Loathsome Custom Series...

Looks like my fave King James was the first to tax tobacco...

link

Here is a remarkably biased, slanted, sarcastic, and snarky chapter from England.   Evidently, Colombus was not an evangelist for Isabella and Fernando's Catholic mission but was obsessed with gold.    Well, to be fair, so was the Church.

Is the European Project Falsifiable?

link

"... I’ve developed the habit of asking proponents of the European project what would have to happen for them to stop adhering to it. Is there anything that might cause them to doubt their belief in the merger of European countries? The question is inspired by Karl Popper, who saw in the ability to answer this question the ultimate proof of a rational, scientific approach. He called this principle falsifiability: those defending a position – for example that European integration is important and necessary – should be able to say what would have to happen for them to abandon it. If they are unable to do so, their convictions are not rational or scientific, but ideological or religious...."

Popper introduced this question into the most important debate of his time and used it to expose Marxism. For it is impossible to falsify the view of history as a class struggle that will ultimately result in world revolution. It is a closed theory, based on a vision of the past (‘oppression’) and a vision of the future (‘revolution’), and nothing can possibly refute or prove it wrong. Marxism has an explanation for every possible event. If the workers revolt that is a confirmation of Marxist theory. If the workers do not revolt, then that is also a confirmation of Marxist theory, because failure to revolt is proof of their continued oppression. Whatever happens, we’re never to doubt Karl Marx’s prophecy.

The quasi-argumentation that currently justifies the European project is analogous in significant respects to the type of reasoning once employed by Marxist ideologues. Therefore, when I ask its supporters what would have to happen, or what would have to be proven, to make them change their mind, I never get an answer. Instead, a ritual-like repetition of the EU party line is rattled off, starting with the credo that ‘in the past, Europe waged war’ and that ‘unification brings peace’. The terrorist attacks in Paris, or indeed any other catastrophe (such as the eurocrisis), could never change that fundamental belief – because, so they’ll say, it’s a historical fact. Upon the suggestion that NATO’s role be included in our understanding of the peace we’ve witnessed since 1945, as well as the emergence of the Cold War, the rebirth of Germany as a democratic nation, the rise of the welfare state, the nuclear deterrent and a declining demography (all of which having absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the EU), the europhile won’t argue with you (lest he might be forced to concede). Instead, he’ll shift the subject and say: “But the EU brings prosperity.”

If one then explains that free trade is perfectly possible without Brussels’ centralized management of the economy, that countries outside the EU do perfectly fine, and the euro currency has driven several member states to the edge of economic abyss, the Europhile counters that, actually, the real purpose of the EU is to form a ‘block’ against emerging powers such as China and Brazil. To the objections, then brought forward, that the EU undermines the real and unique strength of Europe – its political, legal, and cultural diversity – and that all decisive breakthroughs in European history, including the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment, the industrial revolution, oversees exploration, technological innovation and economic competition, were possible precisely – and only – because of its decentralization, the true believer’s response is to remind you that Europe has enjoyed sixty years of peace. And so the argument comes full circle.

When people voice objections to further expansion of EU powers in referendums or opinion polls the conclusion is always: ‘We need to explain it better’. When its concocted schemes break down, as in the case of the euro, the answer is: ‘It was introduced too soon’. And when the open borders lead to enormous immigration problems and terrorist attacks, they call for a European army! Should you then point out, finally, that the Scandinavian countries and Britain will never agree to be ruled from Brussels by a federal government and an integrated army, the europhile generously suggests a ‘Europe of two speeds’.

Yes, why not have a two-speed Europe? It suggests an open worldview – tolerant and welcoming. Prudent. But what it really means, indeed, what is actually implied in the term, is that we are all on the same track – with the same destination. Some countries are going faster, others more slowly, but we’re all moving in the same direction. The Europhile simply can’t imagine two destinations. There’s only one destination, history moves towards one goal only. Some of us are pulling ahead (at full speed) while others are lagging behind (at a lower speed). But there can be no doubt about the final dot on the horizon.

Overwhelmingly, Europeans do not want the EU’s usurpation of their democratic rights of self government. Southern European economies are on the verge of collapse. Open borders have led to an immigration explosion and now terrorist attacks. A Weimar scenario is unfolding in Greece and Portugal. The Europhile draws only one conclusion: ‘We need more Europe’. His worldview is as hermetically sealed as that of the Marxist, and reality has absolutely no bearing on him. Over sixty-five years after the publication of Karl Popper’s The Open Society and its Enemies, the poverty of historicism is still with us, alive and well, and shared by the overwhelming majority of our hopeless elite.

Thierry Baudet

Thierry Baudet is the author of The Significance of Borders. Why Representative Government and the Rule of Law Require Nation States, and he is the founding director of the independent thinktank Forum for Democracy.

About the Author

Abercrombie & Fitch

History link

As early as 1913, A&F had adopted the slogan, "The Greatest Sporting Goods Store in the World".^[9]

That was THEN:

"Founded in 1892 in the Manhattan borough of New York City, New York, by David T. Abercrombie and Ezra Fitch, Abercrombie & Fitch was an elite outfitter of sporting and excursion goods, particularly noted for its expensive shotguns, fishing rods, fishing boats, and tents. In 1976, Abercrombie & Fitch filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, finally closing its flagship store at Madison Avenue and East 45th Street in 1977.^[5]     

^{[We used to spend many pleasant lunch hours in that store marvelling at the excursion, safari, expedition, and exploration gear and wonderful merchandise that they sold.  They regularly outfitted Teddy Roosevelt.  They had a shooting range in the basement and a pool on the roof.   In 1938, 40% of sales at the great flagship Madison Avenue store was guns.  There was a gorgeous collapsible 4-man wooden boat with canvas cover that could be back-packed anywhere that a man could walk or hike.  Twelve floors, we loved that place.]}

Shortly thereafter the name was revived in 1978, Oshman's Sporting Goods, a Houston-based chain owned by Jake Oshman,^[6] bought the defunct firm's name and mailing list for $1.5 million^[7] ($5.2 million in 2013 dollars).^[8]Oshman's relaunched A&F as a mail-order retailer specializing in hunting wear and novelty items. It also opened shops in Beverly Hills, Dallas, and (by the mid-1980s) New York City. Finally, in 1988, Oshman's sold the company name and operations to The Limited, a clothing-chain operator based in Columbus, Ohio.^[9] "

And this is NOW:

"Product criticism[edit]

In 2002, A&F sold a shirt that featured the slogan "Wong Brothers Laundry Service – Two Wongs Can Make It White" with smiling figures in conical Asian hats, a depiction of early Chinese immigrants. The company discontinued the designs and apologized after a boycott started by an Asian American student group at Stanford University.^[82] That same year, abercrombie kids removed a line of thong underwear sold for girls in pre-teen children's sizes after parents mounted nationwide storefront protests. The underwear included phrases like "Eye Candy" and "Wink Wink" printed on the front.^[83]

More T-shirt controversies occurred in 2004. The first incident involved a shirt featuring the phrase, "It's All Relative in West Virginia," a jab at alleged incestuous relationships in rural America. West Virginia Governor Bob Wise spoke out against the company for depicting "an unfounded, negative stereotype of West Virginia", but the shirts were not removed.^[84] Later, another T-shirt that said "L is for Loser" next to a picture of a male gymnast on the rings gathered publicity. The company stopped selling the shirt in October 2004 after USA Gymnastics president Bob Colarossi announced a boycott of A&F for mocking the sport.^[85]

In 2005, the Women and Girls Foundation of Southwest Pennsylvania launched a "Girlcott" of the store to protest the sale of T-shirts displaying sexist messages such as "Who needs brains when you have these?", "Available for parties," and "I had a nightmare I was a brunette." The campaign received national coverage on The Today Show, and the company pulled the shirts from stores on November 5, 2005.^[86] Five days after this media coverage, A&F pulled two of the shirts off of its shelves, released an apology to girls for producing the T-shirts, and agreed to have corporate executives meet with the "Girlcott" girls at the company's headquarters.^[87]

Bob Jones University, a non-denominational Protestant university located in Greenville, South Carolina, and its affiliated pre-collegiate schools, along with other Christian schools have prohibited A&F and Hollister clothing from being "worn, carried, or displayed" on its campuses because of "an unusual degree of antagonism to the name of Christ and an unusual display of wickedness" in the company's promotions.^[88]

After A&F raised its price points in 2004, its products have been described as overpriced.^[81] After the company opened its flagship store in London, England and Paris, France, the brand was criticized in the United Kingdom and France because the merchandise that was offered to the customers cost double (or a direct $/£ - $/€ swap) compared to prices found in the U.S.^[89]

A T-shirt controversy arose again over A&F's Back-to-School 2009 collection of "humor tees".^[90] One shirt proclaims "Show the twins" above a picture of a young woman with her blouse open to two men. Two other shirts state "Female streaking encouraged" and "Female Students Wanted for Sexual Research".^[90] The American Family Association disapproved of the influence of the "sex-as-recreation" lifestyle shirts, and asked the brand to remove its "sexualized shirts" from display.^[90]"

^{You've come a long way, baby.}

Carly for America

link

Dear Terry,

I have known Carly for over 25 years -- I am honored to have worked with Carly at AT&T, and then at Lucent Technologies when it began in 1995. As someone who worked for her, I always respected how she could at once put people at ease so that they felt heard and valued, but also be gently pushing the group toward a consensus on vital issues. Because of her ability to listen, build teams, work hard and make smart choices, Carly rose through the ranks easily. She was determined to do things and do them well. 

As someone that has worked for and known Carly for more than two decades I can tell you that she has unmatched intellect, integrity and leadership abilities. 

I've continued to watch Carly grow. I've watched her manage through flush times and lean times; her approach to solving problems never changed. Her natural ability to lead continuously impresses me: she surrounds herself with competent people, empowers them to find solutions and she works collaboratively with them in implementation. She never avoids the tough decisions and always takes responsibility for those she has made.

I believe it would be refreshing to have Carly lead our nation -- we have enormous problems facing us right now. The old, professional political class isn't working anymore. We need a leader with the skill to find solutions to problems, the courage to make tough decisions and the integrity not to blame someone else when things go wrong. I know from personal observation that Carly is that leader and am confident she will introduce Americans to a new era of leadership.

There is much about Carly’s career that people don’t know. Please visit FromSecretarytoCEO.com to learn more and please be sure to share it with your friends, colleagues and neighbors. 

Sincerely,

Bill Rohrbach

setting circuit breakers

link

step one

max loss per day  x acct size

10,000 x 5%  = 500
x 2%  =  200/day

2,500  x  2%  =  50


2,500 x .05 = 125

max loss per trade
2%

step two

how many losses will you allow in a trading day?

Shawn for instance has 3 losses per 10.
He accounts for 9 losing trades per day, so devide into max loss per day.

$500/9 = $55

What's a Fabian socialist?

The following essay was written by Jerry Bowyer for Forbes in 2008. We were warned. -- Gary DeMar

_________________

Barack Obama is a Fabian socialist. I should know; I was raised by one. My Grandfather worked as a union machinist for Ingersoll Rand during the day. In the evenings he tended bar and read books. After his funeral, I went back home and started working my way through his library, starting with T.W. Arnold’s The Folklore of Capitalism. This was my introduction to the Fabian socialists.

Fabians believed in gradual nationalization of the economy through manipulation of the democratic process. Breaking away from the violent revolutionary socialists of their day, they thought that the only real way to effect “fundamental change” and “social justice” was through a mass movement of the working classes presided over by intellectual and cultural elites. Before TV it was stage plays, written by George Bernard Shaw and thousands of inferior “realist” playwrights dedicated to social change. John Cusack’s character in Woody Allen’s “Bullets Over Broadway” captures the movement rather well.

Arnold taught me to question everyone–my president, my priest and my parents. Well, almost everyone. I wasn’t supposed to question the Fabian intellectuals themselves. That’s the Fabian MO, relentless cultural and journalistic attacks on everything that is, and then a hard pitch for the hope of what might be.

That’s Obama’s world.

He’s telling the truth when he says that he doesn’t agree with Bill Ayers’ violent bombing tactics, but it’s a tactical disagreement. Why use dynamite when mass media and community organizing work so much better? Who needs Molotov when you’ve got Saul Alinski?

So here is the playbook: The left will identify, freeze, personalize and polarize an industry, probably health care. It will attempt to nationalize one-fifth of the U.S. economy through legislative action. They will focus, as Lenin did, on the “commanding heights” of the economy, not the little guy.

image: http://cdn1.godfatherpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Obama_fabian.jpg

As Obama said, “the smallest” businesses will be exempt from fines for not “doing the right thing” in offering employer-based health care coverage. Health will not be nationalized in one fell swoop; they have been studying the failures of Hillary Care. Instead, a parallel system will be created, funded by surcharges on business payroll, which will be superior to many private plans.

The old system will be forced to subsidize the new system and there will be a gradual shift from the former to the latter. The only coercion will be the fines, not the participation. A middle-class entitlement will have been created.

It may not be health care first; it might be energy, though I suspect that energy will be nationalized much more gradually. The offshore drilling ban that was allowed to lapse legislatively will be reinstated through executive means. It may be an executive order, but might just as well be a permit reviewing system that theoretically allows drilling but with endless levels of objection and appeal from anti-growth groups. Wind and solar, on the other hand, will have no permitting problems at all, and a heavy taxpayer subsidy at their backs.

The banking system has already been partially nationalized. Bush and Paulson intend for their share purchases to be only non-voting preferred shares, but the law does not specify that. How hard will it be for Obama, new holder of $700 billion in bank equity, to demand “accountability” and a “voice” for the taxpayers?

The capital markets are not freezing up now, mostly because of what has happened, although community organizers’ multidecade push for affirmative-action mortgages has done enormous harm to the credit system. Markets are forward looking.

A quick review of the socialist takeovers in Venezuela in 1999, Spain in 2004 and Italy in 2006 show the same pattern–equity markets do most of their plummeting before the Chavez’s of the world take power. Investors anticipate the policy shift in advance; that’s their job.

It’s not just equity markets, though; debt markets do the same thing. Everywhere I turn I hear complaints about bankers “hoarding” capital. “Hoarding” is a word we’ve heard often from violent socialists like Lenin and Mao. We also hear it from the democratic left as we did during the 1930s in America. The banks, we’re told, are greedy and miserly, holding onto capital that should be deployed into the marketplace.

Well, which is it, miserly or greedy? They’re not the same thing. Banks make money borrowing low and lending high. In fact, they can borrow very, very low right now, as they could during the Great Depression.

So why don’t they lend? Because socialism is a very unkind environment for lenders. Some of the most powerful members of Congress are speaking openly about repudiating mortgage covenants. Local officials have already done so by simply refusing to foreclose on highly delinquent borrowers. Then, there’s the oldest form of debt repudiation, inflation. Even if you get your money back, it will not be worth anything. Who would want to lend in an environment like this?

Will Obama’s be the strong-man socialism of a Chavez, or the soft socialism that Clement Atlee used to defeat Churchill after WWII? I don’t know, but I suspect something kind of in between. Despite right-wing predictions that we won’t see Rush shut down by Fairness Doctrine fascists. We won’t see Baptist ministers hauled off in handcuffs for anti-sodomy sermons. It will more likely be a matter of paperwork. Strong worded letters from powerful lawyers in and out of government to program directors and general mangers of radio stations. Ominous references to license renewal.

The psychic propaganda assault will be powerful. The cyber-brown-shirts will spew hate, the union guys will flood talk shows with switchboard-collapsing swarms of complaint calls aimed at those hosts who “go beyond the pale” in their criticisms of Obama. In concert with pop culture outlets like The Daily Show and SNL, Obama will use his podium to humiliate and demonize those of us who don’t want to come together and heal the planet.

You’ve heard of the bully pulpit, right? Well, then get ready, because you’re about to see the bully part.

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/20609/barack-obama-fabian-socialist/#fzBHPtvm75muSQ9h.99

France: "Soak-the-Rich" s'enfoncer dans la boues et DEEPpardDu.

Income tax -- France 75% max;  Russia 13% flat.

Major Loser

France admits their 75% "super-tax" on top earners was a failure and quietly lets it expire. http://t.co/dVs9Fw3Be8

— Arthur Brooks (@arthurbrooks) January 2, 2015

France waves discreet goodbye to 75 percent super-tax

(Reuters) - When President Francois Hollande unveiled a "super-tax" on the rich in 2012, some feared an exodus of business, sporting and artistic talent. One adviser warned it was a Socialist step too far that would turn France into "Cuba without sun"....
.................................................................................................................

Winner Mucho Grande Hugee Hero

[F]ormer French president Nicolas Sarkozy, his wife Carla Bruni, and Bernard Arnault—“France’s Richest Man”—are reportedly also considering leaving their homeland in response to the country’s proposed “millionaire’s tax.” The Times of London reports that Sarkozy is “sounding out investors” for a private-equity fund he would like to establish in Britain. Sarkozy has previously revealed that after his political career, he’d like to concentrate on personal-wealth building. “I’m going to do this for five years and afterwards I’m going off to make dosh like Clinton,” the former French leader said in 2008. According to Forbes, taxes in London may be 50 percent, compared with a proposed 75 percent tax for the wealthy in France. While a spokesman for Sarkozy has denied that the former president is moving to London, she would not comment on the report that Sarkozy is attempting to establish a private-equity fund there. In other France-fleeing rumors, the Guardian reports that French business magnate Bernard Arnault—who is estimated to be the world’s 14th richest person with a $29.5 billion net worth—has applied for Belgian nationality. The head of the luxury-goods company Louis Vuitton Moët Hennessy, Arnault is also believed to have transferred his stake in the family group that controls L.V.M.H “to a firm set up for the purpose in Belgium, where taxes are lower.” A spokesman for the 63-year-old billionaire claims that Arnault was not trying to evade the potential tax but simply wanted to “preserve the company in case he died suddenly.”
[Source:   Vanity Fair http://www.vanityfair.com/online/oscars/2013/01/gerard-depardieu-tax-evasion-france-nicolas-sarkozy-bernard-arnault     Message to LEFT:  You can't make this stuff up.]

Internet Sales Tax bill

link
FT reports Republicans will not let the Internet Sales Tax bill pass this session of Congress.

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ac18e94a-6930-11e4-b389-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz3IjujsXCJ

"Marketplace Fairness" is the cynically coined title  of a bill that denies fairness and manipulates the  market.

Markets need to be free, not encumbered by price and  quota loopholes devised by a greedy, economically illiterate government.   Sales tax is imposed by most states at the cash  register.  If the cash register is in another state,  they cannot impose or collect sales tax.  That is  NOT a loophole.  That's fairness.

By renaming "Sales Tax" as "Sales and Use Tax" they  try to assert that the tax is due from the consumer well  separated and apart from the cash register.  It's  crooked.

Where I live, the state sales tax is 9.75% until  last year when the county added 2% sales tax to  food.  I'm not talking fine upscale restaurant food.  I'm talking bread, milk, baby formula, vitamins,  cough drops, rice, flour, beans, your family's  GROCERIES!

Sales Tax is justified if at all by the  infrastructure, services, and facilities furnished by  the local government.  That means that the brick and  mortar retailers in town get:  Police and fire  services, meat, kitchen, elevator, deli scale,  building, fire marshal inspections, courts, prosecutors, public defenders, jails, and probation  officers to identify, apprehend, detain, try,  incarcerate, and rehabilitate offenders who  shoplift, embezzle, steal, purse grab, armed rob the  retailer or his customers.  It enables street  cleaning, pothole repair, sewers, water supply,  traffic signals, snow removal, accident response and  ambulance service, tornado sirens, early disaster  responders, and on and on.  All very expensive services for the benefit and protection of the  local retailers.   Not one of those benefits accrue to the  interests of the out-of-state merchant.  None,  bubkis, nada, zilch, zero!  "Marketplace Fairness?"   I think not.

Doctors, lawyers, chiropractors, accountants,  therapists, UPS, FedEx, the post office, storage  spaces, veterinarians (except for pet food) are not  required to collect sales tax, and we users of those  services are not required to tally and pay tax for  their use.  

We consumers-tax payers have been struggling more  and more every pay period to make our ends meet  since 2008.  Internet merchants enable us to find  bargains and broaden our choices.  It is a trade off:  We have to pay  shipping.  The state tax authority will want sales  tax on the shipping, you can depend upon it. Each  state, I suggest will need to hire two additional  people, with offices, parking spaces, and generous  benefits to administer the sales tax collections  from each of the 50 states and several territories  subject to US law.  That's 50 times 50 more tax  collectors!  They want every resident to file a  Sales & Use Tax Return?  An army of new auditors on our state's payrolls making government yet even that  much bigger than the productive working sector.  How  are they going to deal with creative merchants who  take their fulfillment to Canada, Mexico, France,  Hong Kong, or Antigua?

What about the five states that have NO sales tax?   Is my state going to put 11.75% sales tax on any  maple syrup I bring in from New Hampshire, crab legs  from Delaware, rocky mountain oysters from Montana,  or granola from Oregon.  "Fairness?"  Hardly.  It is favoritism paid off to the legislators with billions  for new spending.  That's what it is--a sweetheart  deal!   The mobsters in Brooklyn were less rapacious as this. 

This proposal is an unmitigated outrage and insult  to the taxpayers and consumers of this entire  nation.  How Senator Lamar Alexander, Bob Corker,  and other Republican senators could support this  just shows how badly we need Tea Party, low tax,  shrink government leaders now.  These "Marketplace  Fairness" Republicans are sellouts with no right to  our vote.

Bob Precter warning

Tennessee Tax Free

"Tennessee is one of nine states that does not tax wage income. Research has consistently shown that the nine states without an income tax outperformed the United States average in the categories of population growth, economic growth, and employment.  In addition, the research has also shown that states without an income tax had much higher personal income growth rates than their higher taxed counterparts. 

State income taxes lead to higher government spending, and depressed economic growth. Since 1967, states that tax income have seen a 42 percent increase in government spending and a 64 percent decline in personal income.  Amendment 3 would ensure that TN remains fiscally and economically competitive by ensuring that no state or local income tax is ever imposed and that the incomes of hard-working Tennesseans are protected. 

As such, I urge you to vote YES on Amendment 3 this November. 

In Liberty,
Grover Norquist
President, Americans for Tax Reform"

Devil And Ayn Rand

• Link
• PHILOSOPHY

The Devil And Ayn Rand: Extending Christian Charity To John Galt’s Creator

More than sixty years after Whittaker Chamber's devastating review of Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged,' it's time to reconsider writing her out of conservatism.

By Hunter Baker

OCTOBER 7, 2014

Share on emailEmail

Share on printPrint

Poor Paul Ryan is probably still getting an earful from critics (many of them Christians) about his earlier enthusiasm for Ayn Rand. Somehow, he hadn’t gotten the memo on how disreputable the Russian émigré was and remains. Ryan must have missed “Dirty Dancing,” which has a famous scene in which a spoiled, rich, young man denies his responsibility to a working-class girl he has left pregnant. “Some people count and some don’t,” he says as he brandishes a copy of Rand’s “The Fountainhead.”

Now, if that’s what Rand says, then line her up with Adolf Hitler for history’s all-star firing squad. But is that what she said or intended? Does she deserve the condemnation heaped upon villains with vile philosophies? Perhaps there is a more charitable way to read the tales of Roark, Taggart, Rearden, and Galt.

Christians, in particular, have a deep ambivalence about Ayn Rand that probably draws as deeply from the facts of her biography as from her famous novels. When the refugee from the old Soviet Union met the Catholic William F. Buckley, she said, “You are much too intelligent to believe in God.” Her atheism was militant. It wasn’t so much that she didn’t believe in God as she was actively against the whole idea. If God existed, she felt, man suffered a degradation. Her heroic man, who tamed fire at his fingertips with a stylish and pleasure-giving cigarette, stood on top of creation and didn’t kneel for anyone. Rather than venerating the cross, Rand took the dollar sign as her holy symbol. Why? Because the dollar was a proxy for economic value. And for her, economic value was the primary pursuit of a life properly lived.

Critiquing the Whittaker Chambers Takedown

One of Buckley’s missions in politics was to police the boundaries of the conservative movement. He has been credited with delegitimizing the John Birch Society as a representative organization of the Right. In the case of Rand, he gave Whittaker Chambers the job of reviewing “Atlas Shrugged” for National Review. Chambers was a phenomenally gifted writer. We remember him for “Witness,” which may be one of the greatest memoirs ever written and certainly one of the best of the twentieth century. So great was his talent that he had earlier reached the elite ranks of Time where he had been paid like a star at a magazine that awarded no bylines. He was one of publisher Henry Luce’s favorites. Chambers hated Rand’s book. He thought her philosophy logically led to the extinction of the less fit. The piece characterized Rand’s message as, “To a gas chamber, go!” Chambers wasn’t impressed with her prose style, either. His take-down of “Atlas Shrugged” effectively read Rand and the Objectivists out of the conservative movement.

Whittaker Chambers hated Ayn Rand’s book. He thought her philosophy logically led to the extinction of the less fit.

In truth, the great Chambers probably treated Rand’s work unfairly in terms of the content if not with regard to writerly craft. Rand did have disdain for some people, but her lack of respect was not based on physical weakness, class, or color so much as it was aimed at those she thought lacked virtue. Contempt may have its place if it aims at a form of evil. The author certainly saw herself as wielding scorn in exactly that fashion.

One of the worst villains in the novel is Dagny Taggart’s brother, James. He is a rich man who refuses to run his (inherited) company on legitimate competitive terms. Instead, he prefers crony capitalism married to vague notions of social responsibility. Instead of out-competing his rivals, Jim Taggart hopes to have them outlawed. He courts politicians rather than excellence. By Rand’s reckoning, Taggart’s outlook and actions rank him with the lowest of the low. He is a powerful leech.

Productivity: The Great Life-Affirming Activity

The good society for an Objectivist is one in which a man stands or falls on his productivity. As Rand explained in her lectures on ethics, she saw production as the one great life-affirming activity. Man does not automatically or instinctively derive his sustenance from the earth or the sun. He must labor and produce. This was Rand’s bedrock and explains why she had such disdain for those who try to gain wealth through political arrangements. She saw this parasitism on multiple points of the economic spectrum from the beggar to the bureaucrat to the purveyor of incestuous corporatism. In the Randian view, a person with integrity creates value and exchanges it with others in an open and honest way. One does not cleverly reserve either a wage or a market. One earns them.

In Rand’s economy, a shiftless man of wealth would rank well below a blue-collar welder who performs his craft with excellence.

At this point it makes sense to return to the famous scene from “Dirty Dancing” in which Rand’s accusers put words in her mouth and leave no room for response. “Some people count and some don’t.” The implication, given the class dynamics in the film, is that the rich have worth and the poor do not. But Rand would have been outraged at the thought. In her economy, a shiftless man of wealth would rank well below a blue-collar welder who performs his craft with excellence (and probably also a talented dancer at a resort).

Her point of view is far more defensible if properly understood. Rand extols the captains of industry, the men and women who have a drive to change the world for the better and to get rich in the bargain. That much is certain. But the novels also make clear her love for any man or woman who performs a job well. She sees dignity, joy, and love in work rather than in wealth per se.

Ayn Rand Versus Christianity

The critical tension between Rand and Christian theology is on human worth. Christians affirm the inherent and very high value of individuals because of their creation in the image of God. Rand values human beings primarily for their achievements. A person who does not offer value (specifically, economic value) gets dubbed a “moocher” and “looter.” The language is inflammatory to most people, but rankles Christians even more so due to their devotion to the idea of the human being as a bearer of God’s image.

Rand was an atheist and clearly had an insufficient appreciation for (and accounting of) human solidarity, but she loved freedom and she understood the importance of work for human flourishing.

Rand’s atheism, materialism, and reduction of the human being’s value to economic productivity are all reasonable targets of critique for a variety of good reasons. Let those arguments continue to be made, though perhaps with less rancor. But it is important to be clear about the charges for which Rand should not have to answer. She was an atheist and clearly had an insufficient appreciation for (and accounting of) human solidarity, but she loved freedom and she understood the importance of work for human flourishing. And finally, although some accused her of fascism, she ardently opposed the cut-rate philosophy that makes an idol of the state.

Ayn Rand deserves some of the opposition she has received from Christians and many others. But she also deserves better.