Ayn Rand: Why is she so popular?

I wish they were isolated. And I'm not saying 'everything' is screwed up, never have. You and I happen to have differing opinions on what is screwed up.

Who cares where a person's wealth comes from? Obviously, you do, but why is it any of your business? Opportunity doesn't come from government handouts - it comes from the climate that we create. If that climate is such that the wealth that someone creates in business is taken away, why would anyone participate?

So am I - but as with Tim, you lay the blame on the people who try to wield the influence, instead of the politician who is selling their influence. As long as there are politicians and judges willing to take the graft, there will be people willing to pay it. Unfortunately, the people willing to take the graft have undue influence over the enforcement of the laws that prohibit it.

How is taking someone's money 'leveling the playing field'? I think you use that as a euphemism for punishment.

So am I. But what is the solution, compulsory military service?

The poor aren't the problem. That they are encouraged to be perpetually poor by the structure of the welfare system is. But somehow it is 'inhumane' to require that receivers of the public largess repay that largess in ways that they can. And before you go off on me, I'm not saying that everyone can or is able to. If they are truly unable to do something to pay back what society is giving them, fine.

A lower capital gains tax rate encourages reinvestment of wealth back into society. If there were no economic advantage, why would people invest instead of hoard?

I don't recall ever saying that. But the infrastructure aids in commerce, it isn't commerce itself. Yes, the railroads and the interstates and the airplanes have made commerce more efficient, and have benefited everyone.

I don't know where that 'against' came from, actually. Who has said that a modern infrastructure isn't beneficial?

Well of course they did. Who has said differently?

Ahhh, the light shineth through my thick skull.

No one has said that society's financing of infrastructure hasn't helped business. But society (the government) didn't build the business itself, it did what government should do - facilitate the opportunity to build wealth or not, and to receive and pass along those benefits, or not.

You are making it sound as if confiscatory tax rates were actually voluntary. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people would have 'give[n] back' that much of their income unless they were forced to?

Beyond that, the 'higher tax rates' were applied to incomes that were adjusted much more liberally than they are today. For instance, prior to the early 80s (not sure what year exactly) ALL interest paid, including credit cards, loans, mortgages, etc., was deductible.

Regardless - it is really 'fair' that the top 1% of accounted for over 40% of income tax revenue in 2008? Or that the top 10% contributed 70% of the total? How much more progressive can you get?

Personally, I think the condition of the infrastructure sucks, to use a qualitative term. I don't have a problem at all with investment to build it back up. Grab up a ton of people who are on welfare and put them to work building and repairing roads and bridges.

People of the more liberal, statist, persuasion continue to take Franklin's letter completely out of the context of the times in order to further their arguments for social welfare.

Franklin's idea of "...whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition" was in the context of the survival of the country. He thought that, if conditions were dire enough, the property of individuals could be confiscated to alleviate those conditions. In other words, to finance a war if necessary.

The following is more illustrative of his thoughts on social welfare:

I shan't do that any more.

Ok - so no, genetics has nothing to do with what makes America great. What made and makes America great is the industriousness of its people, not the actions of its government.

Social security's function was not advertised as a means to maintain or build the middle class (it may be now, but wasn't at its inception). It only survived constitutional muster because it was billed as an insurance program, with benefits determined in large part by actuarial tables. If it were still that way, I think a lot fewer people would have a problem with it. But it's not that way, because politicians control the purse strings.

I think we're devolving into semantics here, but I'll try this again. The Constitution is not the "system". It lays out and provides for the structure of the elements of the system and institutions that administer it.
Actually, it didn't. More from wikipedia:
It is certainly true that the federal government facilitated the construction of the railroad by making the bonds available, but the publick didn't pay for it.
I understand the Constitution perfectly fine. There is no provision in it for a space program. "This is what congress does..." is very true, though. It does things outside its purview because no one stops it.

You'll notice again that I didn't say I was against the space program. But unless it was applicable to basic infrastructure or defense (which Kennedy specifically said it was not, when NASA was created), it is not an expressly allowed function of the federal government constitutionally if one were to follow the Constitution to the letter.

Thankfully, many of FDR's proposals were found unconstitutional.

I don't think I'd call the GI Bill a 'stimulus bill' in the current context of the word, though
You tried

You know, you and I fundamentally disagree on quite a few things, but I'm thankful we can discuss them with at least an outward veneer of civility :rolleyes:

I certainly have. Right now, the main problem I have with Atlas Shrugged is that my toddler keeps grabbing it out of my hands and replacing it with copies of, "Sometimes I Like to Curl Up Like a Ball," and, "This Tree, 1,2,3." Maybe if the novel had pictures and bigger letters...

I have, but I confess to not having absorbed it entirely. I didn't find it an easy read. I believe I understand her general principles, though. Maybe not.