La realidad del capitalismo

El título de la imagen es “La realidad del capitalismo”, aunque en realidad no describe al capitalismo, sino a un sistema opuesto y para comprobarlo basta un simple análisis de cada nivel de la pirámide:

En la cúspide está la riqueza con una coronita como si fuera una entidad viva, que no necesita ser creada, sino que “existe” en el mundo y debe ser custodiada.

En el siguiente nivel hay tres presonajes, una reina, un rey y un presidente, representantes del poder absoluto, aquellos que tienen acceso directo a la riqueza y al poder para gobernar al resto de la pirámide.

Luego, en orden descendente está representada la iglesia y el ejército, cada cual con su papel bien definido, uno para engañarnos y otro para matarnos.

Llegamos a un grupo interesante, que podría tener distintos nombres como la clase privilegiada, burguesía, los ricos, que no producen nada, que están de fiesta, que se comen la comida del grupo que está abajo.

En la base de la pirámide está el resto de la gente, los pobres, los trabajadores, los menos privilegiados, los que mueren, los que sufren y soportan el peso de todos los otros grupos en sus hombros.

Esta gráfica me parece una excelente representación del totalitarismo, en forma de monarquía, dictadura, regimen socialista o comunista. ¿Dónde están los creadores, los empresarios, los comerciantes? No están porque la riqueza existe en el mundo y nadie debe trabajar para crearla, sólo usarla y “distribuirla” en la pirámide.

Una de las bases fundamentales del capitalismo es su respeto por la propiedad privada de los individuos, algo que obviamente no está representado en la gráfica, y uno de los factores que la convierten en un anticoncepto de capitalismo, porque representa el concepto explicándolo de forma “aproximada”, nos hace creer que está definiendo el término de forma precisa, pero en realidad lo distorciona. Su fin es confundirnos, darnos una versión incompleta de la realidad.

For the 1st time: Live-streaming of Objectivist Conferences!

Objectivist Summer Conference 2011
Visit OCON’s Facebook page

Special registration option: Internet Livestream broadcast from Objectivist Summer Conference 2011!

OCON is excited to introduce a new option for those unable to attend Objectivist Summer Conference 2011 in person: a special Internet broadcast of selected General Session events!

For a single payment of $39.95, registrants around the world may now purchase Livestream access (hosted by the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights) to the following four events: “The Objectivist Movement: 50 Years Later,” by Yaron Brook (Sunday, July 3, 10:30 AM–12 PM); “What It Takes to Win: A Workshop on Defending Capitalism,” by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins (Wednesday, July 6, 5–6 PM); “Open Q&A,” with Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate (Thursday, July 7, 5–6 PM); and “Independence and Teamwork,” by John A. Allison (Friday, July 8, 10:30 AM–12 PM).

Registration for the Livestream package gives you the right to watch any and all of these four events live; Livestream registrants will also have access to online playback of all four events for one month after the close of the conference.  Online viewers will be able to see Q&A sessions for these events, but will not be able to submit questions.

To register for the Livestream package, please visit our Online Registration page.


Kelley Video Commentaries on Atlas Movie Scenes!

David Kelley, founder and CEO of The Atlas Society offers video commentaries on scenes from Atlas Shrugged Part 1. Here’s the link for his commentaries and we invite you all to check them,

Dagny Confronts James

In this scene early in the film, Dagny Taggart confronts her brother James about the need to upgrade a rail line. The scene illustrates the difference between objectivity and second-hand thinking.

Rearden and His Dependents

Hank Rearden indulges his ungrateful brother with a contribution and gets a political warning from a friend. These scenes illustrate the meaning of money.

Rearden Metal is Not for Sale

Hank Rearden rejects a government offer to buy the rights to his new metal, a conflict dramatizing the difference between individualism and collectivism.

And while you’re thinking about the Atlas movie, read David Kelley’s thinking on “The Capitalist Ideal: The Moral Vision of Atlas Shrugged.”

And while you’re thinking about Taggart Transcontinental, read Frank Bryan’s review of the book Nothing Like It in the World: The Men Who Built the Transcontinental Railroad, 1863-1869.

And while you’re thinking about a transportation revolution, consider David Mayer’s piece on “Completing the American Revolution.” Universidad Francisco Marroquin (aka University of Free Marketeers)

I am a proud member of the faculty and an alumni of Universidad Francisco Marroquin and I was very happy to watch the latest video of  The video was filmed a couple weeks ago at UFM campus by the team of Paul Feine & Alex Manning who did a wonderful job.

Video: – Universidad Francisco Marroquín

As their website reads,

Guatemala’s Universidad Francisco Marroquín, which economist Walter Williams described as an island of economic sanity in a sea of socialism, is a truly unique place.

Founded by “Muso” Manuel Ayau in 1971, the mission of Universidad Francisco Marroquín is to teach and disseminate the ethical, legal and economic principles of a society of free and responsible persons. In other words, the people at UFM want the people of Guatemala to be free. This is, of course, no small task in a country that has been plagued by political corruption and socialist policies for so long.

However, as UFM graduate Alfredo Guzmán told us, “sometimes thoughts become things.” And Guzmán knows what he’s talking about. In the late 90s, Guzmán and other UFM graduates successfully privatized Guatemala’s state-run telecommunications monopoly and opened up the market to competition. How did that free market experiment work out? In 1995, there were only 300,000 phones in Guatemala; today, 13 million Guatemaltecos own more than 18 million phones.

Humour: Monty Python’s soccer match of Philosophers

I am done reading a book by Levi Strauss titled “History of Political Philosophy” and the first thing that came to my mind was this video of “Monty Python’s Flying Circus” with a World Cup of Philosophers playing soccer:

A Philosopher’s soccer match – Monty Python

Here’s a brief of what is Monty Python for those of you who are clueless about them:

The television series, broadcast by the BBC from 1969 to 1974, was conceived, written and performed by Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, and Michael Palin. Loosely structured as a sketch show but with an innovative stream-of-consciousness approach (aided by Terry Gilliam’s animations), it pushed the boundaries of what was then considered acceptable, both in terms of style and content.

The group’s influence on comedy has often been compared to The Beatles‘ influence on music.[1][2] A self-contained comedy team responsible for both writing and performing their work, they changed the way performers entertained audiences. The Pythons’ creative control allowed them to experiment with form and content, discarding the established rules of television comedy. Their influence on British comedy of all kinds has been apparent for many years, while in America it has coloured the work of many cult performers from the early editions of Saturday Night Live through to more recent absurdist trends in television comedy. ‘Pythonesque’ has entered the English lexicon as a result.(SOURCE: WIKIPEDIA)

On Tolerance, Freedom and Equality

I have always believed that we are not forced to tolerate others and their ideas.  To Tolerate; is to understand others actions and beliefs without letting them (and their ideas) interfere in the code of morality we stand by.

That being said, I truly believe in freedom, equality and the respect of other’s rights.  But that doesn’t mean I am forced to tolerate them and their ideas.  To tolerate, when not affected by political opinion, is to accept that others may think and live different than I.  It is to understand and recognize they & their ideas exist.

If you are interested in learning a somehow related point of view, I recommend you to take a couple minutes and listen to the podcast of Wendy Brown at Philosophy Bites.  Wendy Brown is a teacher of Philosophy at UC Berkeley and has some interesting ideas that are worth listening.

To focus, enfocarse en la realidad objetiva

foto via:《 pranav 》en

“The choice to focus or not is man’s primary choice, but it is not his only choice. Man’s waking life involves a continual selection among alternatives.” Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand por Leonard Peikoff

To focus significa prestar atención a la realidad. Reconocerla y decidir actuar frente a ella realizando abstracciones. Interpretar el conjunto de abstracciones y definirlas es el resultado de este proceso de pensamiento y actuar en base a decisiones voluntarias es el resultado de esta actividad mental.

Así, no es nunca aceptable decir que las cosas ocurrieron sin que nosotros nos percataramos. Como tampoco es válido inferir que el desarrollo de los eventos estuvo fuera de nuestro alcance cuando tuvimos la oportunidad de actuar. Renunciar por desidia a lo que nuestra moral y los principios nos indica es usualmente la salida de escape más rápida y “eficiente”.

Sin embargo, el acostumbrarse a not to focus, a no prestar atención a la realidad, tan sólo resultará en una vida vacía en la nos acostumbraremos a buscar la culpa de nuestro mal y el de quienes nos rodean en explicaciones filosóficas irracionales.

Así, los deterministas culpan a la existencia del acontecer inevitable del continuo proceso de vida. Los materialistas justifican el caos y el bienestar en que vivimos partiendo de interpretaciones que niegan la realidad y los humanos “comunes y corrientes” se suben al vagón de la ignorancia… y, ¿por qué ocurre esto?

Simplemente porque las personas decidieron not to focus y vivir en el letargo de una existencia vacía, sin significado y sin felicidad.