Some of you need 1000's of them, but 1 is a start.

One Lesson

by Henry Hazlitt

Economics is haunted by more fallacies than any other study known to man. This is no accident. The inherent difficulties of the subject would be great enough in any case, but they are multiplied a thousandfold by a factor that is insignificant in, say, physics, mathematics, or medicine — the special pleading of selfish interests.

While every group has certain economic interests identical with those of all groups, every group has also, as we shall see, interests antagonistic to those of all other groups. While certain public policies would in the long run benefit everybody, other policies would benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The group that would benefit by such policies, having such a direct interest in them, will argue for them plausibly and persistently. It will hire the best buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting its case. And it will finally either convince the general public that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear thinking on the subject becomes next to impossible.

In addition to these endless pleadings of self-interest, there is a second main factor that spawns new economic fallacies every day. This is the persistent tendency of men to see only the immediate effects of a given policy, or its effects only on a special group, and to neglect to inquire what the long-run effects of that policy will be not only on that special group but on all groups. It is the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences.

In this lies almost the whole difference between good economics and bad. The bad economist sees only what immediately strikes the eye; the good economist also looks beyond. The bad economist sees only the direct consequences of a proposed course; the good economist looks also at the longer and indirect consequences. The bad economist sees only what the effect of a given policy has been or will be on one particular group; the good economist inquires also what the effect of the policy will be on all groups.

The distinction may seem obvious. The precaution of looking for all the consequences of a given policy to everyone may seem elementary. Doesn't everybody know, in his personal life, that there are all sorts of indulgences delightful at the moment but disastrous in the end? Doesn't every little boy know that if he eats enough candy he will get sick? Doesn't the fellow who gets drunk know that he will wake up next morning with a ghastly stomach and a horrible head? Doesn't the dipsomaniac know that he is ruining his liver and shortening his life? Doesn't the Don Juan know that he is letting himself in for every sort of risk, from blackmail to disease? Finally, to bring it to the economic though still personal realm, do not the idler and the spendthrift know, even in the midst of their glorious fling, that they are heading for a future of debt and poverty?

Yet when we enter the field of public economics, these elementary truths are ignored. There are men regarded today as brilliant economists, who deprecate saving and recommend squandering on a national scale as the way of economic salvation; and when anyone points to what the consequences of these policies will be in the long run, they reply flippantly, as might the prodigal son of a warning father: "In the long run we are all dead." And such shallow wisecracks pass as devastating epigrams and the ripest wisdom.

But the tragedy is that, on the contrary, we are already suffering the long-run consequences of the policies of the remote or recent past. Today is already the tomorrow which the bad economist yesterday urged us to ignore. The long-run consequences of some economic policies may become evident in a few months. Others may not become evident for several years. Still others may not become evident for decades. But in every case those long-run consequences are contained in the policy as surely as the hen was in the egg, the flower in the seed.

From this aspect, therefore, the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence:

The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

Nine-tenths of the economic fallacies that are working such dreadful harm in the world today are the result of ignoring this lesson. Those fallacies all stem from one of two central fallacies, or both: that of looking only at the immediate consequences of an act or proposal, and that of looking at the consequences only for a particular group to the neglect of other groups.

It is true, of course, that the opposite error is possible. In considering a policy we ought not to concentrate only on its long-run results to the community as a whole. This is the error often made by the classical economists. It resulted in a certain callousness toward the fate of groups that were immediately hurt by policies or developments which proved to be beneficial on net balance and in the long run.

But comparatively few people today make this error; and those few consist mainly of professional economists. The most frequent fallacy by far today, the fallacy that emerges again and again in nearly every conversation that touches on economic affairs, the error of a thousand political speeches, the central sophism of the "new" economics, is to concentrate on the short-run effects of policies on special groups and to ignore or belittle the long-run effects on the community as a whole.

The "new" economists flatter themselves that this is a great, almost a revolutionary advance over the methods of the "classical" or "orthodox" economists, because the former take into consideration short-run effects which the latter often ignored. But in themselves ignoring or slighting the long-run effects, they are making the far more serious error. They overlook the woods in their precise and minute examination of particular trees. Their methods and conclusions are often profoundly reactionary. They are sometimes surprised to find themselves in accord with 17th-century mercantilism. They fall, in fact, into all the ancient errors (or would, if they were not so inconsistent) that the classical economists, we had hoped, had once for all got rid of.

It is often sadly remarked that the bad economists present their errors to the public better than the good economists present their truths. It is often complained that demagogues can be more plausible in putting forward economic nonsense from the platform than the honest men who try to show what is wrong with it. But the basic reason for this ought not to be mysterious. The reason is that the demagogues and bad economists are presenting half-truths. They are speaking only of the immediate effect of a proposed policy or its effect upon a single group. As far as they go they may often be right. In these cases the answer consists in showing that the proposed policy would also have longer and less desirable effects, or that it could benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The answer consists in supplementing and correcting the half-truth with the other half. But to consider all the chief effects of a proposed course on everybody often requires a long, complicated, and dull chain of reasoning. Most of the audience finds this chain of reasoning difficult to follow and soon becomes bored and inattentive. The bad economists rationalize this intellectual debility and laziness by assuring the audience that it need not even attempt to follow the reasoning or judge it on its merits because it is only "classicism" or "laissez faire" or "capitalist apologetics" or whatever other term of abuse may happen to strike them as effective.

We have stated the nature of the lesson, and of the fallacies that stand in its way, in abstract terms. But the lesson will not be driven home, and the fallacies will continue to go unrecognized, unless both are illustrated by examples. Through these examples we can move from the most elementary problems in economics to the most complex and difficult. Through them we can learn to detect and avoid first the crudest and most palpable fallacies and finally some of the most sophisticated and elusive. To that task we shall now proceed.

~The Broken Window~

Let us begin with the simplest illustration possible: let us, emulating Bastiat, choose a broken pane of glass.

A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker's shop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies. After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. And several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side. It will make business for some glazier. As they begin to think of this they elaborate upon it. How much does a new plate glass window cost? Fifty dollars? That will be quite a sum. After all, if windows were never broken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course, the thing is endless. The glazier will have $50 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $50 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor.

Now let us take another look. The crowd is at least right in its first conclusion. This little act of vandalism will in the first instance mean more business for some glazier. The glazier will be no more unhappy to learn of the incident than an undertaker to learn of a death. But the shopkeeper will be out $50 that he was planning to spend for a new suit. Because he has had to replace a window, he will have to go without the suit (or some equivalent need or luxury). Instead of having a window and $50 he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit. If we think of him as a part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer.

The glazier's gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor's loss of business. No new "employment" has been added. The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker and the glazier. They had forgotten the potential third party involved, the tailor. They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the scene. They will see the new window in the next day or two. They will never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be made. They see only what is immediately visible to the eye.

So we have finished with the broken window. An elementary fallacy. Anybody, one would think, would be able to avoid it after a few moments thought. Yet the broken-window fallacy, under a hundred disguises, is the most persistent in the history of economics. It is more rampant now than at any time in the past. It is solemnly reaffirmed every day by great captains of industry, by chambers of commerce, by labor union leaders, by editorial writers and newspaper columnists and radio commentators, by learned statisticians using the most refined techniques, by professors of economics in our best universities. In their various ways they all dilate upon the advantages of destruction.

Though some of them would disdain to say that there are net benefits in small acts of destruction, they see almost endless benefits in enormous acts of destruction. They tell us how much better off economically we all are in war than in peace. They see "miracles of production" which it requires a war to achieve. And they see a postwar world made certainly prosperous by an enormous "accumulated" or "backed-up" demand.

It is merely our old friend, the broken-window fallacy, in new clothing, and grown fat beyond recognition.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Great book, Rush. Noone will bother to read it though. The easier option is to just point the machine gun nests inwards.

Freedom? What for?

Not once in the history of humanity has anyone ever given a rational reason or basis for altruism. Not once. Logic, facts, and reason won't sway them.

I do enjoy watching the spectacle though.


Now now , Rush. You can't keep running around here and stealing my ideas I proposed in other threads and whatnot. I especially dislike you stealing my wine selections.

This is going to be rectified soon.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

And here is an excerpt from a book that I can recommend.............


The Great Money Trick (Robert Tressell, 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists')


‘Money is the cause of poverty because it is the device by which those who are too lazy to work are enabled to rob the workers of the fruits of their labour.’

‘Prove it,’ said Crass.

Owen slowly folded up the piece of newspaper he had been reading and put it into his pocket.

‘All right,’ he replied. ‘I’ll show you how the Great Money Trick is worked.’

Owen opened his dinner basket and took from it two slices of bread but as these were not sufficient, he requested that anyone who had some bread left would give it to him. They gave him several pieces, which he placed in a heap on a clean piece of paper, and, having borrowed the pocket knives they used to cut and eat their dinners with from Easton, Harlow and Philpot, he addressed them as follows:

‘These pieces of bread represent the raw materials which exist naturally in and on the earth for the use of mankind; they were not made by any human being, but were created by the Great Spirit for the benefit and sustenance of all, the same as were the air and the light of the sun.’

... ‘Now,’ continued Owen, ‘I am a capitalist; or, rather, I represent the landlord and capitalist class. That is to say, all these raw materials belong to me. It does not matter for our present argument how I obtained possession of them, or whether I have any real right to them; the only thing that matters now is the admitted fact that all the raw materials which are necessary for the production of the necessaries of life are now the property of the Landlord and Capitalist class. I am that class: all these raw materials belong to me.’

... ‘Now you three represent the Working Class: you have nothing – and for my part, although I have all these raw materials, they are of no use to me – what I need is – the things that can be made out of these raw materials by Work: but as I am too lazy to work myself, I have invented the Money Trick to make you work for me. But first I must explain that I possess something else beside the raw materials. These three knives represent – all the machinery of production; the factories, tools, railways, and so forth, without which the necessaries of life cannot be produced in abundance. And these three coins’ – taking three halfpennies from his pocket – ‘represent my Money Capital.’

‘But before we go any further,’ said Owen, interrupting himself, ‘it is most important that you remember that I am not supposed to be merely “a” capitalist. I represent the whole Capitalist Class. You are not supposed to be just three workers – you represent the whole Working Class.’

... Owen proceeded to cut up one of the slices of bread into a number of little square blocks.

‘These represent the things which are produced by labour, aided by machinery, from the raw materials. We will suppose that three of these blocks represent – a week’s work. We will suppose that a week’s work is worth – one pound: and we will suppose that each of these ha’pennies is a sovereign. ...

‘Now this is the way the trick works -’

... Owen now addressed himself to the working classes as represented by Philpot, Harlow and Easton.

‘You say that you are all in need of employment, and as I am the kind-hearted capitalist class I am going to invest all my money in various industries, so as to give you Plenty of Work. I shall pay each of you one pound per week, and a week’s work is – you must each produce three of these square blocks. For doing this work you will each receive your wages; the money will be your own, to do as you like with, and the things you produce will of course be mine, to do as I like with. You will each take one of these machines and as soon as you have done a week’s work, you shall have your money.’

The Working Classes accordingly set to work, and the Capitalist class sat down and watched them. As soon as they had finished, they passed the nine little blocks to Owen, who placed them on a piece of paper by his side and paid the workers their wages.

‘These blocks represent the necessaries of life. You can’t live without some of these things, but as they belong to me, you will have to buy them from me: my price for these blocks is – one pound each.’

As the working classes were in need of the necessaries of life and as they could not eat, drink or wear the useless money, they were compelled to agree to the kind Capitalist’s terms. They each bought back and at once consumed one-third of the produce of their labour. The capitalist class also devoured two of the square blocks, and so the net result of the week’s work was that the kind capitalist had consumed two pounds worth of the things produced by the labour of the others, and reckoning the squares at their market value of one pound each, he had more than doubled his capital, for he still possessed the three pounds in money and in addition four pounds worth of goods. As for the working classes, Philpot, Harlow and Easton, having each consumed the pound’s worth of necessaries they had bought with their wages, they were again in precisely the same condition as when they started work – they had nothing.

This process was repeated several times: for each week’s work the producers were paid their wages. They kept on working and spending all their earnings. The kind-hearted capitalist consumed twice as much as any one of them and his pile of wealth continually increased. In a little while – reckoning the little squares at their market value of one pound each – he was worth about one hundred pounds, and the working classes were still in the same condition as when they began, and were still tearing into their work as if their lives depended upon it.

After a while the rest of the crowd began to laugh, and their merriment increased when the kind-hearted capitalist, just after having sold a pound’s worth of necessaries to each of his workers, suddenly took their tools – the Machinery of Production – the knives away from them, and informed them that as owing to Over Production all his store-houses were glutted with the necessaries of life, he had decided to close down the works.

‘Well, and what the bloody ‘ell are we to do now?’ demanded Philpot.

‘That’s not my business,’ replied the kind-hearted capitalist. ‘I’ve paid you your wages, and provided you with Plenty of Work for a long time past. I have no more work for you to do at present. Come round again in a few months’ time and I’ll see what I can do for you.’

‘But what about the necessaries of life?’ demanded Harlow. ‘We must have something to eat.’

‘Of course you must,’ replied the capitalist, affably; ‘and I shall be very pleased to sell you some.’

‘But we ain’t got no bloody money!’

‘Well, you can’t expect me to give you my goods for nothing! You didn’t work for me for nothing, you know. I paid you for your work and you should have saved something: you should have been thrifty like me. Look how I have got on by being thrifty!’

The unemployed looked blankly at each other, but the rest of the crowd only laughed; and then the three unemployed began to abuse the kind-hearted Capitalist, demanding that he should give them some of the necessaries of life that he had piled up in his warehouses, or to be allowed to work and produce some more for their own needs; and even threatened to take some of the things by force if he did not comply with their demands. But the kind-hearted Capitalist told them not to be insolent, and spoke to them about honesty, and said if they were not careful he would have their faces battered in for them by the police, or if necessary he would call out the military and have them shot down like dogs, the same as he had done before at Featherstone and Belfast.

[Robert Tressell, ‘The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists’]

Why not just link to Samuelson's book Economics?

People who bother to know about economics can then buy the book and read for themselves.


Table of Contents

---

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

Jeebus is that a stupid story, it's riddled with economic flaws.

One brief example:

... ‘Now,’ continued Owen, ‘I am a capitalist; or, rather, I represent the landlord and capitalist class. That is to say, all these raw materials belong to me. It does not matter for our present argument how I obtained possession of them, or whether I have any real right to them; the only thing that matters now is the admitted fact that all the raw materials which are necessary for the production of the necessaries of life are now the property of the Landlord and Capitalist class. I am that class: all these raw materials belong to me.’

Except that it does matter how someone obtained possession of them, it does matter whether x person has a property right in what he owns because everyone comes into this world nekked, without those things. Since people don't have them when they are born, they have to work to survive and earn the rights to the property that they have. It matters whether someone took what they have at the point of a gun or whether they traded for it with their labor.

Since everyone has to do that, everyone is both of the stupid titles that author chose.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

everyone comes into this world nekked

Followed by being granted an inheritance or by being forced into slavery... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

.... because everyone comes into this world nekked, without those things. Since people don't have them when they are born...

huh?

damn..your parents must have been MEAN.

---

Reality Internet Personality

[quote]Great book, Rush. Noone will bother to read it though. The easier option is to just point the machine gun nests inwards.

Freedom? What for?

Not once in the history of humanity has anyone ever given a rational reason or basis for altruism. Not once. Logic, facts, and reason won't sway them.
( edited for comment)

not once has anyone given rational reason for love, or sadness or...
not once

---

"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exist elsewhere in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."
Calvin to the Hobbes

Not once in the history of humanity has anyone ever given a rational reason or basis for altruism.

Some of us just listen to our conscience... you'll find out why soon enough... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Not once in the history of humanity has anyone ever given a rational reason or basis for altruism.

Some of us just listen to our conscience... you'll find out why soon enough... ;)

Actually..they have given a rational reason. It's called survival of the fittest (meaning species) and is a rather clever theory by someone called Darwin.

The objectivists should read it sometime. They might learn something.

---

Reality Internet Personality

The objectivists should read it sometime. They might learn something.

Do you even know any o'ists? You seem to want to mischaracterize them as well.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

The objectivists should read it sometime. They might learn something.

Do you even know any o'ists? You seem to want to mischaracterize them as well.

Oh..I've seen quite enough to characterise them correctly.

..and it's 'them' now is it? Well that's an improvement at least.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Do you even know any o'ists? You seem to want to mischaracterize them as well.

Oh..I've seen quite enough to characterise them correctly.

Heh heh. Of course, that's just wrong on it's face. Because your implication in the original post is dead wrong. And you seem to know even less about them than you do economics.

..and it's 'them' now is it? Well that's an improvement at least.

Of course it's "them," it's plural. "You seem to want to mischaracterize him" wouldn't make any sense, given that I didn't ask about any particular person.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Heh heh. Of course, that's just wrong on it's face. Because your implication in the original post is dead wrong. And you seem to know even less about them than you do economics.

Actually..from where I'm sitting it's you that knows very little about economics...and you clearly know very little about 'them' as well.

Of course it's "them," it's plural. "You seem to want to mischaracterize him" wouldn't make any sense, given that I didn't ask about any particular person.

Rush.

Did you really not understand what I said or are you being deliberately obtuse?

---

Reality Internet Personality

Heh heh. Of course, that's just wrong on it's face. Because your implication in the original post is dead wrong. And you seem to know even less about them than you do economics.

Actually..from where I'm sitting it's you that knows very little about economics...and you clearly know very little about 'them' as well.

Hmmmm, damn hell ass economics degree would suggest otherwise.

But I'll provide the example I gave recently: the time you referred to a misguided, highly-regulated, and gov't-imposed and controlled education program as if that was some sort of free market or capitalist system. It's not. It never was. It wasn't a free market system at all, and yet you used terms to describe it as if it was, and then acted as if you had shown some flaws with capitalism or the free market.

So, do you really not understand the difference or are you being deliberately obtuse?

Of course it's "them," it's plural. "You seem to want to mischaracterize him" wouldn't make any sense, given that I didn't ask about any particular person.

Rush.

Did you really not understand what I said or are you being deliberately obtuse?

Es.

I read what you said. You said "The objectivists should read it sometime. They might learn something." If you were referring to Robert and I, then "the objectivists," and "they," wasn't very specific. There are who knows how many o'ists and you have no idea what they have read or not read. Which is why I asked if you even know any.

There's nothing in Darwinism that conflicts with o'ism. And I would suspect that most of them support Darwinism, especially as it applies to survival of the fittest (individuals).

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

There's nothing in Darwinism that conflicts with o'ism. And I would suspect that most of them support Darwinism, especially as it applies to survival of the fittest (individuals).[/quote]



do you really think that you can be ruthless enough, or are you just try to be "bad" guy. that is not enough, been there done too much

---

"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exist elsewhere in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."
Calvin to the Hobbes

... Darwinism, especially as it applies to survival of the fittest (individuals).

A common misconception. That is simply wrong Rush. Sorry. It's not and never has been survival of the fittest individual. It's amazing how many people cite 'survival of the fittest individual' as an excuse for selfishness not realising that it is actually incorrect.

---

Reality Internet Personality

... Darwinism, especially as it applies to survival of the fittest (individuals).

A common misconception. That is simply wrong Rush. Sorry. It's not and never has been survival of the fittest individual. It's amazing how many people cite 'survival of the fittest individual' as an excuse for selfishness not realising that it is actually incorrect.

I wasn't commenting on the validity of Darwinism either way.

I was making the point that I don't think the people that do so are are making a point about actual Darwinism (well, at least not actual Darwinism as compared to the pop culture version) in regards to the species as a whole. As a matter of fact, it's more than likely that they are not, given the human position on the totem pole. They are referring to the individual, not the species.

But be that as it may, there's certainly nothing in o'ism that prevents anyone from helping their neighbor. There is, however, a proscription about sticking a gun in their face and forcing them to do so.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I wasn't commenting on the validity of Darwinism either way.

No..because what you were commenting on wasn't Darwinism.

I was making the point that I don't think the people that do so are are making a point about actual Darwinism (well, at least not actual Darwinism as compared to the pop culture version) in regards to the species as a whole. As a matter of fact, it's more than likely that they are not, given the human position on the totem pole. They are referring to the individual, not the species.

They are talking about the individual..but given the complexities of human relationships and sociological drives and needs, the idea of survival of the fittest individual in an economic context makes as little sense as survival of the fittest individual in a biological context. It simply isn't a valid model.

But be that as it may, there's certainly nothing in o'ism that prevents anyone from helping their neighbor. There is, however, a proscription about sticking a gun in their face and forcing them to do so.

O'ism fails on two major points:

1) It is based solely on the needs of the individual which is a nonsense given the biological imperatives that have shaped the human.

2) It believes that humans are somehow capable of objective behaviour. Again. This is nonsense and has been shown to be impossible given our understanding of human development and the human brain.

O'ism is totally flawed right from it's foundations.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I wasn't commenting on the validity of Darwinism either way.

No..because what you were commenting on wasn't Darwinism.

That's what I just said.

I was making the point that I don't think the people that do so are are making a point about actual Darwinism (well, at least not actual Darwinism as compared to the pop culture version) in regards to the species as a whole. As a matter of fact, it's more than likely that they are not, given the human position on the totem pole. They are referring to the individual, not the species.

They are talking about the individual..but given the complexities of human relationships and sociological drives and needs, the idea of survival of the fittest individual in an economic context makes as little sense as survival of the fittest individual in a biological context. It simply isn't a valid model.

To you maybe. That you think it isn't a valid model isn't true simply because you happened to state it again.

Take, for example, the incomes and lifestyles of say, Michael Moore and Barbra Streisand. Their economic context seems to be doing quite well compared to the rest of the people on this planet. It makes a LOT of sense to them.

But be that as it may, there's certainly nothing in o'ism that prevents anyone from helping their neighbor. There is, however, a proscription about sticking a gun in their face and forcing them to do so.

O'ism fails on two major points:

1) It is based solely on the needs of the individual which is a nonsense given the biological imperatives that have shaped the human.

I'm not sure of your point here. O'ism recognizes the primacy of the individual, of course, because without the individual, you have nothing. There cannot be a species without individuals. As such, yes they come first. Mothers cannot feed their babies if they are dead, you cannot build a wall or a commune with the rest of the communists if you are dead, et cetera. The individual comes first.

But beyond that, there is nothing in o'ism (or the free market, or simple economics for that matter) that forbids any individual from helping his neighbor, friends, strangers, et cetera. O'ism holds that you are free to think and do as you wish, as long as you do not initiate force against others.

Which means there's certainly nothing in o'ism that prevents anyone from helping their neighbor. There is, however, a proscription about sticking a gun in their face and forcing them to do so.

2) It believes that humans are somehow capable of objective behaviour. Again. This is nonsense and has been shown to be impossible given our understanding of human development and the human brain.

Wrong again. O'ism doesn't get it's name from the idea that humans can be objective, nor does it espouse that idea.

Objectivism gets the name from the idea that there is an physical, objective universe around us, that takes primacy no matter what we believe. Meaning that "an A is an A," or "a chair is a chair," no matter how much someone may want or wish otherwise. Similarly, there is no such thing as "A is L," or "a chair is an elephant." In other words, physics comes first, existence exists, no matter what someone feels about it. It does hold, by extension, that humans are capable of learning objective things about the universe, e.g., a chair is a chair, or the sun is x miles away at a given time, et cetera.

By extension, o'ism holds that you are free to think as you wish--you do not have to be objective. If you want to believe that "A is L," or "a chair is an elephant" feel free. Go nuts. And since you are not allowed to initiate force against others, you have to live according to the consequences of your beliefs. Say, for example, you think pouring gasoline on seed will make them grow because jeebus said so--you are likely to starve to death. This does not mean, of course, that your o'ist neighbors couldn't choose to to help you, or teach you to use water instead of wasting that gas. It does mean, however, that the gas farmer cannot initiate force against them to make them do it, or to feed him.

O'ism is totally flawed right from it's foundations.

Well, so far you've managed to wrong about those foundations, similar to your exhortations about gov't programs being somehow free-market programs.

If o'ism is flawed, you certainly haven't demonstrated it. You did misrepresent it though.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...