You are not talking about economic systems, Dave, let alone one of the "only two possible economic systems", when you talk about barter, and using gold or silver as exchange media.. I didn't mix monetary and economic systems -- you did. Slavery is an economic system, as it identifies methods of production, but not barter. Barter is the direct exchange of goods and services without any exchange media. The whole matter is a little far afield, however, in a discussion of Ayn Rand's original quote about the denial of individual property rights under socialism.

An economic system, such as capitalism or socialism, is not a monetary system, Dave, and a barter system of gold or silver is not a barter system at all, so what are you trying to say? A barter system is the direct exchange of goods and services... no medium of exchange, such as gold, silver, coins or any recognized currency, involved.

I don't know what you're driving at Ken. The fact is Ayn Rand had it exactly right, so what else is new? Her statement was exclusively about property rights, however, and I merely rated her quote. Any other rights, or prohibition thereof, can only be inferred All those rights you brought up are purely your own. Why not try confining your comments to the quote?

So?

Fear and greed are the two driving forces that control all human activity, not just government..

Paraphrasing Churchill, a federal central bank is the worst form of money supply, except for all the others. But it is important its actions be independent of the government It has kept the US dollar strongest in the world ...until now, when the fiscal policies of the government are overwhelming the monetary policies of the Fed. There is no way monetary policies can compensate for hundreds of billions of extra expenditures for war while cutting taxes.

An excellant maxim

I hate to argue with the father of our country, but I have to go along with SRQ. The quote says nothing to me. I suppose the fact I don't recognize a "father of all mercies" has something to do with it.

I am not, nor have I ever been, a terrorist, but I sure am not with GWB, either. They are not mutually exclusive.

It's like judging a politician in his campaigning mode for his long-standing, habitual mode. Difficult, if not impossible, as they can be two different people. Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) comes to mind.

You described exactly why I said the quote is a meaningless platitude saying nothing, Robert. Character can be good or bad ...and who's to say what is meant by either one? The quote deserves no stars because it says "character is the single most important ingredient of leadership", when there is no single quality of character. It's an aggregate of all traits. It is a high-sounding platitude meaning nothing.

A meaningless platitude saying nothing. Character is simply the aggregate of traits that define a person or thing. Everyone possesses individual characteristics so everyone is a leader according to the general. .

Reagan was a liberal Democrat ...until he became rich. He was a good acting president. Too bad the Academy couldn't give him an Oscar for acting like a real one.

It doesn't matter in the least if the statement is an accurately quote or not, it's definitely the attitude demonstrated by this president.

Responsibility, yes; PJ only considered consequences with no thought of responsibility. No consequences does not mean no responsibility. That made his quote untrue. It's responsibility that determines the limits of one's rights ...not consequences. Consequences have nothing to do with it.

There is no connection between. One is a noun, the other is a verb. No problem distinguishing

A person has no right to wantonly harm anyone, even if he gets away with it. It doesn't take consequences to make it a right. This is the mentality of the rowdy kids who harass the Amish for the fun of it because they know they won't fight back, or take action. Maybe O'Rourk is one of them.

It should read; ...to stamp out a perceived moral evil..., because the most vicious attacks are only on the moral evils in the mind of the stamper, not the stampee's mind, as in the Salem witch hunts, the Spanish Inquisition, and the brutal public punishments meted out in some Muslim countries.

How can immoral Christian be considered an oxymoron when we have one living in the White House today?

At least George got one right today

"Whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves" hardly seem appropriate from a slaveholder and illustrates the difference in what is considered moral. Of course, Washington freed his slaves -- after his death!. I, personally, think the current president is immoral, but to others he is more moral than his predecessor. Who's to say?

I have to disagree with George Washington, but religion and morality are relative terms and mean nothing. There have been, and are, so many variations of religion and morality it cannot be said that any one, or all, is essential for political prosperity. In fact, it so happens, where religion has been dominant disaster has ensued. One man's religion is another man's cult.

If it doesn't matter whose quote it is, why bother naming anyone? Just show the words anonymously. I think it does matter

More biblical nonsense! What if there is no "Spirit of the Lord", as someday it will surely be realized, just as Zeus and countless other almighty gods became fictional characters only -- then where will liberty be? Those ancient gods were just as real in their day as say, the Holy Trinity is today, and had just as much proof of their existence.

Incidentally, I wonder where the statistics for the numbers of people to die from atheism Paul refers to come from? How do they die? Do the religious people kill them? I know how some die from religion -- they blow themselves up in Iraq or Pakistan.