Sign InMy Account

Answering the Controversy!

Posted By: Randy GageMarch 26, 2010

So in yesterday’s post I said I believe all private businesses should be able to discriminate for whoever they want to serve.  If they want, they should be able to put a sign in the window that says, “No Germans.”  Or, “We Don’t Serve Indians.”  Or “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Blue Eyes, No Service!”  This raised quite a spirited debate!  And I don’t say that just to shock you.  I am quite serious...  

I also told you that if you believe in prosperity and human rights – you would agree with me.  So do you?

I pose this question for three reasons...

First to answer the question requires some very intelligent thought, seeing past the emotion of the situation.  (Just the topic raises the images of blacks being denied access to country clubs, Martin Luther King Jr. being assassinated, and the rise of Nazism.  And a few of you even raised these issues in the comments.)

Second, it allows you to really test the process of whether you are able to logically and rationally carry your beliefs forward to see if they are congruent.

And lastly, it tests your self-esteem and confidence.  Are you ready to accept and stand for a belief that is unpopular and politically incorrect with the herd?  Do you have the courage to stand for your convictions?  To be what Thoreau so aptly described as a “majority of one.”

Now why would I say that I would support someone’s right to discriminate?  I’m just continuing the discussion of the last few days on living your life with a congruent philosophy.  I want you to see how important it is to live by congruent principles, even - and especially - when they fly in the face of conventional wisdom.

This could get a little complicated, but stay with me because it’s very important.

If you believe in human rights, and for you guys in the States particularly our Constitution - then for your philosophy to be coherent - you have to support the right to own property.  Property rights are a true right.

Things like “a job for everyone,” or “universal healthcare” are not rights, because they can only be attained by the forceful enslavement of others.  The government says’ Jimmy, you made $200,000 this year, and Janet only made $30,000.  Therefore, we’re going to take away $100,000 from you and distribute it to the “truly needy” people like Janet.  While these ideas may sound good or be compassionate – they are not rights, and have no Constitutional basis.  They can only be achieved by stripping the rights of some, to provide to others.  There is nothing prosperous about this.

True human rights recognize principles like the right to produce and keep the fruits of your labor.  And also mean the right to socialize, do business with, and associate with anyone you wish – as long as you don’t infringe on the human rights of others.

What does this mean?

It means if someone builds a restaurant, he or she has the right to post a sign in the window stating. “We don’t serve people with blue eyes.”  And while I would not want to eat in that particular restaurant – I would defend to the death the owner’s right to do so.

If you build a hotel, you should be able to ban people with brown eyes, people with blond hair, or people who wear Budweiser T-shirts.  This is what the Constitution guarantees you, and well meaning but evil programs like affirmative action, quotas, and “the right to an education,” etc. have no basis in law and are actually ANTI-human rights.

Now do you see the quandary here?

I abhor discrimination, and want no part of it.  I have four or five friends that are in wheelchairs, so the last thing I want is that they can’t join me for dinner somewhere because the place is built without disabled facilities. But to be congruent with my philosophy for living, I have to support your right to do whatever you want with your private property.  (Notice the key word here is PRIVATE.  We are not talking about government property that is built with the taxes of everyone, including people with disabilities.)

Now the other thing to note is that the restaurants with disabled facilities will get business the others do not.  And if someone puts up a sign in their hair salon, restaurant or store “We don’t serve Spanish people,” that would more create opportunities for the businesses that did.

Personally if someone is a homophobe, racist ,or wants to practice some other form of discrimination, I say, “Great, let them.”  I would rather know that so I don’t spend any of my money supporting them.

Here’s the key from a prosperity standpoint…

Because if you don’t support human rights, than the alternative is tyranny – the ultimate evil.  If you don’t support people’s rights to do what they want with their private property, there are no human rights and it is actually anti-humanity and anti-prosperity.

Now some of you distorted the issue by talking about slavery, discrimination in schools that are run by the government, or the Holocaust.   That is not what I’m advocating.  Because this only works when your rights don’t infringe on the rights of others.  Enslaving or killing someone is not a right.  But by the same token it is not a right to say the government has to educate you, provide you with free prescriptions or healthcare, or even roads, hospitals, and schools.

Now what does all this have to do with your everyday living and your quest for success?

You can say that you believe the government should provide roads, hospitals, schools, healthcare, and dozens of other things.  You have every right to hold that opinion.  But you must understand that that belief in incongruent with the principles of prosperity.  And if you don’t have a congruent philosophy, it will be almost impossible for you to manifest and maintain prosperity.

By the way, the other red herring that usually gets thrown in a discussion like this is how the evil, mean rich people will let everyone else starve.  But again that is using emotion to distort the logic.  Contrary to what some of you may believe, I’m not a heartless, cruel, son-of-a-bitch.  I support LOTS of charities with big checks.  I just want to be able to choose my giving, not have the government force me at the point of a gun.

Now remember, this discussion isn’t really about whether you should be able to discriminate, whether less government is better or any of those issues we raised.  Those are simply examples of the principle we are discussing: why your beliefs must tie together in a congruent philosophy in order for you to manifest health, happiness and prosperity.

Otherwise you will continually engage in self-sabotage behavior and not know why.  So how do you feel about all this now?  Please check in below.  And in the next post we’ll look at the next step – link your philosophy with a purpose.

-RG

61 comments on “Answering the Controversy!”

  1. Hi Randy, I have been reading this with great interest, but I also have my opinions and experiences, and it would take a book to give these thoughts to anyone, so I need to decline from commenting, but I will continue to read and think. 🙂

    Genesta

  2. I've been reading for over a year and this is my first post.

    I was going to send you an email and request that you weigh in on how you felt about this whole Healthcare issue. Not to be a homer, but I agree wholeheartedly with the statements and points you have made. You seem to be one of the only people I read anymore that aligns with what I believe. I believe it is time for some more critical thinking for me to insure that all of my beliefs are congruent.

    Once again, a wonderful thought provoking post!

  3. Randy you have my vote, if you ever decide to run for prime minister in England, I'm on your cabinet lol actually I would hate to work for government, I would like to abolish the lot of them, I think the points you raise are at first glance difficult to swallow, however after careful consideration, I agree. If it is a private business owner, they should have the right to choose who they do business with. Keep them coming, I love to read your posts.

  4. Love these posts. They push the envelope on common societal views - which I agree are not prosperity driven - more to appease the views of the masses. I wanted to let you know - I co-own & operate a private practice in the finance world. Your last two posts have made me ask what possible people could we team up with, to capture more niche marketplaces. Thank you for that, Randy. From one libertarian to another. Enjoy your weekend.

  5. Could you please show me how this line of thought carries forward:
    It seems like allowing competition for providing services should result in better services.
    For example, lets say there are 3 security companies providing police services in my neighborhood.
    A - cut rate cheap service
    B - more expensive, with good equipment and good training
    C - elite super expensive, the best of everything
    Every home in the neighborhood gets to select their police. Since the police services have different capabilities their response to various situations differs. (Ex: They can't use stun guns if they can't afford to equip their officers with them.)
    It seems to me that although there would initially be competition, eventually one of the services would "Wal-Mart" and take a predominant market share by having the best price to benefit ratio. There would still be a smaller market for the wealthy to hire the elite service (just as people hire private security companies now).

    However, I can't see how the end result would wind up much different than a government run police force. I'd think that that's how the world wound up with governmentized police, fire depts, etc. It wound up being the most efficient way for most people to get those resources. The exception being the people that required some higher level of service and were willing to hire specialists.
    (I think I made up the word governmentized.)

    How could this type of example carry forward in a way that maintained the competition and didn't eventually become similar to the government run police we have now?

    I'm also wondering if the field being discussed matters? For instance, if we were discussing haircutting then there is so much personal taste involved. There's plenty of room for cheap barbers, high-end stylists, people who only cut blond hair, people who only style women, etc. In that field, I can see today plenty of options at every price point and with other discriminating details.

    So is there something "different" about fields like police, firefighting, education, etc. that makes them more prone to wind up with one basic government provider with a few smaller providers doing specialized versions? Whereas fields like haircutting seem to naturally segment out into all sorts of options?

    Or have I missed out on correctly projecting the future that results from starting with multiple police options?

    Does it have something to do with the ability to rapidly decide good haircut/bad haircut vs. the lack of ability to rapidly decide on the quality of policing?

    This also makes me wonder about a field like healthcare. Considering how much selection I put into someone who cuts my hair, I'd think I'd want to put a lot more selection into who performs surgery on me.

  6. I am struggling with this discussion 🙂

    Quote: "True human rights recognize principles like the right to produce and keep the fruits of your labor. And also mean the right to socialize, do business with, and associate with anyone you wish – as long as you don’t infringe on the human rights of others."

    So I have the right to do business with whoever I want, is that a one way street, ie does doing business include being a customer?

    I think a basic human right is not to be discriminated against because of my race, religion or sexual preferences.

    This does not preclude specialists, for example children doctors, but does preclude restaurants that only allow whites. So discrimination depends on the context and I do not see any context that is not discrimination when it comes to skin colour.

    There is a difference between accommodating special interests and discrimination.

    Discrimination is not rational and to practice it would actually hurt your prosperity.

    So to me the discussion is not about do I believe in prosperity and human rights but whether or not we agree that I have the human right not to be discriminated against because of my skin colour.

    Some would argue that discrimination does no harm, I would argue that it does.

  7. Randy,

    You're quite right. Liberty & prosperity require selfishness, as best defined by Ayn Rand in The Virtue of Selfishness. This is an excellent collection of short essays that explores the role of the individual and freedom to enter into mutually agreeable business ventures with other, free individuals. The market will support appropriate behaviors.

    Best regards,

    Mark

  8. Thanks Randy for going into these interesting topics. They always help me see deeper into the prosperity principals I'm learning.

    A month ago after re-reading Atlas Shrugged I finally began to understand the vital importance of having my own intentional, congruent philosophy. I began to ask myself what MY values are regardless of what society says. As I learned them, I began to live by them. And you know what? It's completely transforming my life!

    To give one example, I discovered that I place a high value on health and fitness because I truly admire healthy fit people. Yet, I was overweight, not so healthy and not doing anything about it. Aka, I was incongruent with this value which is one component of my philosophy. I realized this made me feel down on myself in subtle ways because I was not living up to my own values. So I joined a gym which I've consistently used since then and began to continually change my eating patterns. Now a month later, not only has my health and fitness levels improved, my self esteem, personal power, peacefulness and overall joie de vivre have increased dramatically as well.

    So, I agree with you Randy and I highly encourage anyone who wants prosperity to ask themselves what THEIR values are, weave them into a philosophy and be congruent with it.

    P.S. In regards to personal property & discrimination, I side with the idea that personal property is personal property, period, regardless of the form it takes. For example, if I own an ipod then the decision about who I lend it to is mine and mine alone. Does the government have the right to tell me I "must" lend my ipod to blacks, Asians, gay people, people with blue eyes or poodle owners if those people want to borrow it? Isn't a business just a "big" piece of personal property?

  9. I think the bigger question is how is discrimination handled once it occurs.

    Is it the role of government to step in and through it's far reaching mandates provide a remedy for those it believes are being discriminated against?

    Or should the free market provide the correction based on the free choices and voice of the individual and where they choice to spend their $$$'s?

  10. I agree with P Fuller that discrimination does do harm, yet I cannot deny the principle that Randy is proclaiming here. In order to truly be a "free" society, then I MUST be free to discriminate. Sounds crazy to say but its true.
    Now the question is, do we LIVE in a "free" society or even WANT TO LIVE in a "free" society. With all the amendments and laws added to the Constitution, I would tend to believe that we do not want a "free" society. The real question is: does living in a truly "free" society matter in the U.S. or other Free Enterprise-based countries. Maybe the real dilemma is when you see that "true freedom" comes from prosperity thinking, such as what Randy is promoting here, how do you teach that to the masses? Or is that a "right" that the masses should have prosperity thinking?
    Most of us that comment here on this blog and others like it, SOUGHT OUT this type of information - remember this line "When the student is ready, the Master will appear"? How many of you are really ready for the Truth that Randy is proclaiming?

    I am - and I come from a group that had 200+ years of discrimination in this country. But I believe and remember that discrimination came along with its equally powerful cousin, OPPORTUNITY. Opportunity made my people get resourceful and the whole country benefited.

  11. very sharp statements, examples abt the congruent philosophy.
    im trying to digest them since few days. hope will get ur true point!

    one thing, Randy. I know very rich people around me these days. I wish they had the same philosophy and attitude about prosperity like you have...

  12. Thank you, RG, for giving us the opportunity to think intelligently about this matter.

    As a former educator, I relied on my ability to evaluate my students. Fortunately, I wasn't teaching in the "No Child Left Behind" era. Yes, there are times when children should and must be left back, and passing them through the system is detrimental both to the child and the other students.

    As an executive recruiter (currently), I am proud to say that I discriminate. To clarify, I am happy to read and review every resume that I receive. But when my butt's on the line and I have to submit the best candidates to my clients, you bet I'll weed out anyone who doesn't make my grade. Sorry, but I cannot send the resumes of anyone but US citizens for roles in defense companies... with good reason.

    Benjamin Bloom, an educational psychologist, identied the processes of appraising, arguing, defending, judging, selecting, supporting, valuing, and evaluating as being some highest thought skills we can develop. Discriminating should be included, too.

  13. Excellent article! It amazes me how stuff like this USED TO BE common sense.

    There was a time that people took personal responsibility for their lives, not expecting (or wanting) a handout from government. Whether that handout has been in the form of welfare, gov't subsidized housing, foodstamps, or now: Obamacare.

    Too many people now walk around with the "false sense of entitlement", wanting to get something for nothing BUT

    when you get handouts, you lose a little bit of your "power", it is DIS-empowering, you lose at the expense of your soul.

  14. To be honest with you I do not know if I feel comfortable with the market sorting out discrimination because there really is a market for it.

    Private free enterprise is never 100% free to do as they please. For example I think we all agree the a "Hitman for Hire" would not be allowed and it definitely harms others. There is definitely a market it for but it would violate my human right to live.

    When it comes to human rights there will always be a opposing conficts; "I have to right to serve who I want" verses "I have the right not to be discrimated against due to my race".

    To me the question is do I have the human right not to be discriminated against due to the colour of my skin.

    If so then my core beliefs are congruent.

  15. Morality is simple, really: humans are entitled to one thing only, and that's the freedom to be left alone to do what they want, as long as they respect the same right in others. Anything that violates this one and only human entitlement is immoral.

    So what violates this freedom? Big government, taxes, regulations, restrictions, welfare state, etc. It's common for people to think otherwise. It's the norm for people to regard welfare as moral "because it helps those that lack the means to help themselves". Speakers of such comments forget how the money that supports these systems is obtained: by immoral means.

    The point of Randy's articles is that people should be free to do what they want, because any problems would simply iron themselves out, as trite and cliche as that sounds. The average human gravitates to where he is respected, and avoids where he is not - simple as that. Humans have the intellect and biology to realise this for themselves, and do not need a government to decide this for them.

    Similarly, humans are, by nature, harmless. There are plenty of exceptions, of course. But the average human doesn't want to harm anyone he doesn't need to. Meaning, the absence of the above violations of human freedom (big government, taxes, regulations, restrictions, welfare state, etc) would NOT lead to riots of mindless violence in the streets. This is stupid thinking.

    Unfortunately, philosophy such as this is radical, in that it is the complete antithesis of what the average human has been indoctrinated to believe. I am testament to this, because as recent as ten years ago, I would have said that the nationalised health care bill in the USA was a good one, "because it helps those that lack the means to help themselves".

    It took years of introspection, reading of philosophy, politics and ethics, and open-minded observation, for me to realise the way the world really was, before I finally became libertarian. And I'm guessing it would take some massive effort to educate our fellow citizens that they are supporting an immoral establishment, before anything could change.

    Until that day, it looks like we are confined to ranting on forums such as this here blog, of our man, Randy, to whom I say: Sir, if and when there is ever a revolution for freedom, its cause will be all the better for having you on board.

    Keep writing this stuff, and who knows where it will lead! Have a good weekend, fellow libertarians et al.

    Scotty

  16. This is exactly why I am not a libertarian, despite how much I may like the idea. It rationalizes evil in the name of freedom. The coherent conclusion is anarchy, not prosperity. That is why the Founding Fathers placed checks and balances on our freedoms. That is why minorities are protected. There is a way that seems right in the eyes of man, but leads to judgment.

  17. Stephen, liberty doesn't rationalise evil in the name of freedom. Immoral acts can still be committed in the name of liberty, as long as they don't violate others' freedom. Meaning, you could open a restaurant that carried the sign 'No Faggots Allowed', and although it is immoral, it ISN'T a violation of liberty, as nobody is being forced to do something they don't want to do. Likewise, liberty DOESN'T promote name-calling. Liberty is one thing, and one thing only: the freedom to be left alone to do what they want, as long as they respect the same right in others. No rational human would want to enter a restaurant that carried a sign 'No Bitches' - unless they were starving, of course 😉

  18. Hey Randy! As usual, I agree with you. But you said "I also told you that if you believe in prosperity and human rights – you would agree with me".

    Don't you think that someone could disagree with you, and still believe in prosperity and human rights --- as long as, as you say, their beliefs are congruent and well thought-out?
    jim

  19. Your insights are correct. To a true entrepreneur though, emotion and personal bias should be taken out of the equation if the bottom line is profit. To open a targeted business and not employ the maximum effort to obtain the maximum profit does not make sense, unless the emotion of bigotry and discrimination come into play. Then the business is not about making money and providing a service, but a political statement of superiority.

  20. The right of assembly and association are tied directly to freedom of speech. The gradual erosion of these rights in the US and the outright denial in many countries around the world should give people pause.

    Once upon a time citizens of the US were not slaves of the state and did not have to report their income so they could keep some of it. That a certain kind of speech, the kind that upsets people, is illegal suggests the rights of the citizenry are no longer of paramount concern. Controlling them is. The universities of the US force you to agree to their version of 'correct speech' and will withhold your diploma or boot you mid-term for a single complaint. If you are a little vocal a personal invitation to sit with a dean offering you your one warning happens. Many of us are willing to define as SPAM anything we don't like or recognize. One complaint, even if from someone who opted in, can end an online marketing campaign instantly because even though they paid for a service, companies are more concerned about complainers than any other group even their own customers.

    We all discriminate. Some like milk chocolate while others prefer dark bittersweet. Those who don’t discriminate are either liars or deluded.

  21. As a rule, most Libertarians believe the government should supply police and a court system to protect individual rights, and an army to defend the country. Everything else we would make private market.

    -RG

  22. Well I believe that if they believe the role of government is to provide all the things it does now, their belief is illogical and they won't manifest and maintain prosperity.

    -RG

  23. The last paragraph of the previous post is what I thought this would lead to. What could be a greater infringenment on individual rights that an authority dictating to you who you do business with.
    Once they did that, following it to its logical extension would cause someone to ask - "where would it end?". As a matter of fact, it is quite and effrontery to free will and the pursuit of happiness. My own philosophy is to avoid debt and be self reliant. I've done so and it has been of great benefit . It has saved much money and emotional stress. I also get the point that someone cannot be truly prosperous if their own rights are infringed upon. My only fear of a truly capitalist society is the rich taking advantage of and infringing upon the rights of the poor as in the early days of industrialization in North America and Europe.

  24. That philosophy has many inconsistencies. First as soon as you think that you should be allowed to have private property you are going against what you believe. To be consistent with your philosophy you can only have property if you can keep someone from taking it, and it is someone else's right to take it by any means. You seem to want the government to protect your private property and then let you do what you want with it. Society is all about power. Just like a Lion who comes and takes what a weaker lion has killed. Who has the right to own it? It is the strongest who gets to own it and that is the end of it.

    The weak realised that they can get what they want by coming together and creating a government so anyone who wants to live within the laws they create can keep what they have and if you don't they will take it from you.

    Everything is in perfect order already. It is just that the weak create the rules by grouping together and if you want different rules you need to be more powerful that the masses as a group. Who ever is the most powerful makes the rules and that is perfect prosperity. Peoples rights at any level is therefore anti prosperity and we should be allowed to kill whoever we want as long as we are ok with the consequences.

    Anyone can discriminate against whoever they want - they just have to be able to handle the consequences.

  25. RG,

    Brilliant! Love it. Have you ever noticed how it's always seems to be the nay-sayers that chip in with comments with these types of posts.? The rich, prosperous types just get on with it.

    Oh, what does that make me, here? - lol

    Happy Travels

    A

  26. Yes I do when it comes to running a business as opposed to inviting them to your home.

    If I run my business based on discrimination that is not rational to increasing my prosperity.

    I think others are saying let the market sort it out and in the end discrimination will lose out, and thus discrimination will be eliminated.

    I am saying that because discrimination, which is totally different that accommodating, is so ugly why wait and allow the market to decide what many think will happen anyways.

    It would be a long, painful road to reach that point. if ever.

    I have struggled with this but I do believe my core belief is congruent since I believe that discrimination based on race is harmful to others.

    So what happens if we all agree on prosperity, human rights and free enterprise but we disagree on what is considered harmful?

  27. Has long has the folks who control government and the courts and police is a multi-cultural and ethical. And the playing field is totally level then we can run the race to prosperity.

  28. Randy,

    As usual, you find the best way to stir the pot. And, as usual, I have no argument with your propositions.

    Peter sees a problem with being discriminated against, using the small business analogy. He says that he has a right to be served in someone else's private business regardless of their feeling's about it. But this is taking away the rights of the business owner.

    If the business person wants to discriminate against all people with the skin colour that Peter has, then so be it. I would personally avoid that business, regardless of the skin colour they discriminate against.

    Does Peter REALLY believe that he wants to be served by that bigot, or would Peter, in reality just stay away from that business and choose to go elsewhere.

    I believe that what Peter is describing is denying others of their rights. If Peter says that his rights should be protected, but not others' rights, then how can he claim that his beliefs are congruent?

    I don't wish to offend Peter, or the others who have similar beliefs. I do wish to question their sincerity and congruence in their belief systems, and ask if they have REALLY thought them through to the end...

    Randy - I don't really believe in coincidence, so I suspect that there is some reason why your name is so similar to Ayn's surname... Your belief systems certainly do seem to be "Randy".

    ... as are mine...

    Trevor

  29. Hi Randy! These thoughts are very new to me and I want to achieve prosperity.
    Though, I´m thinking about librarys for example. Could they be private?
    Talking about schools, we have a system where free schools is allowed but that is not always good because children are not old enough to make choices by themselfes, and sometimes their parents put them in a school a cult have started, for example.And it destroys the child!I beleive in free cultural life 100%, and schools belong there, they are not enterprises people shall make millions on, according to my point of view. How do you think there? I´m just courious...Is cultural life another thing? I like that idea about that everyone fullfill a need to the society that suits him personally,which creates other needs etc. But you then beleive in every persons abillity to create his own life? I´m not sure I do...But I´ll think about it.And maybe you countinue further. Thanks anyway for an interesting post!

  30. Oh Randy you so love to shock em! I think one needs to read your 'dumb, sick and broke' book to really get what you mean as it is complex.

    Whilst I do agree with you for the most part I can't imagine if it came down to it that I would not be horrified to witness someone running a restaurant that said ' no jews,' for instance and if that happened in my neighbourhood I would feel the need to do something about it.

    In theory it's pretty but what about real life?

    As for explaining the Libertarian viewpoint I understand and agree with much of it but would probably need you with me to explain it to someone else! It sounds so cold in many respects and I would come out sounding like an idiot I feel!

  31. Hey Andrew.
    Surely it is the rich prosperous ones who can think about things at a deeper level and use their critical thinking skills to decide what is really true rather than just nodding along saying yes yes yes. I am with Randy on most things, I just wanted to look at it at a deeper level.

    It appears that the world is always on an equal playing field for prosperity. It really is just about power and whoever is the most powerful makes the rules. We then have a choice - 'we can say that it shouldn't be the way it is and it is not fair' or we can shift the power and the rules to our benefit. If we want to keep our wealth we just need to know how to work with the most powerful rather than complaining that it shouldn't be so.

    It makes wealth creation much easier.

    I will think about your comment next time i'm out driving my Bentley 🙂

    Happy Travels

  32. By a libertarian outlook sounding cold, I think you are referring to the fact that liberty means being able to keep one's earnings, and thus, an absence of public services such as schools, police forces, libraries, welfare state, public health care.

    But people assume that by these public services becoming private, that they would then be out of the reach of those that couldn't afford these services, and thus ensuring the needy would starve, die, rape, kill each other, etc. But remember, people are, generally, compassionate. Look how much money was donated privately to the Haiti victims...

    I doubt very much that those in need would go unnoticed by the middle class upwards in a free society. I've no doubt that all sorts of charities, foundations and appeals would appear out of nowhere to help the disadvantaged. And people would likely be happier to donate and volunteer, since they would be aware that their hard-earned money was now theirs to do with as they pleased, and that their beneficiaries were no longer being given their money without the earner's consent, under the government 'entitlement' tag.

    With the greatest respect (and I really mean that), I maintain that anyone exclaiming that public services should remain so - whether they realise it or not - is not thinking things through, and needs to ask themselves some questions, such as: Where is this money coming from to run these public services? How is it obtained?

    Anyone championing public services is basically saying that it is okay for people's hard-earned money to be extracted from them by force, to be given to strangers whom they've never met. Therefore, public service proponents are approving an immoral act.

    Make no mistake, humanity would not crumble in the absence of government. We are intelligent, rational, just, and compassionate enough to make a society run privately.

    Respect,

    Scotty

  33. That's cool, and I agree. I just felt your first statement sounded a little like "Everyone who doesn't agree with me is wrong", a position that stifles critical thinking rather than encourages it.

  34. Why would anyone have the right to take your property? Societies have laws and enforce those laws. These laws are to protect peoples rights and to keep order. If you say someone has the right to take property away, then does someone have the right to take your wallet and anything else you own? Does someone have the right to beat you up because you are weak? If the government has given you the right to own a car, can they tell you how to use that car?
    How is such anarchy in any way conducive to prosperity?

  35. I would agree that discriminating against people is bad business. But I would never consider it a right of mine that a private property business would have to serve me. If that's the case, they don't own their own business any more.

    -RG

  36. Like I said, I have struggled with this.

    Free enterprise does have to follow at least one rule, do not harm others. I believe that racism is very harmful so my core beliefs are still congruent.

  37. Trevor, you could never offend me 🙂

    I just believe that discrimination is one of the truly ugly, harmful things in this world, so why tolerate it, even in a free enterprise system.

    And when you start discussing "rights" then what happens is that "rights" will collide.

    Do I believe that I have the right to a job, or to be fed by others, no.

    Do I believe I have the right not to be discriminated against, yes, I believe I have that human right. I have said this before but I am taking about irrational discrimination not accommodation.

    So your right to run your business freely and serve who you want collides with my right not to be discriminated against.

    You, and others may believe that discrimination is not harmful whereas I believe it is, so we are all still congruent to our core beliefs.

  38. Interesting - I also beleive in people´s good and am sure that itwould be good somehow if we changed the system or took it away! And in the end-a non-worthy life isn´t going anywhere anyway...it will just repeat itself in the ratrace forever.
    But where comes the religion in the picture? Shall it also be sponsored by rich, happy, prosperious people? Sounds great to me (no more catolic preasts using small children...)

  39. Peter, in Randy's libertarian world you wouldn't have the right to "not be discriminated against". As I see it having this right would violate the rights of the discriminator to discriminate against who he/she wants to. Also, as long as the discrimination didn't cause you physical harm it's only your feelings that have been hurt. So, no harm done.

  40. in primul rind salut pe cei care sunt pe acest forum,si vreau sa multumesc lui randy pentru ca s inventat un om ca el.si eu cred ca in noi zace o putere nemarginita,capabila sa ne ajute sa ne indeplinim cele mai tainice visuri ale noastre.din pacate,asa de putini oameni sunt in jurul nostru care ne incurajeaza,sau care vad viata cu optimism incit ii pot numara pe degete.Eu sunt din rominia(tara aflata pe continentul european),si daca se poate as vrea sa tin legatura cu citi mai multi dintre voi.Cu o deosebita stima si respect al dumneavoastra Stefan

  41. Re read your blog. Affirmative Action evil? It depends how you look at it. I would love to sit down with u sometime and really go over some things. I am going to continue to contemplate your point of view. Heres a great story when Martin Luther King first started the bus boycots there were Black Millionaires of that time came to him and said lets not try to ride the bus with white folks let's own our own busline and serve our own people. Now if he would have made that move on "prosperity'. They would have had to create there own police force to protect that busline so because angry and jealous whites would have tried to burn or bomb the buses. And then in a white controlled country blacks with guns , whites would have attacked then we violent race war.So King had a greater calling spirit moved him to teach folk how to love that was his revolution and to me thats ultimate prosperity.

  42. Yes, people do have a right to be self-centered and live on an island. It's unfortunate to them because they lack the knowledge and understanding that we are all one.

  43. To be consistent with what Randy is saying then it is perfect prosperity for someone to be able to take your wallet or beat you up. We are either for the rules of society or we are not.

    Randy seems to be happy for some laws and rules to be kept but not others. He wants to own property and have the right to do that and then does not want to follow the other rules of society and says that they are anti prosperity. I don't want someone to be able to take my property so I am happy that we have set up laws as a society so I can plan for the future. Most of the laws make prosperity much easier.

    If Randy says that it is prosperous to be able to discriminate then he has to say that it is prosperous be able to kill and rape. If we didn't have the government enforcing laws like the ones he talks about then we would have gangs and mafias running the country. People will always group together to create the world the way they want it and at least with a government we all have a say.

    I am happy with having a government, I don't like all the laws but compared to the past when Mafias and gangs ruled it is much better. I am British so I believe that we have the best and easiest system in the world and wouldn't swap it with any others. It can surely be improved which it is every year if we want to check that we just need to look at the prosperity all around us. Poor people in Britain have to struggle with only having one TV per family. Oh the crisis 🙂

    I was just pointing out the weakness of his argument. Still think he is the best in the world at what he does tho and his thought and products have multiplied my income ten fold.

  44. Hey Randy,
    I don't know what this discussion is all about because we do have the right to put up a sign saying "no jews". Also the government has the equal right to close you down for it. And you have the right to stop them if you can. Would be hard to fight off the whole military tho.
    Perfect prosperity in action.

    Rights come with power. If you have the most power you have the most rights.

  45. "Now remember, this discussion isn’t really about whether you should be able to discriminate, whether less government is better or any of those issues we raised.

    Those are simply examples of the principle we are discussing:
    why your beliefs must tie together in a congruent philosophy in order for you to manifest health, happiness and prosperity.

    Otherwise you will continually engage in self-sabotage behavior and not know why. So how do you feel about all this now? Please check in below. And in the next post we’ll look at the next step – link your philosophy with a purpose."

    From Randy's book "Why You're Dumb, Sick & Broke...And How To Get Smart Healthy & Rich"... Randy says:
    "One of the most important elements of a prosperous life is living with congruency. This means doing what will take you where you want to be (your highest purpose), operating with integrity (the principles important to you), and standing for something you believe in (values dear to you)...

    Your values describe how you think the world should work if everything was ideal or perfect...

    Principles are the ways in which you are going to apply values in your life...So if gratitude is a value of yours, a principle could be that you faithfully tithe at your church...

    Your life's purpose is how you are going to make the world a better place by helping it function more in keeping with your values and ideals...

    Your philosophy is your values, principles and purpose all bound together."

    Randy also says "Compromising on principles is a big reason so many people are so messed up...your walk doesn't back up your talk. (It exposes the conflict between what you think you want and what you really want.)"

  46. Read the blog a third and fourth time. Its sinking in and i am getting it. The difference between Government responsibilities and ones private rights is huge.

  47. Hello Randy,

    Randy wrote "But by the same token it is not a right to say the government has to educate you, provide you with free prescriptions or healthcare, or even roads, hospitals, and schools. "

    I work with children with serious physical and mental handicaps, many without family or parents, nor relatives willing to take care of, contribute financially, or let alone pay a visit.

    If it weren t for goverment, workers wouldnt be assured to get paid for a job not so many like to do, and those kids wouldnt survive. To solely rely on charities on this matter seems a bit unreliable when lives are at stake.

    Randy wrote : "I’m not a heartless, cruel, son-of-a-bitch. I support LOTS of charities with big checks. I just want to be able to choose my giving, not have the government force me at the point of a gun.

    As it is your right to choose your giving it is also your right to choose not to give any longer. Something could happen to you, accident, death, misfortune, and what if you were the sole benefactor ? or become the sole benefactor due that everyone else excercising their right not to give ? what would happen to those kids ? what would happen to my job ?

    regards,
    tom

  48. Anonymous said: "I work with children with serious physical and mental handicaps, many without family or parents, nor relatives willing to take care of, contribute financially, or let alone pay a visit."

    Disadvantaged families know government will take care of them, and in some instances, the poor are even incentivised to procreate, so they can qualify for government benefits. Thus, in fact, the existence of a government and welfare state has accelerated the population of poor families, and subsequently increased the amount of families in the position you describe.

    Anonymous said: "If it weren t for goverment, workers wouldnt be assured to get paid for a job not so many like to do..."

    If the government didn't exist, I'm pretty sure that, in the long run, there would be fewer disadvantaged families, since humans would be more incentivised to produce. Not only that, but without public services, there would be a gap in the market just begging for someone to set-up a business taking care of handicapped children.

    Anonymous said: "and those kids wouldnt survive. To solely rely on charities on this matter seems a bit unreliable when lives are at stake."

    I don't think anyone here would like to see handicapped children neglected and die. But think - where does the money for public services come from, and how is it obtained? With the greatest respect, by saying public services SHOULD exist, you're basically saying that it's my responsibility to take care of a complete stranger's children, and that it's okay to have my hard-earned money taken off me by force, to pay for them? As Randy is saying: think things through to completion.

    I'm convinced that in a free society, all sorts of charities, foundations and appeals would appear out of nowhere to help the disadvantaged. And people would likely be happier to donate and volunteer, since they would be aware that their hard-earned money was now theirs to do with as they pleased, and that their beneficiaries were no longer being given their money without the earner’s consent, under the government ‘entitlement’ tag.

    Anonymous said: "As it is your right to choose your giving it is also your right to choose not to give any longer. Something could happen to you, accident, death, misfortune, and what if you were the sole benefactor ? or become the sole benefactor due that everyone else excercising their right not to give ?"

    Again you assume that people are, by nature, not benevolent. How much money was given freely to help Haiti victims? Millions - to strangers that the benefactors will likely never meet. Kindness is not a rare quality. And as I said before, if people were not forced to hand over their hard-earned money, not only would they have more in their pockets, but they would be happier to help people in need.

    Anonymous said: "what would happen to those kids ?"

    As I said before, forced government subsidies would be replaced by private enterprise and charities, to help the far fewer numbers of disadvantaged children that there would be, due to the absence of a welfare state fostering a more accountable, stronger human race.

    Anonymous said: "what would happen to my job ?"

    Maybe you could open a home for "children with serious physical and mental handicaps, many without family or parents, nor relatives willing to take care of, contribute financially, or let alone pay a visit."

    ...

    Respect,

    Scotty

  49. If I understand Randy's logic and expand his reasoning, then Airlines should discriminate against people in wheel chairs and somehow the market will provide service for them.
    If all white own private hotels do not want blacks, then they should be able to do it because they are private business and the "invisible hand of free market' would provide service.
    I guess anyone who disagree with his extension of "critical thoughts and reasoning" is not reasoble (nice try).
    Randy- you never answered the corruption in Wall Street. You are assuming that everyone that made $20 millions in golden compensation parachutes did it because of their effort not because they stole it.
    Again, if we expand your logic to its logical conclusion, Private business should be able to do nothing because they are private.
    In Randy's world, I can go served my country and even die for it but I can not be served dinner in South Carolina>Why?Because they are a private business.

  50. Let me expand on the role of goverment-- Explain to me why Sweden has a billionarie. In fact, they pay one of the highest taxation in the world.
    Why is that a Norwegina, which you help make $100,000 per month in NM is able to do it in goverment that provides for all like Universal health insurance that you call socialism.
    These are good examples of expansion of goverment and becoming a millonarie on those countries. They are not contradictions.
    We are living in the 21th century not in the 17th century in a Agragirain Society in France.
    You are applying the wrong philosophy to the a different econcomic reality.
    One last question:Why most the wealth of the nation is been created in California and New York which have higher taxes instead of Alabama and Mississippi?
    If we follow your logic Google,Oracle and HP would be located in Alabama which has lower taxes than California. The reason they are in California because the new economy is about knowledge not milking cows and planting peanuts.

  51. The biggest mistake in your reasoning is that you apply human freedom with the idea of owing property.
    Since I own property therefore I can do whatever I want with it. If we extend your logic, to include corporatitons Exxon should hired blacks because it was founded by a White and it is a private company.
    In your extreme logical conclusion, a corporation is an individual and private and therefore has a right to discrimated against women (51% of the population, and minorities 30%) therefore creating a an apartheid community where a few control all the wealth in the nation.

    Wrong assumptions leads to a faulty logic.

  52. Randy:

    I can not help myself. I am having so much fun breaking down your logic and the extension of your arguments.
    Now remember, this discussion isn’t really about whether you should be able to discriminate, whether less government is better or any of those issues we raised. Those are simply examples of the principle we are discussing: why your beliefs must tie together in a congruent philosophy in order for you to manifest health, happiness and prosperity.

    How about a final argument?Warren Buffett is a Democrat. He is worth over $50 billions and he is for more regulation of our Financial Market.
    You are right. Your libertarian beliefs have nothing to do with making money. And if you think,they do, then you will never become a billionarie!!!

    I would argued that your beliefs are holding you back from flying on your own private airplane.

  53. Randy, I agree with you on most things, but I'm having a little trouble following you on the healthcare issue. I just think that all people should have access to medical care that they can afford, and I'm especially concerned for children, who have no way to provide for themselves. I'm not saying that this administration went about it in the best way, but I'm wondering, what would you do to make sure that everyone is able to receive good health care? And if you don't think that's possible or necessary, would you at least want the children to be taken care of? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I really want to understand your point of view better 🙂

  54. The idea that most people are basically harmless has been shown to be wrong by several experiments. For example the one where a majority of people would deliver an assumed near leathal jolt of electricity simply because a person in power told them to. While they may have felt bad and knew it was wrong they still flipped the switch.

  55. Hi all,

    I just love this discussion! Everyone wants to give its opinion, everyone has the space to do it.

    I agree with Randy. If you have a property you choose who access it. If you sell a product or give a service, you choose your customers. It is your right. If you are not the "kind of people" I want for my business, you always have the option to go and buy another product from a company that matches your elections and way of thinking. I made my decision and so you do, and if you open a commerce and the access to it is denied to me, I will understand it. It is your right to do so.

    Now, I also understand that it is a controversial subject since there are a lot of people emotionally involved, which is normal -or at least reasonable- because of so many things that happened in the world. And it takes time to break free of those horrible, sad images in your mind.
    But I would like to say that, without getting emotionally involved with this topic, it is the same a hairsalon "just for women" that a hairsalon "just for white people". Again, I'm talking about the fact that it is your right to decide who get access to it. You are not harming non-white people, your are just not letting them access to your hairsalon. The topic would have been another if I would have said that non-white people is abused in my store or threaten from inside.

    It was a topic I had to work on some time ago, and it tooks some time for me to understand it. But it is true, if you really want to have prosperity in your life, you have to accept the fact that everyone has the right to do whatever they want to. It is freedom. If you don't let them to exercise their rights (as long as they don't harm others), you will never be able to be respected. Not you, not your rights. Because there will be always someone telling you what to do, what to feel, and how to live... your own life!

    The world needs more of this kind of discussions :).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Stay Connected

    Subscribe to Randy’s Blog via Email

  • Recent Posts

  • 61 comments on “Answering the Controversy!”

    1. Hi Randy, I have been reading this with great interest, but I also have my opinions and experiences, and it would take a book to give these thoughts to anyone, so I need to decline from commenting, but I will continue to read and think. 🙂

      Genesta

    2. I've been reading for over a year and this is my first post.

      I was going to send you an email and request that you weigh in on how you felt about this whole Healthcare issue. Not to be a homer, but I agree wholeheartedly with the statements and points you have made. You seem to be one of the only people I read anymore that aligns with what I believe. I believe it is time for some more critical thinking for me to insure that all of my beliefs are congruent.

      Once again, a wonderful thought provoking post!

    3. Randy you have my vote, if you ever decide to run for prime minister in England, I'm on your cabinet lol actually I would hate to work for government, I would like to abolish the lot of them, I think the points you raise are at first glance difficult to swallow, however after careful consideration, I agree. If it is a private business owner, they should have the right to choose who they do business with. Keep them coming, I love to read your posts.

    4. Love these posts. They push the envelope on common societal views - which I agree are not prosperity driven - more to appease the views of the masses. I wanted to let you know - I co-own & operate a private practice in the finance world. Your last two posts have made me ask what possible people could we team up with, to capture more niche marketplaces. Thank you for that, Randy. From one libertarian to another. Enjoy your weekend.

    5. Could you please show me how this line of thought carries forward:
      It seems like allowing competition for providing services should result in better services.
      For example, lets say there are 3 security companies providing police services in my neighborhood.
      A - cut rate cheap service
      B - more expensive, with good equipment and good training
      C - elite super expensive, the best of everything
      Every home in the neighborhood gets to select their police. Since the police services have different capabilities their response to various situations differs. (Ex: They can't use stun guns if they can't afford to equip their officers with them.)
      It seems to me that although there would initially be competition, eventually one of the services would "Wal-Mart" and take a predominant market share by having the best price to benefit ratio. There would still be a smaller market for the wealthy to hire the elite service (just as people hire private security companies now).

      However, I can't see how the end result would wind up much different than a government run police force. I'd think that that's how the world wound up with governmentized police, fire depts, etc. It wound up being the most efficient way for most people to get those resources. The exception being the people that required some higher level of service and were willing to hire specialists.
      (I think I made up the word governmentized.)

      How could this type of example carry forward in a way that maintained the competition and didn't eventually become similar to the government run police we have now?

      I'm also wondering if the field being discussed matters? For instance, if we were discussing haircutting then there is so much personal taste involved. There's plenty of room for cheap barbers, high-end stylists, people who only cut blond hair, people who only style women, etc. In that field, I can see today plenty of options at every price point and with other discriminating details.

      So is there something "different" about fields like police, firefighting, education, etc. that makes them more prone to wind up with one basic government provider with a few smaller providers doing specialized versions? Whereas fields like haircutting seem to naturally segment out into all sorts of options?

      Or have I missed out on correctly projecting the future that results from starting with multiple police options?

      Does it have something to do with the ability to rapidly decide good haircut/bad haircut vs. the lack of ability to rapidly decide on the quality of policing?

      This also makes me wonder about a field like healthcare. Considering how much selection I put into someone who cuts my hair, I'd think I'd want to put a lot more selection into who performs surgery on me.

    6. I am struggling with this discussion 🙂

      Quote: "True human rights recognize principles like the right to produce and keep the fruits of your labor. And also mean the right to socialize, do business with, and associate with anyone you wish – as long as you don’t infringe on the human rights of others."

      So I have the right to do business with whoever I want, is that a one way street, ie does doing business include being a customer?

      I think a basic human right is not to be discriminated against because of my race, religion or sexual preferences.

      This does not preclude specialists, for example children doctors, but does preclude restaurants that only allow whites. So discrimination depends on the context and I do not see any context that is not discrimination when it comes to skin colour.

      There is a difference between accommodating special interests and discrimination.

      Discrimination is not rational and to practice it would actually hurt your prosperity.

      So to me the discussion is not about do I believe in prosperity and human rights but whether or not we agree that I have the human right not to be discriminated against because of my skin colour.

      Some would argue that discrimination does no harm, I would argue that it does.

    7. Randy,

      You're quite right. Liberty & prosperity require selfishness, as best defined by Ayn Rand in The Virtue of Selfishness. This is an excellent collection of short essays that explores the role of the individual and freedom to enter into mutually agreeable business ventures with other, free individuals. The market will support appropriate behaviors.

      Best regards,

      Mark

    8. Thanks Randy for going into these interesting topics. They always help me see deeper into the prosperity principals I'm learning.

      A month ago after re-reading Atlas Shrugged I finally began to understand the vital importance of having my own intentional, congruent philosophy. I began to ask myself what MY values are regardless of what society says. As I learned them, I began to live by them. And you know what? It's completely transforming my life!

      To give one example, I discovered that I place a high value on health and fitness because I truly admire healthy fit people. Yet, I was overweight, not so healthy and not doing anything about it. Aka, I was incongruent with this value which is one component of my philosophy. I realized this made me feel down on myself in subtle ways because I was not living up to my own values. So I joined a gym which I've consistently used since then and began to continually change my eating patterns. Now a month later, not only has my health and fitness levels improved, my self esteem, personal power, peacefulness and overall joie de vivre have increased dramatically as well.

      So, I agree with you Randy and I highly encourage anyone who wants prosperity to ask themselves what THEIR values are, weave them into a philosophy and be congruent with it.

      P.S. In regards to personal property & discrimination, I side with the idea that personal property is personal property, period, regardless of the form it takes. For example, if I own an ipod then the decision about who I lend it to is mine and mine alone. Does the government have the right to tell me I "must" lend my ipod to blacks, Asians, gay people, people with blue eyes or poodle owners if those people want to borrow it? Isn't a business just a "big" piece of personal property?

    9. I think the bigger question is how is discrimination handled once it occurs.

      Is it the role of government to step in and through it's far reaching mandates provide a remedy for those it believes are being discriminated against?

      Or should the free market provide the correction based on the free choices and voice of the individual and where they choice to spend their $$$'s?

    10. I agree with P Fuller that discrimination does do harm, yet I cannot deny the principle that Randy is proclaiming here. In order to truly be a "free" society, then I MUST be free to discriminate. Sounds crazy to say but its true.
      Now the question is, do we LIVE in a "free" society or even WANT TO LIVE in a "free" society. With all the amendments and laws added to the Constitution, I would tend to believe that we do not want a "free" society. The real question is: does living in a truly "free" society matter in the U.S. or other Free Enterprise-based countries. Maybe the real dilemma is when you see that "true freedom" comes from prosperity thinking, such as what Randy is promoting here, how do you teach that to the masses? Or is that a "right" that the masses should have prosperity thinking?
      Most of us that comment here on this blog and others like it, SOUGHT OUT this type of information - remember this line "When the student is ready, the Master will appear"? How many of you are really ready for the Truth that Randy is proclaiming?

      I am - and I come from a group that had 200+ years of discrimination in this country. But I believe and remember that discrimination came along with its equally powerful cousin, OPPORTUNITY. Opportunity made my people get resourceful and the whole country benefited.

    11. very sharp statements, examples abt the congruent philosophy.
      im trying to digest them since few days. hope will get ur true point!

      one thing, Randy. I know very rich people around me these days. I wish they had the same philosophy and attitude about prosperity like you have...

    12. Thank you, RG, for giving us the opportunity to think intelligently about this matter.

      As a former educator, I relied on my ability to evaluate my students. Fortunately, I wasn't teaching in the "No Child Left Behind" era. Yes, there are times when children should and must be left back, and passing them through the system is detrimental both to the child and the other students.

      As an executive recruiter (currently), I am proud to say that I discriminate. To clarify, I am happy to read and review every resume that I receive. But when my butt's on the line and I have to submit the best candidates to my clients, you bet I'll weed out anyone who doesn't make my grade. Sorry, but I cannot send the resumes of anyone but US citizens for roles in defense companies... with good reason.

      Benjamin Bloom, an educational psychologist, identied the processes of appraising, arguing, defending, judging, selecting, supporting, valuing, and evaluating as being some highest thought skills we can develop. Discriminating should be included, too.

    13. Excellent article! It amazes me how stuff like this USED TO BE common sense.

      There was a time that people took personal responsibility for their lives, not expecting (or wanting) a handout from government. Whether that handout has been in the form of welfare, gov't subsidized housing, foodstamps, or now: Obamacare.

      Too many people now walk around with the "false sense of entitlement", wanting to get something for nothing BUT

      when you get handouts, you lose a little bit of your "power", it is DIS-empowering, you lose at the expense of your soul.

    14. To be honest with you I do not know if I feel comfortable with the market sorting out discrimination because there really is a market for it.

      Private free enterprise is never 100% free to do as they please. For example I think we all agree the a "Hitman for Hire" would not be allowed and it definitely harms others. There is definitely a market it for but it would violate my human right to live.

      When it comes to human rights there will always be a opposing conficts; "I have to right to serve who I want" verses "I have the right not to be discrimated against due to my race".

      To me the question is do I have the human right not to be discriminated against due to the colour of my skin.

      If so then my core beliefs are congruent.

    15. Morality is simple, really: humans are entitled to one thing only, and that's the freedom to be left alone to do what they want, as long as they respect the same right in others. Anything that violates this one and only human entitlement is immoral.

      So what violates this freedom? Big government, taxes, regulations, restrictions, welfare state, etc. It's common for people to think otherwise. It's the norm for people to regard welfare as moral "because it helps those that lack the means to help themselves". Speakers of such comments forget how the money that supports these systems is obtained: by immoral means.

      The point of Randy's articles is that people should be free to do what they want, because any problems would simply iron themselves out, as trite and cliche as that sounds. The average human gravitates to where he is respected, and avoids where he is not - simple as that. Humans have the intellect and biology to realise this for themselves, and do not need a government to decide this for them.

      Similarly, humans are, by nature, harmless. There are plenty of exceptions, of course. But the average human doesn't want to harm anyone he doesn't need to. Meaning, the absence of the above violations of human freedom (big government, taxes, regulations, restrictions, welfare state, etc) would NOT lead to riots of mindless violence in the streets. This is stupid thinking.

      Unfortunately, philosophy such as this is radical, in that it is the complete antithesis of what the average human has been indoctrinated to believe. I am testament to this, because as recent as ten years ago, I would have said that the nationalised health care bill in the USA was a good one, "because it helps those that lack the means to help themselves".

      It took years of introspection, reading of philosophy, politics and ethics, and open-minded observation, for me to realise the way the world really was, before I finally became libertarian. And I'm guessing it would take some massive effort to educate our fellow citizens that they are supporting an immoral establishment, before anything could change.

      Until that day, it looks like we are confined to ranting on forums such as this here blog, of our man, Randy, to whom I say: Sir, if and when there is ever a revolution for freedom, its cause will be all the better for having you on board.

      Keep writing this stuff, and who knows where it will lead! Have a good weekend, fellow libertarians et al.

      Scotty

    16. This is exactly why I am not a libertarian, despite how much I may like the idea. It rationalizes evil in the name of freedom. The coherent conclusion is anarchy, not prosperity. That is why the Founding Fathers placed checks and balances on our freedoms. That is why minorities are protected. There is a way that seems right in the eyes of man, but leads to judgment.

    17. Stephen, liberty doesn't rationalise evil in the name of freedom. Immoral acts can still be committed in the name of liberty, as long as they don't violate others' freedom. Meaning, you could open a restaurant that carried the sign 'No Faggots Allowed', and although it is immoral, it ISN'T a violation of liberty, as nobody is being forced to do something they don't want to do. Likewise, liberty DOESN'T promote name-calling. Liberty is one thing, and one thing only: the freedom to be left alone to do what they want, as long as they respect the same right in others. No rational human would want to enter a restaurant that carried a sign 'No Bitches' - unless they were starving, of course 😉

    18. Hey Randy! As usual, I agree with you. But you said "I also told you that if you believe in prosperity and human rights – you would agree with me".

      Don't you think that someone could disagree with you, and still believe in prosperity and human rights --- as long as, as you say, their beliefs are congruent and well thought-out?
      jim

    19. Your insights are correct. To a true entrepreneur though, emotion and personal bias should be taken out of the equation if the bottom line is profit. To open a targeted business and not employ the maximum effort to obtain the maximum profit does not make sense, unless the emotion of bigotry and discrimination come into play. Then the business is not about making money and providing a service, but a political statement of superiority.

    20. The right of assembly and association are tied directly to freedom of speech. The gradual erosion of these rights in the US and the outright denial in many countries around the world should give people pause.

      Once upon a time citizens of the US were not slaves of the state and did not have to report their income so they could keep some of it. That a certain kind of speech, the kind that upsets people, is illegal suggests the rights of the citizenry are no longer of paramount concern. Controlling them is. The universities of the US force you to agree to their version of 'correct speech' and will withhold your diploma or boot you mid-term for a single complaint. If you are a little vocal a personal invitation to sit with a dean offering you your one warning happens. Many of us are willing to define as SPAM anything we don't like or recognize. One complaint, even if from someone who opted in, can end an online marketing campaign instantly because even though they paid for a service, companies are more concerned about complainers than any other group even their own customers.

      We all discriminate. Some like milk chocolate while others prefer dark bittersweet. Those who don’t discriminate are either liars or deluded.

    21. As a rule, most Libertarians believe the government should supply police and a court system to protect individual rights, and an army to defend the country. Everything else we would make private market.

      -RG

    22. Well I believe that if they believe the role of government is to provide all the things it does now, their belief is illogical and they won't manifest and maintain prosperity.

      -RG

    23. The last paragraph of the previous post is what I thought this would lead to. What could be a greater infringenment on individual rights that an authority dictating to you who you do business with.
      Once they did that, following it to its logical extension would cause someone to ask - "where would it end?". As a matter of fact, it is quite and effrontery to free will and the pursuit of happiness. My own philosophy is to avoid debt and be self reliant. I've done so and it has been of great benefit . It has saved much money and emotional stress. I also get the point that someone cannot be truly prosperous if their own rights are infringed upon. My only fear of a truly capitalist society is the rich taking advantage of and infringing upon the rights of the poor as in the early days of industrialization in North America and Europe.

    24. That philosophy has many inconsistencies. First as soon as you think that you should be allowed to have private property you are going against what you believe. To be consistent with your philosophy you can only have property if you can keep someone from taking it, and it is someone else's right to take it by any means. You seem to want the government to protect your private property and then let you do what you want with it. Society is all about power. Just like a Lion who comes and takes what a weaker lion has killed. Who has the right to own it? It is the strongest who gets to own it and that is the end of it.

      The weak realised that they can get what they want by coming together and creating a government so anyone who wants to live within the laws they create can keep what they have and if you don't they will take it from you.

      Everything is in perfect order already. It is just that the weak create the rules by grouping together and if you want different rules you need to be more powerful that the masses as a group. Who ever is the most powerful makes the rules and that is perfect prosperity. Peoples rights at any level is therefore anti prosperity and we should be allowed to kill whoever we want as long as we are ok with the consequences.

      Anyone can discriminate against whoever they want - they just have to be able to handle the consequences.

    25. RG,

      Brilliant! Love it. Have you ever noticed how it's always seems to be the nay-sayers that chip in with comments with these types of posts.? The rich, prosperous types just get on with it.

      Oh, what does that make me, here? - lol

      Happy Travels

      A

    26. Yes I do when it comes to running a business as opposed to inviting them to your home.

      If I run my business based on discrimination that is not rational to increasing my prosperity.

      I think others are saying let the market sort it out and in the end discrimination will lose out, and thus discrimination will be eliminated.

      I am saying that because discrimination, which is totally different that accommodating, is so ugly why wait and allow the market to decide what many think will happen anyways.

      It would be a long, painful road to reach that point. if ever.

      I have struggled with this but I do believe my core belief is congruent since I believe that discrimination based on race is harmful to others.

      So what happens if we all agree on prosperity, human rights and free enterprise but we disagree on what is considered harmful?

    27. Has long has the folks who control government and the courts and police is a multi-cultural and ethical. And the playing field is totally level then we can run the race to prosperity.

    28. Randy,

      As usual, you find the best way to stir the pot. And, as usual, I have no argument with your propositions.

      Peter sees a problem with being discriminated against, using the small business analogy. He says that he has a right to be served in someone else's private business regardless of their feeling's about it. But this is taking away the rights of the business owner.

      If the business person wants to discriminate against all people with the skin colour that Peter has, then so be it. I would personally avoid that business, regardless of the skin colour they discriminate against.

      Does Peter REALLY believe that he wants to be served by that bigot, or would Peter, in reality just stay away from that business and choose to go elsewhere.

      I believe that what Peter is describing is denying others of their rights. If Peter says that his rights should be protected, but not others' rights, then how can he claim that his beliefs are congruent?

      I don't wish to offend Peter, or the others who have similar beliefs. I do wish to question their sincerity and congruence in their belief systems, and ask if they have REALLY thought them through to the end...

      Randy - I don't really believe in coincidence, so I suspect that there is some reason why your name is so similar to Ayn's surname... Your belief systems certainly do seem to be "Randy".

      ... as are mine...

      Trevor

    29. Hi Randy! These thoughts are very new to me and I want to achieve prosperity.
      Though, I´m thinking about librarys for example. Could they be private?
      Talking about schools, we have a system where free schools is allowed but that is not always good because children are not old enough to make choices by themselfes, and sometimes their parents put them in a school a cult have started, for example.And it destroys the child!I beleive in free cultural life 100%, and schools belong there, they are not enterprises people shall make millions on, according to my point of view. How do you think there? I´m just courious...Is cultural life another thing? I like that idea about that everyone fullfill a need to the society that suits him personally,which creates other needs etc. But you then beleive in every persons abillity to create his own life? I´m not sure I do...But I´ll think about it.And maybe you countinue further. Thanks anyway for an interesting post!

    30. Oh Randy you so love to shock em! I think one needs to read your 'dumb, sick and broke' book to really get what you mean as it is complex.

      Whilst I do agree with you for the most part I can't imagine if it came down to it that I would not be horrified to witness someone running a restaurant that said ' no jews,' for instance and if that happened in my neighbourhood I would feel the need to do something about it.

      In theory it's pretty but what about real life?

      As for explaining the Libertarian viewpoint I understand and agree with much of it but would probably need you with me to explain it to someone else! It sounds so cold in many respects and I would come out sounding like an idiot I feel!

    31. Hey Andrew.
      Surely it is the rich prosperous ones who can think about things at a deeper level and use their critical thinking skills to decide what is really true rather than just nodding along saying yes yes yes. I am with Randy on most things, I just wanted to look at it at a deeper level.

      It appears that the world is always on an equal playing field for prosperity. It really is just about power and whoever is the most powerful makes the rules. We then have a choice - 'we can say that it shouldn't be the way it is and it is not fair' or we can shift the power and the rules to our benefit. If we want to keep our wealth we just need to know how to work with the most powerful rather than complaining that it shouldn't be so.

      It makes wealth creation much easier.

      I will think about your comment next time i'm out driving my Bentley 🙂

      Happy Travels

    32. By a libertarian outlook sounding cold, I think you are referring to the fact that liberty means being able to keep one's earnings, and thus, an absence of public services such as schools, police forces, libraries, welfare state, public health care.

      But people assume that by these public services becoming private, that they would then be out of the reach of those that couldn't afford these services, and thus ensuring the needy would starve, die, rape, kill each other, etc. But remember, people are, generally, compassionate. Look how much money was donated privately to the Haiti victims...

      I doubt very much that those in need would go unnoticed by the middle class upwards in a free society. I've no doubt that all sorts of charities, foundations and appeals would appear out of nowhere to help the disadvantaged. And people would likely be happier to donate and volunteer, since they would be aware that their hard-earned money was now theirs to do with as they pleased, and that their beneficiaries were no longer being given their money without the earner's consent, under the government 'entitlement' tag.

      With the greatest respect (and I really mean that), I maintain that anyone exclaiming that public services should remain so - whether they realise it or not - is not thinking things through, and needs to ask themselves some questions, such as: Where is this money coming from to run these public services? How is it obtained?

      Anyone championing public services is basically saying that it is okay for people's hard-earned money to be extracted from them by force, to be given to strangers whom they've never met. Therefore, public service proponents are approving an immoral act.

      Make no mistake, humanity would not crumble in the absence of government. We are intelligent, rational, just, and compassionate enough to make a society run privately.

      Respect,

      Scotty

    33. That's cool, and I agree. I just felt your first statement sounded a little like "Everyone who doesn't agree with me is wrong", a position that stifles critical thinking rather than encourages it.

    34. Why would anyone have the right to take your property? Societies have laws and enforce those laws. These laws are to protect peoples rights and to keep order. If you say someone has the right to take property away, then does someone have the right to take your wallet and anything else you own? Does someone have the right to beat you up because you are weak? If the government has given you the right to own a car, can they tell you how to use that car?
      How is such anarchy in any way conducive to prosperity?

    35. I would agree that discriminating against people is bad business. But I would never consider it a right of mine that a private property business would have to serve me. If that's the case, they don't own their own business any more.

      -RG

    36. Like I said, I have struggled with this.

      Free enterprise does have to follow at least one rule, do not harm others. I believe that racism is very harmful so my core beliefs are still congruent.

    37. Trevor, you could never offend me 🙂

      I just believe that discrimination is one of the truly ugly, harmful things in this world, so why tolerate it, even in a free enterprise system.

      And when you start discussing "rights" then what happens is that "rights" will collide.

      Do I believe that I have the right to a job, or to be fed by others, no.

      Do I believe I have the right not to be discriminated against, yes, I believe I have that human right. I have said this before but I am taking about irrational discrimination not accommodation.

      So your right to run your business freely and serve who you want collides with my right not to be discriminated against.

      You, and others may believe that discrimination is not harmful whereas I believe it is, so we are all still congruent to our core beliefs.

    38. Interesting - I also beleive in people´s good and am sure that itwould be good somehow if we changed the system or took it away! And in the end-a non-worthy life isn´t going anywhere anyway...it will just repeat itself in the ratrace forever.
      But where comes the religion in the picture? Shall it also be sponsored by rich, happy, prosperious people? Sounds great to me (no more catolic preasts using small children...)

    39. Peter, in Randy's libertarian world you wouldn't have the right to "not be discriminated against". As I see it having this right would violate the rights of the discriminator to discriminate against who he/she wants to. Also, as long as the discrimination didn't cause you physical harm it's only your feelings that have been hurt. So, no harm done.

    40. in primul rind salut pe cei care sunt pe acest forum,si vreau sa multumesc lui randy pentru ca s inventat un om ca el.si eu cred ca in noi zace o putere nemarginita,capabila sa ne ajute sa ne indeplinim cele mai tainice visuri ale noastre.din pacate,asa de putini oameni sunt in jurul nostru care ne incurajeaza,sau care vad viata cu optimism incit ii pot numara pe degete.Eu sunt din rominia(tara aflata pe continentul european),si daca se poate as vrea sa tin legatura cu citi mai multi dintre voi.Cu o deosebita stima si respect al dumneavoastra Stefan

    41. Re read your blog. Affirmative Action evil? It depends how you look at it. I would love to sit down with u sometime and really go over some things. I am going to continue to contemplate your point of view. Heres a great story when Martin Luther King first started the bus boycots there were Black Millionaires of that time came to him and said lets not try to ride the bus with white folks let's own our own busline and serve our own people. Now if he would have made that move on "prosperity'. They would have had to create there own police force to protect that busline so because angry and jealous whites would have tried to burn or bomb the buses. And then in a white controlled country blacks with guns , whites would have attacked then we violent race war.So King had a greater calling spirit moved him to teach folk how to love that was his revolution and to me thats ultimate prosperity.

    42. Yes, people do have a right to be self-centered and live on an island. It's unfortunate to them because they lack the knowledge and understanding that we are all one.

    43. To be consistent with what Randy is saying then it is perfect prosperity for someone to be able to take your wallet or beat you up. We are either for the rules of society or we are not.

      Randy seems to be happy for some laws and rules to be kept but not others. He wants to own property and have the right to do that and then does not want to follow the other rules of society and says that they are anti prosperity. I don't want someone to be able to take my property so I am happy that we have set up laws as a society so I can plan for the future. Most of the laws make prosperity much easier.

      If Randy says that it is prosperous to be able to discriminate then he has to say that it is prosperous be able to kill and rape. If we didn't have the government enforcing laws like the ones he talks about then we would have gangs and mafias running the country. People will always group together to create the world the way they want it and at least with a government we all have a say.

      I am happy with having a government, I don't like all the laws but compared to the past when Mafias and gangs ruled it is much better. I am British so I believe that we have the best and easiest system in the world and wouldn't swap it with any others. It can surely be improved which it is every year if we want to check that we just need to look at the prosperity all around us. Poor people in Britain have to struggle with only having one TV per family. Oh the crisis 🙂

      I was just pointing out the weakness of his argument. Still think he is the best in the world at what he does tho and his thought and products have multiplied my income ten fold.

    44. Hey Randy,
      I don't know what this discussion is all about because we do have the right to put up a sign saying "no jews". Also the government has the equal right to close you down for it. And you have the right to stop them if you can. Would be hard to fight off the whole military tho.
      Perfect prosperity in action.

      Rights come with power. If you have the most power you have the most rights.

    45. "Now remember, this discussion isn’t really about whether you should be able to discriminate, whether less government is better or any of those issues we raised.

      Those are simply examples of the principle we are discussing:
      why your beliefs must tie together in a congruent philosophy in order for you to manifest health, happiness and prosperity.

      Otherwise you will continually engage in self-sabotage behavior and not know why. So how do you feel about all this now? Please check in below. And in the next post we’ll look at the next step – link your philosophy with a purpose."

      From Randy's book "Why You're Dumb, Sick & Broke...And How To Get Smart Healthy & Rich"... Randy says:
      "One of the most important elements of a prosperous life is living with congruency. This means doing what will take you where you want to be (your highest purpose), operating with integrity (the principles important to you), and standing for something you believe in (values dear to you)...

      Your values describe how you think the world should work if everything was ideal or perfect...

      Principles are the ways in which you are going to apply values in your life...So if gratitude is a value of yours, a principle could be that you faithfully tithe at your church...

      Your life's purpose is how you are going to make the world a better place by helping it function more in keeping with your values and ideals...

      Your philosophy is your values, principles and purpose all bound together."

      Randy also says "Compromising on principles is a big reason so many people are so messed up...your walk doesn't back up your talk. (It exposes the conflict between what you think you want and what you really want.)"

    46. Read the blog a third and fourth time. Its sinking in and i am getting it. The difference between Government responsibilities and ones private rights is huge.

    47. Hello Randy,

      Randy wrote "But by the same token it is not a right to say the government has to educate you, provide you with free prescriptions or healthcare, or even roads, hospitals, and schools. "

      I work with children with serious physical and mental handicaps, many without family or parents, nor relatives willing to take care of, contribute financially, or let alone pay a visit.

      If it weren t for goverment, workers wouldnt be assured to get paid for a job not so many like to do, and those kids wouldnt survive. To solely rely on charities on this matter seems a bit unreliable when lives are at stake.

      Randy wrote : "I’m not a heartless, cruel, son-of-a-bitch. I support LOTS of charities with big checks. I just want to be able to choose my giving, not have the government force me at the point of a gun.

      As it is your right to choose your giving it is also your right to choose not to give any longer. Something could happen to you, accident, death, misfortune, and what if you were the sole benefactor ? or become the sole benefactor due that everyone else excercising their right not to give ? what would happen to those kids ? what would happen to my job ?

      regards,
      tom

    48. Anonymous said: "I work with children with serious physical and mental handicaps, many without family or parents, nor relatives willing to take care of, contribute financially, or let alone pay a visit."

      Disadvantaged families know government will take care of them, and in some instances, the poor are even incentivised to procreate, so they can qualify for government benefits. Thus, in fact, the existence of a government and welfare state has accelerated the population of poor families, and subsequently increased the amount of families in the position you describe.

      Anonymous said: "If it weren t for goverment, workers wouldnt be assured to get paid for a job not so many like to do..."

      If the government didn't exist, I'm pretty sure that, in the long run, there would be fewer disadvantaged families, since humans would be more incentivised to produce. Not only that, but without public services, there would be a gap in the market just begging for someone to set-up a business taking care of handicapped children.

      Anonymous said: "and those kids wouldnt survive. To solely rely on charities on this matter seems a bit unreliable when lives are at stake."

      I don't think anyone here would like to see handicapped children neglected and die. But think - where does the money for public services come from, and how is it obtained? With the greatest respect, by saying public services SHOULD exist, you're basically saying that it's my responsibility to take care of a complete stranger's children, and that it's okay to have my hard-earned money taken off me by force, to pay for them? As Randy is saying: think things through to completion.

      I'm convinced that in a free society, all sorts of charities, foundations and appeals would appear out of nowhere to help the disadvantaged. And people would likely be happier to donate and volunteer, since they would be aware that their hard-earned money was now theirs to do with as they pleased, and that their beneficiaries were no longer being given their money without the earner’s consent, under the government ‘entitlement’ tag.

      Anonymous said: "As it is your right to choose your giving it is also your right to choose not to give any longer. Something could happen to you, accident, death, misfortune, and what if you were the sole benefactor ? or become the sole benefactor due that everyone else excercising their right not to give ?"

      Again you assume that people are, by nature, not benevolent. How much money was given freely to help Haiti victims? Millions - to strangers that the benefactors will likely never meet. Kindness is not a rare quality. And as I said before, if people were not forced to hand over their hard-earned money, not only would they have more in their pockets, but they would be happier to help people in need.

      Anonymous said: "what would happen to those kids ?"

      As I said before, forced government subsidies would be replaced by private enterprise and charities, to help the far fewer numbers of disadvantaged children that there would be, due to the absence of a welfare state fostering a more accountable, stronger human race.

      Anonymous said: "what would happen to my job ?"

      Maybe you could open a home for "children with serious physical and mental handicaps, many without family or parents, nor relatives willing to take care of, contribute financially, or let alone pay a visit."

      ...

      Respect,

      Scotty

    49. If I understand Randy's logic and expand his reasoning, then Airlines should discriminate against people in wheel chairs and somehow the market will provide service for them.
      If all white own private hotels do not want blacks, then they should be able to do it because they are private business and the "invisible hand of free market' would provide service.
      I guess anyone who disagree with his extension of "critical thoughts and reasoning" is not reasoble (nice try).
      Randy- you never answered the corruption in Wall Street. You are assuming that everyone that made $20 millions in golden compensation parachutes did it because of their effort not because they stole it.
      Again, if we expand your logic to its logical conclusion, Private business should be able to do nothing because they are private.
      In Randy's world, I can go served my country and even die for it but I can not be served dinner in South Carolina>Why?Because they are a private business.

    50. Let me expand on the role of goverment-- Explain to me why Sweden has a billionarie. In fact, they pay one of the highest taxation in the world.
      Why is that a Norwegina, which you help make $100,000 per month in NM is able to do it in goverment that provides for all like Universal health insurance that you call socialism.
      These are good examples of expansion of goverment and becoming a millonarie on those countries. They are not contradictions.
      We are living in the 21th century not in the 17th century in a Agragirain Society in France.
      You are applying the wrong philosophy to the a different econcomic reality.
      One last question:Why most the wealth of the nation is been created in California and New York which have higher taxes instead of Alabama and Mississippi?
      If we follow your logic Google,Oracle and HP would be located in Alabama which has lower taxes than California. The reason they are in California because the new economy is about knowledge not milking cows and planting peanuts.

    51. The biggest mistake in your reasoning is that you apply human freedom with the idea of owing property.
      Since I own property therefore I can do whatever I want with it. If we extend your logic, to include corporatitons Exxon should hired blacks because it was founded by a White and it is a private company.
      In your extreme logical conclusion, a corporation is an individual and private and therefore has a right to discrimated against women (51% of the population, and minorities 30%) therefore creating a an apartheid community where a few control all the wealth in the nation.

      Wrong assumptions leads to a faulty logic.

    52. Randy:

      I can not help myself. I am having so much fun breaking down your logic and the extension of your arguments.
      Now remember, this discussion isn’t really about whether you should be able to discriminate, whether less government is better or any of those issues we raised. Those are simply examples of the principle we are discussing: why your beliefs must tie together in a congruent philosophy in order for you to manifest health, happiness and prosperity.

      How about a final argument?Warren Buffett is a Democrat. He is worth over $50 billions and he is for more regulation of our Financial Market.
      You are right. Your libertarian beliefs have nothing to do with making money. And if you think,they do, then you will never become a billionarie!!!

      I would argued that your beliefs are holding you back from flying on your own private airplane.

    53. Randy, I agree with you on most things, but I'm having a little trouble following you on the healthcare issue. I just think that all people should have access to medical care that they can afford, and I'm especially concerned for children, who have no way to provide for themselves. I'm not saying that this administration went about it in the best way, but I'm wondering, what would you do to make sure that everyone is able to receive good health care? And if you don't think that's possible or necessary, would you at least want the children to be taken care of? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I really want to understand your point of view better 🙂

    54. The idea that most people are basically harmless has been shown to be wrong by several experiments. For example the one where a majority of people would deliver an assumed near leathal jolt of electricity simply because a person in power told them to. While they may have felt bad and knew it was wrong they still flipped the switch.

    55. Hi all,

      I just love this discussion! Everyone wants to give its opinion, everyone has the space to do it.

      I agree with Randy. If you have a property you choose who access it. If you sell a product or give a service, you choose your customers. It is your right. If you are not the "kind of people" I want for my business, you always have the option to go and buy another product from a company that matches your elections and way of thinking. I made my decision and so you do, and if you open a commerce and the access to it is denied to me, I will understand it. It is your right to do so.

      Now, I also understand that it is a controversial subject since there are a lot of people emotionally involved, which is normal -or at least reasonable- because of so many things that happened in the world. And it takes time to break free of those horrible, sad images in your mind.
      But I would like to say that, without getting emotionally involved with this topic, it is the same a hairsalon "just for women" that a hairsalon "just for white people". Again, I'm talking about the fact that it is your right to decide who get access to it. You are not harming non-white people, your are just not letting them access to your hairsalon. The topic would have been another if I would have said that non-white people is abused in my store or threaten from inside.

      It was a topic I had to work on some time ago, and it tooks some time for me to understand it. But it is true, if you really want to have prosperity in your life, you have to accept the fact that everyone has the right to do whatever they want to. It is freedom. If you don't let them to exercise their rights (as long as they don't harm others), you will never be able to be respected. Not you, not your rights. Because there will be always someone telling you what to do, what to feel, and how to live... your own life!

      The world needs more of this kind of discussions :).

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

    © 2022 Prosperity Factory, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Legal Information, Sitemap, Site by PrimeConcepts