Accepted For Value: Fill & Download for Free

I am a Libertarian, but not a huge Ayn Rand fan. Her nonfiction was better than her overlong, ponderous fiction.That being said, I do feel the need to defend her and her arguments from people who clearly have not read them, or read them with a preconceived negative attitude.Allow me to bring up what I would imagine was the formative event in her childhood in Russia: the October Revolution, when the Bolsheviks confiscated her father’s business.Of course, like any tyrant, the confiscation was conducted based on what was the “common good,” with the self-congratulating tyrants speaking many glowing words about “sacrifice.”I would submit it to you that, as Ms. Rand then learned, that the person who speaks of sacrifice intends to be the looter and not the lamb in the sacrificial exchange. The person who speaks of coerced sacrifice is the greedy one, for obvious reasons. The person who aims to exchange value for value with someone does not need to speak of sacrifice.So, not only is the libertarian ideal of exchanging value for value NOT an excuse for greed, it is the OPPOSITE. It is one of the most empowering messages in history, if you asked me: no matter who you are, no matter how powerful you are, no matter what political connections you might have, you must offer value for value, in an exchange that the other person, no matter how powerless they are, must VOLUNTARILY accept.That is not greed. It is the opposite.

Why is it acceptable for men to be heavy, but not women? Example, the dad-bod. It’s acceptable for men, but not women. Even though women are supposed to have more fat on them than men.Because women are valued historically as property and their valued was tied to their sexual attractiveness. That was not true for men. Those traditions hold true in the majority of cultures today.Currently, in our world, being heavy or fat is considered unattractive in women (that was not always true). Women who are incredibly thin are considered more sexually attractive. So they have less value if they are overweight.On the other hand, men are not valued for their physical attractiveness as much but more on things like career successes and such.Basically, sexism.

Different times…Different cultures….I’m Canadian and my parents never once told me that I was born as their retirement plan.My wife was not born Canadian and in her culture, in their time, the government provided no social security for the elderly. It was socially and culturally accepted that parents loved and cared for their children while young and the children loved and cared for their parents when old.As a result of that I’m stuck in a situation where I’m ‘required’ to look after my in-laws as they age. It drives me crazy sometimes but in respect for my wife and her culture I do it.However, I believe your mother is not choosing her words wisely and while I may not be disgusted with them I am saddened by them. I’m not disgusted because I understand the economic reality and the conditions of a previous time which made it acceptable for children to be a retirement plan. I’m sad because I think she misses the point.I love my children and invest my time into them because I love them. I try my best to build them up to be strong, responsible adults who can care for themselves. I not expect them to help me when I’m old and I do not look to them as my retirement plan. However, do hope that they return my love and repay the time I invested in them when I need help when older.The difference: It’s one thing to be thought of as a retirement plan which is hurtful and unkind. It’s a different thing to be a valued member in a family which helps each other when there is a need.