OTOH, there is such a thing as evidence. For example, do tax cuts and less government regulation actually promote economic growth -- or do they simply concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands and socialize the costs of doing business? It's easy enough to find out the answer, if your mind isn't made up in advance.

In reality it is all complicated. Sadly government does not consist from angels (usually it is quite opposite species). Same for free market proponents and capitalists, especially small.

Idea that somehow static simple solution exist is wrong. Nature is complex thing, same is the society.

We had extremely stable situation because all complexity issues and conflicts were solved with more energy and resources. Real conflicts is visible due to shortages of this things. And it'll be quite nasty and cruel. Same as nature.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-29/new-normal-american-dream-homeownership-rate-plunges-19-year-low-asking-rents-soar-r

If you view on this as on birth control method and special tax all will fit into place.

Btw horrible situation with education prices is also from same opera.

She did write the motto of most indie filmmakers :)

The question isn’t who is going to let me; it’s who is going to stop me. - Ayn Rand

On the other hand... here's an article by a former Randian: Atlas Flunked/ I Was A Teenage Randroid By Jason Heller

Emboldened by the clean, innocent, robotic arrogance of Rand characters like Howard Roark and Dagny Taggart, I let my inner asshole loose. I spoke to people with rude, brutal honesty. I walked down the street with my head high, my face expressionless. I was openly disdainful of poor people, my own family included. In other words, I became a practicing sociopath.

https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/atlas-flunked/

is there something i said that would suggest i have no first hand experience with rand`s books and lectures? ive read her work, seen interviews of her, and most embarrassing of all, seen the trainwreck of a movie. so lets put that strawman to bed. i can say she sucks, just like i can say mark twain sucks, but since most scholars and critics consider twain one of americas greatest writers, it is not a tenable position. similarly, since rand is considered a joke by most scholars, to turn her rhetoric into a belief system is perilous if you want to be taken seriously. but if you think she is awesome, have at her.

@Vitaliy I try to do that. I just don't find Rand credible and I feel there are much better sources for ideas that differ from my own. Using different and opposing views is great, but I don't think we should use EVERY opposing view.

of course, it's wise to form opinions from source material rather than on what others say about the source material. but again, i see nothing in the above passage, nothing in her other writings, and nothing in second hand sources that warrant creating a near complete intellectual framework to live by. and omg, in the us so many do precisely that. her following is cultish. rand is a contagion thats infected our political leadership even. there isnt a single person, not jesus, not ghandi, not machiavelli, jefferson, mao, no one, particularly, ayn fucking rand, that deserves such unquestioning following. with all the great minds of history, it`s disturbing that so many have invested themselves in such a person, but thats what happens with the culture of celebrity. sexy packaging and the ensuing media exposure triumphs again. i really wish people would stop making ayn rand, jesus, rush limbaugh and other such screwballs into intellectual gods deserving worship. thats the real danger, much more so than depending on second hand information sources.

@brianl

Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against—then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there it that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of lawbreakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

Atlas Shrugged.

@brianl

Good idea is read and think by yourself. Ayn Rand books have few good ideas.

I mean, I really don't know how much more evidence you need than what is already available in history.

I agree, but not in the way you intend. You may recall that the so-called "Chicago-boys" did indeed experiment with entire economies, among them Chile and Russia, on so-called "free market" principles. In all cases, the result was a disaster for the vast majority of citizens.

By contrast, societies organized around principles you despise -- central banks, heavy taxation, high regulatory burdens, powerful unions, etc. -- have a proven history of delivering what, in historical terms, is a shockingly high quality of life for huge numbers of people, and over the course of generations. How many Frenchmen, Norwegians or Germans would trade their highly centralized economies for either the U.S. version, in order to produce Donald Trumps and billionaire hedge managers of their own, and run up hundreds of thousands in student debt and medical bills, or for life in unregulated Guatemala or Nigeria?

So yeah, I am making a case for centralized control of the economy, absent a proven alternative.

Unlike you, I'm not a utopian. I don't expect to see society ever fulfill my ideals. I just want to get through it as pleasantly and productively as possible, with some balance between state oppression and that of monied interests. And the last place I would look for either pleasant or productive is the Randians or the Austrian school.

There's more dogma in books like these than in the bible itself...

You mean, unlike your own implied view that if governments didn't control interest-rates, create federal reserves, and monopolize currencies, we'd all be fat and happy -- or, at least, Ayn Rand fantasists would be -- because somehow or other, despite the lack of any remotely convincing example in human history, past or present, your untested ideas would actually sustain decent and prosperous societies of hundreds of millions of people?

In the absence of any actual evidence, this view sounds about as grounded in reality as believing that life began 6000 years ago in the Garden of Eden.

"Sadly" free market capitalism is not possible. Please explain the "Sadly"

Second sentence pretty much explain it. Otherwise it is just sarcasm.

because we all know that the government's control of interest-rates, the creation of the federal reserve, and monopoly of currency are all just shining bastions of free-market capitalism.

Sadly, free market capitalism is not possible in modern developed countries.

But people where it exists (usually the poorest countries) will meet any proponent of free markets with few bullets.

Another book on the same topic that was published in English this month: Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty (currently Associate Chair at the Paris School of Economics).

Checked the book, still reading, but can say that it is not very good book, written by guy who think that long complex definition and explanations can make something look smarter.

Author position can be described as follows:

Imagine five wolfs with plates full of sheep bones.
They talk politely about current situation while few remaining sheep are shaking in far dark corner.
And smartest wolf declare:
- I think all the problems are because we are sitting in wrong order
- I don't think it is the case - answer the second wolf
- May be, but we must be very concerned with all this inequality, as it is just pity to look at the shaking shits, and it is not good for their health, hence - for our health.
- I agree - but do not even attempt to start any socialist talks as being 2 years old child I vividly remember TV news were they said how horrible socialism is. So I have cure for whole life now against totalitarian wolfs hating regimes.
- No, no, do not worry. I think we must just write and publish declaration of sheep rights. Teach sheep on TV how to behave properly to preserve meet taste while waiting for their round. And I still insist that we must restrict consumption to five sheep a day and sit in reverse order.
- Sounds wise.
- So, be it.