[Rhodes22-list] Reduce your CODB for personal monetary gains

[Brad Haslett]

Rik,

Here is the 90 second version.

Brad

-----------------------


For twelve years you've been asking "Who is John Galt?" This is John Galt
speaking. I'm the man who's taken away your victims and thus destroyed your
world. You've heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis and that
Man's sins are destroying the world. But your chief virtue has been
sacrifice, and you've demanded more sacrifices at every disaster. You've
sacrificed justice to mercy and happiness to duty. So why should you be
afraid of the world around you?

Your world is only the product of your sacrifices. While you were dragging
the men who made your happiness possible to your sacrificial altars, I beat
you to it. I reached them first and told them about the game you were
playing and where it would take them. I explained the consequences of your
'brother-love' morality, which they had been too innocently generous to
understand. You won't find them now, when you need them more than ever.

We're on strike against your creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded
duties. If you want to know how I made them quit, I told them exactly what
I'm telling you tonight. I taught them the morality of Reason -- that it was
right to pursue one's own happiness as one's principal goal in life. I don't
consider the pleasure of others my goal in life, nor do I consider my
pleasure the goal of anyone else's life.

I am a trader. I earn what I get in trade for what I produce. I ask for
nothing more or nothing less than what I earn. That is justice. I don't
force anyone to trade with me; I only trade for mutual benefit. Force is the
great evil that has no place in a rational world. One may never force
another human to act against his/her judgment. If you deny a man's right to
Reason, you must also deny your right to your own judgment. Yet you have
allowed your world to be run by means of force, by men who claim that fear
and joy are equal incentives, but that fear and force are more practical.

You've allowed such men to occupy positions of power in your world by
preaching that all men are evil from the moment they're born. When men
believe this, they see nothing wrong in acting in any way they please. The
name of this absurdity is 'original sin'. That's inmpossible. That which is
outside the possibility of choice is also outside the province of morality.
To call sin that which is outside man's choice is a mockery of justice. To
say that men are born with a free will but with a tendency toward evil is
ridiculous. If the tendency is one of choice, it doesn't come at birth. If
it is not a tendency of choice, then man's will is not free.

And then there's your 'brother-love' morality. Why is it moral to serve
others, but not yourself? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when
experienced by others, but not by you? Why is it immoral to produce
something of value and keep it for yourself, when it is moral for others who
haven't earned it to accept it? If it's virtuous to give, isn't it then
selfish to take?

Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who
has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is
rightfully his. You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the
dollar he's keeping is rightfully yours. Your code has made it impossible to
know when to give and when to grab.

You know that you can't give away everything and starve yourself. You've
forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt. Is it ever
proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty
that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment
of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn't built by
men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the
rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is
possible on Earth.

Then it began apologizing for its greatness and began giving away its
wealth, feeling guilty for having produced more than ikts neighbors. Twelve
years ago, I saw what was wrong with the world and where the battle for Life
had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality and that my
acceptance of that morality was its only power. I was the first of the men
who refused to give up the pursuit of his own happiness in order to serve
others.

To those of you who retain some remnant of dignity and the will to live your
lives for yourselves, you have the chance to make the same choice. Examine
your values and understand that you must choose one side or the other. Any
compromise between good and evil only hurts the good and helps the evil.

If you've understood what I've said, stop supporting your destroyers. Don't
accept their philosophy. Your destroyers hold you by means of your
endurance, your generosity, your innocence, and your love. Don't exhaust
yourself to help build the kind of world that you see around you now. In the
name of the best within you, don't sacrifice the world to those who will
take away your happiness for it.

*The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath:
I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of
another man,
nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.*


On 6/29/06, Rik Sandberg <sanderico at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Brings to mind the question ...... who is John Galt.
>
> Rik
>
> Brad Haslett wrote:
> > Philip,
> >
> > Government interferes with business?  You mean like this?
> >
> > Brad
> >
> > ----------------
> >
> >
> > June 28, 2006 When Sexism Claims Are a Real Hoot*By* *John
> > Stossel*<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/author/john_stossel/>
> >
> > You've probably heard of Hooters -- the restaurant chain known for
> > attracting male customers by hiring waitresses who are well-endowed and
> > dressed to show it.
> >
> > The firm now employs more than 30,000 people. Some would consider this a
> > success story, but our government didn't. Not because Hooters is using
> > sex
> > to sell -- but because its waitresses are -- get ready -- women!
> >
> > "Discrimination!" cried the federal government's Equal Employment
> > Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
> >
> > The business of Hooters is food, said the government, and "no physical
> > trait
> > unique to women is required to serve food." EEOC lawyers demanded
> Hooters
> > produce all its hiring data, and then grilled Hooters for four years.
> > Mike
> > McNeil, Hooters' vice president of marketing, told "20/20" the EEOC
> > bureaucrats demanded to look at reams of paperwork. "Employee manuals,
> > training manuals, marketing manuals -- virtually everything that's
> > involved
> > in how we run our business . . . "
> >
> > The EEOC then issued a set of demands. First, it defined a class of
> > disappointed males who had not been hired by the company. The EEOC said,
> > according to McNeil: "We want you to establish a $22-million fund for
> > this
> > mythical 'class' of dissuaded male applicants. We want you to conduct
> > sensitivity training studies to teach all of your employees to be more
> > sensitive to the needs of men."
> >
> > I suspect Hooters' customers are mostly men who think the firm is quite
> > sensitive to their needs, thank you -- and that there would indeed be a
> > class of disappointed males if the government insisted men do the jobs
> of
> > Hooters girls.
> >
> > Typically, companies assaulted by EEOC lawyers just pay up to avoid
> > ruinous
> > legal fees, but Hooters fought back, cleverly, not just in court, but
> > in the
> > court of public opinion. Hooters waitresses marched on Washington,
> > chanting,
> > "Save our jobs." A burly Hooters manager dressed as a Hooters waitress
> > posed
> > for cameras, beard and all, demonstrating what a "Hooters Guy" might
> look
> > like.
> >
> > That was a hoot, and it may have worked. Lawyers representing male
> > applicants accepted an out-of-court settlement of $3.75 million, a
> > fraction
> > of the $22 million that had been demanded. The EEOC dropped its
> > demands for
> > sensitivity training; Hooters agreed to create more jobs like busboys
> and
> > managers, which didn't have to be performed by women.
> >
> > Sears found itself in the EEOC's cross hairs because more men than women
> > held jobs selling things like lawn mowers and appliances. The disparate
> > numbers themselves were proof, said the government, that Sears
> > discriminated
> > against women.
> >
> > Sears denied discriminatiing: "We asked women to do those jobs. It's
> just
> > that few women want to sell things like lawn mowers."
> >
> > Is that too politically incorrect a concept for government lawyers to
> > get?
> > Men and women do have different interests. Go to any Wal-Mart and
> > you'll see
> > women looking at clothes, men in the hardware department. There are
> > exceptions, of course, but the sexes do tend to have different
> interests.
> >
> > More men selling lawn mowers and more women selling cosmetics does not
> > imply
> > evil discrimination that requires armies of lawyers from the State.
> > Show me
> > women who want to sell lawn mowers but are being required to sell
> > cosmetics
> > instead -- or men who want to sell cosmetics but have to sell lawn
> > mowers --
> > and we have grounds for discussion. But if the women choose the
> cosmetics
> > counter, any discrimination is their own.
> >
> > The EEOC was unable to produce any women who would complain that
> > they'd been
> > discriminated against, so Sears finally won the suit. The $20 million
> the
> > litigation cost was passed on to us customers.
> >
> > Have these and other EEOC excesses embarrassed the government into
> > shrinking
> > the EEOC? Of course not. It now has 2,400 employees, and spent $326.8
> > million in 2005 -- millions more than the year before. Government keeps
> > growing, and as it grows, it feeds on our money, erodes our freedom and
> > defies our common sense.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6/28/06, 3drecon at comcast.net <3drecon at comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> As you businessmen know, a major part of the cost of doing business
> >> is the
> >> interference of government in the contract between the employer and
> >> employee.  Other than necessary safety rules, government should stay
> >> out of
> >> that contract.  They drive up prices, drive businesses out of states
> >> or the
> >> country as a whole and gum up the system.  Unions lobbied the feds
> >> for years
> >> for "benefits".  Now that most of those benefits are laws, the people
> >> don't
> >> want to join unions and pay them for benefits that are mandated by
> >> law, and
> >> the unions whine (I am a 28 year union member so I am not anti-union).
> >> Maryland is currently doing their best to destroy Walmart.  The idea
> >> that
> >> a company has to "give back" to the community is nonsense.  You pay
> >> for a
> >> product or service (like a Rhodes 22) and you get the product or
> >> service.  The only other obligations the company should have is to
> >> pay the
> >> prevailing wage (which is whatever the market will bear) pay their
> >> taxes and
> >> clean up after themselves (enter the government).  If there are
> >> benefits to
> >> be had, then it should be a part of the collective bargaining process
> >> or the
> >> competition for labor.  Some regulation is necessary to prevent
> >> environmental dumping, inherently unsafe products (this has been
> >> carried too
> >> far too) or products that do what they are supposed to do etc.
> >> Otherwise
> >> the government needs to step out and do what the Constitution
> >> allows.  That
> >> goes for the States too.  However; if the feds follow the
> >> Constitution and
> >> don't interfere, the States can do what they want.  If they go too
> >> far, the
> >> citizens can vote their will t
> >> here o
> >> r as one President put it, "vote with their feet".
> >>
> >> Philip
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -------------- Original message --------------
> >> From: "stan" <stan at rhodes22.com>
> >>
> >> > everyone ( and congress people ) please listen to Brad and even
> >> Bill on
> >> > this one - stan/gbi
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "Brad Haslett"
> >> > To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list"
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 10:03 AM
> >> > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Reduce your CODB for personal monetary
> >> gains
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > Warren,
> >> > >
> >> > > The issue for us is not cheap labor, it is labor period. They are
> >> there
> >> > > and
> >> > > willing to work. You don't see locals lined up at Home Depot at
> five
> >> am
> >> > > looking for a job. We pay the prevailing labor wage, now $15 per
> >> hour,
> >> > > because they demand it. My brother, who is the real brains of the
> >> > > company,
> >> > > is used to working in a union environment. In Illinois, unskilled
> >> labor
> >> > > gets $30 per hour plus benefits. No problem, you just build the
> cost
> >> into
> >> > > the job and pass it on to the customer. No doubt there are some
> >> abusing
> >> > > employers out there, but any one with half a brain for business
> >> treats
> >> > > their
> >> > > employees well, legal or not. We operate on the Louis Haslett
> >> principle
> >> > > (my
> >> > > father), don't ask a man to do something you wouldn't do
> >> yourself. We
> >> > > just
> >> > > hired another full time local and are always on the lookout for
> more
> >> who
> >> > > show on time, sober, and are not looking for a workmans comp
> injury.
> >> You
> >> > > wouldn't believe how difficult finding a good empoyee can be.
> >> > >
> >> > > Brad
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On 6/28/06, Bill Effros wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Your point is well taken, Warren.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The country votes with its credit cards, and it is taking its
> >> credit
> >> > >> cards to Wal-Mart despite the fact that Wal-Mart is killing all
> the
> >> > >> American businesses by hiring illegals, importing everything, and
> >> > >> teaching its employees how to free load their medical bills off
> the
> >> > >> taxpayer supported system.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Everyone likes to talk a good game, but when it comes to their own
> >> > >> money, other people's jobs are just another cost of doing
> business.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Bill Effros
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Foy, Warren wrote:
> >> > >> > CODB "cost of doing business"
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Note Subject line change:
> >> > >> > Was "Reduce your federal income tax (political humor)"
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Brad wrote:
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > "It pisses me off every time I go to an ATM or call a phone tree
> >> and it
> >> > >> > asks
> >> > >> > whether I want English or Spanish."
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Amen Brad.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > However, your dream implies that you are willing to support
> >> such a
> >> > >> > necessity whether they are illegal or not. In your "dream",
> >> how did
> >> > >> > you
> >> > >> > pay your immigrant labor? Cash, Check, minimal cash with
> promises
> >> of
> >> > >> > additional work? If by check, do you expect them to use a bank
> or
> >> do
> >> > >> > you also own a check cashing service so that you can get your
> 20%
> >> back?
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > >> > From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
> >> > >> > [mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org] On Behalf Of Brad
> >> Haslett
> >> > >> > Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 10:13 PM
> >> > >> > To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> >> > >> > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Reduce your federal income tax
> >> (political
> >> > >> > humor)
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Bill,
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > It pisses me off every time I go to an ATM or call a phone
> >> tree and
> >> it
> >> > >> > asks
> >> > >> > whether I want English or Spanish. That being said, most
> >> cabbies in
> >> > >> > Beijing
> >> > >> > are torqued over having to learn english for the 2008 Olympics.
> >> Here
> >> > >> > is
> >> > >> > an
> >> > >> > interesting perspective on native language. BTW, I've ordered
> the
> >> > >> > Spanish
> >> > >> > for Contractors CD for the boys on the beach.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Brad
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > ------------------
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > __________________________________________________
> >> > >> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> __________________________________________________
> >> > >> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >> > >>
> >> > > __________________________________________________
> >> > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > __________________________________________________
> >> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>