free market. A free market has people of different wants, needs, desires and abilities making many different decisions. Not following your book of life

Base salaries are the RESULT of the free market. Outside of minium wage none of the other bases are enforced by anything other than the market. Businsses say what they will pay, workers either accept it or not. The amount that is accepted becomes precendent and the norm. That number is constantly negotiated down the line which causes the base/norm to rise or fall.... like magic

....evil magic

I think that's untrue. First and foremost, a salary should be the ~result~ of freedom of independent choice, a negotiation between two individuals - a trade of values. Secondarily, the free market (as free as it is now) places a mean money value on any given skill. As a hirer I might offer well above the average - or well below, depending on : what I can afford to pay; how badly I want a prospective employee; specific, hard conditions and hours I'll need him for; etc..

And in some situations an applicant might offer to work for next to nothing, if he sees other value in it. What did you say about "wants, needs..." etc? I couldn't agree more.

This is the true and real application of all that, not job-market "norms".

You are viewing the free market as some kind of unreal abstraction--I think. Reality and real individuals come first.

I haven't stepped back from my "moralizing" at all. You do think capitalism to be moral? Why?

The push-back against creeping socialism requires morality, rational selfishness, to provide capitalism support. (Not in my country, capitalism is too far gone and uncomprehended by nearly all, businessmen too). But business and industry has bothered itself in providing people 'justice', 'equality' and 'dignity'. All things being correct in the work-place, safety, good conditions, decent co-workers and colleagues, and so on, CEO's have no more "social responsibility" they have to give. As if private enterprise doesn't provide enough.

Like Price, many want to be appreciated (I think) for what they do for society. Instead they should be clearly and selfishly stating their goal of profits alone. Not concealing their intentions behind politically correct strategems.

"MY ideal"? You've surely heard of 'objective ideals'...

[moralist]

Does the over all payroll stay the same? Yes?No?

If yes, it means less increases for previously existing staff.

If no, it means less profit.

Which is it?

There's no free lunch.

Objective reality is just like that:

EITHER / OR

For people to believe otherwise is to deny what is in order to affirm what isn't!

Greg

[Derek McGowan]

I think that's untrue. First and foremost, a salary should be the ~result~ of freedom of independent choice, a negotiation between two individuals - a trade of values. Secondarily, the free market (as free as it is now) places a mean money value on any given skill. As a hirer I might offer well above the average - or well below, depending on : what I can afford to pay; how badly I want a prospective employee; specific, hard conditions and hours I'll need him for; etc..

And in some situations an applicant might offer to work for next to nothing, if he sees other value in it. What did you say about "wants, needs..." etc? I couldn't agree more.

This is the true and real application of all that, not job-market "norms".

You are viewing the free market as some kind of unreal abstraction--I think. Reality and real individuals come first.

hmm... interesting.... Call me crazy but you sound to me like you've changed your tune 170 degrees (not 100 percent) in the last two posts. It could very well be that I havent been clear so you've misunderstood me or maybe I misunderstood you but it sounds suspiciously that you are now using mostly same reasoning that I've been stating over and again from the beginning of this post. Example

As a hirer I might offer well above the average - or well below, depending on : what I can afford to pay; how badly I want a prospective employee; specific, hard conditions and hours I'll need him for; etc..

It is a voluntary decision. Earlier you would have implied that for the hirer offer anything above average (my word "norm" your word "mean") he would have to be socialist or be putting the company at risk.

But again maybe I misunderstood. So I'll ask anyone else still reading this thread- does WhyNot's post above sound different than his previous ones?

You do think capitalism to be moral? Why?

Capitalism is the most moral (not my ideal) system that we have created thus far because it allows for the most freedom of the myriad of different minds to express themselves.

. Instead they should be clearly and selfishly stating their goal of profits alone.

Myriad of minds....

not everyone is out for profits alone

[moralist]

Myriad of minds....

.

not everyone is out for profits alone

I'm not.

Profit is merely a byproduct of earning the goodwill of others from serving them by improving the quality of their lives. If you make the world a better place for others to live. they will happily throw money at you.

This is ALL you need to know.

Everything else is just meaningless fluff!

Greg

[anthony]

I think that's untrue. First and foremost, a salary should be the ~result~ of freedom of independent choice, a negotiation between two individuals - a trade of values. Secondarily, the free market (as free as it is now) places a mean money value on any given skill. As a hirer I might offer well above the average - or well below, depending on : what I can afford to pay; how badly I want a prospective employee; specific, hard conditions and hours I'll need him for; etc..

And in some situations an applicant might offer to work for next to nothing, if he sees other value in it. What did you say about "wants, needs..." etc? I couldn't agree more.

This is the true and real application of all that, not job-market "norms".

You are viewing the free market as some kind of unreal abstraction--I think. Reality and real individuals come first.

hmm... interesting.... Call me crazy but you sound to me like you've changed your tune 170 degrees (not 100 percent) in the last two posts. It could very well be that I havent been clear so you've misunderstood me or maybe I misunderstood you but it sounds suspiciously that you are now using mostly same reasoning that I've been stating over and again from the beginning of this post. Example

As a hirer I might offer well above the average - or well below, depending on : what I can afford to pay; how badly I want a prospective employee; specific, hard conditions and hours I'll need him for; etc..

It is a voluntary decision. Earlier you would have implied that for the hirer offer anything above average (my word "norm" your word "mean") he would have to be socialist or be putting the company at risk.

Yes, it is a voluntary decision, who to hire and how much to offer--but it's made by one perceiving individual value in a person, motivated with one's self-interest and rationality.

I indicated that and you missed my whole point.

Because, conversely, here we have someone who arbitrarily gives a blanket raise to a random group of employees, with no rationality, no self-interest, nothing to gain but for some moralistic grandstanding. You see the difference?

You tell me, what does he gain from it, except to be regarded as "holier than thou"? If he wants to be charitable, he could privately donate a large sum to charities he cares about, unemployed mothers - or something. But business isn't charity, it doesn't exist to supply a service to the community, and it doesn't owe anybody anything, other than what it contracts to do.

They are concepts that have entered society along with a generally altruist ethics, by which governments and society decree or shame us into the belief that one automatically has a duty to a vague 'others', that companies must not be 'greedy' for profits, and we all should 'give back'. Most businessmen have guiltily accepted those premises without question. A few like Gravity take it further, saying effectively: look at how good we are, we are not that immoral sort of capitalist. That's pathetic and hypocritical.

It's basic, if we don't fight for the moral selfishness of capitalism, sure as eggs we will further lose it - together with your "freedom of the myriad" you appreciate that comes with it (or which precedes it). It's why this CEO's action (as petty and insignificant as it is, on its own) should be opposed on principle.

[anthony]

You do think capitalism to be moral? Why?

Capitalism is the most moral (not my ideal) system that we have created thus far because it allows for the most freedom of the myriad of different minds to express themselves.

"...that we have created thus far..."

(heh - still a Utopian idealist I notice, D.).

I hope you live long, Derek.

Long enough to see that nothing in reality gets any better than Capitalism.

[Derek McGowan]

"...that we have created thus far..."

(heh - still a Utopian idealist I notice, D.).

I dont belive in utopias

Also I don't presume to tell others what they should place value in

[anthony]

Also I don't presume to tell others what they should place value in

Well that's you. I do presume to, when it comes to the value of certain ideas.

(I'll listen too, to what others tell me is a better idea and compare value).

[Selene]

Also I don't presume to tell others what they should place value in

Well that's you. I do presume to, when it comes to the value of certain ideas.

Ayn..."Judge, and be ready to be judged."

Always liked that one.

A...

[moralist]

Ayn Rand could say that and mean it, because she understood the objective reality of the law of reciprocity.

Greg