Question for Objectivists:

[Trepa Mayfield]

Or, I guess, any strong fiscal conservative. I'm kinda fuzzy on what Objectivism is.


It seems clear that one of the main themes of your philosophy is that people ought to pay directly for their failures. I get where that comes from, it's the natural reverse to the idea that people ought to earn directly from their successes. My question is: are you okay with the idea of someone paying for their failures for their life? Like, if someone paid off their gambling debts by selling themselves into slavery, would that be a logical outcome of objectivist philosophy, or am I missing the point?

Disclaimer: This is not a veiled criticism, nor a 'gotcha!' question. This thread is ABSOLUTELY NOT about health insurance. Please don't turn it into one. I'm just curious.

[SentientMeat]

Objectivism is really just Ayn Rand's word for existentialism - basically the idea that minds and ideas didn't exist during those 13 billion years when (on Earth at least) there were no complex neural networks around to house them. By this token, I'm as Objective as any (while still understanding and appreciating many of Kant's counterarguments.)

What Randroids then propose, however, in a step that I've never understood at all, is that pure law-of-the-jungle capitalism (which I actually don't distinguish fom plutocracy) is the only true Objectivist political philosophy. I disagree with the maxim "the freer the market, the freer the people (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=255448)", because I consider that the statistically inevitable 'losers' in such a Game of Life are subjected to economic oppression and tyranny which is every bit as grave as if they were living in Soviet Russia.

[cckerberos]

My question is: are you okay with the idea of someone paying for their failures for their life? Like, if someone paid off their gambling debts by selling themselves into slavery, would that be a logical outcome of objectivist philosophy, or am I missing the point?
I'm not an Objectivist, but from what I've read about the philosophy and discussed with my Objectivist friends, that would be a perfectly acceptable outcome. I think that a number of libertarians would be okay with it as well (depending on their particular blend of libertarianism).

[msmith537]

Disclaimer: I'm not an Objectivist (or any other sort of "ist") but I have read Atlas Shrugged and tend towards fiscal conservatism.



Or, I guess, any strong fiscal conservative. I'm kinda fuzzy on what Objectivism is.


It seems clear that one of the main themes of your philosophy is that people ought to pay directly for their failures. I get where that comes from, it's the natural reverse to the idea that people ought to earn directly from their successes. My question is: are you okay with the idea of someone paying for their failures for their life? Like, if someone paid off their gambling debts by selling themselves into slavery, would that be a logical outcome of objectivist philosophy, or am I missing the point?

Yes, you are absolutely missing the point. Objectivism isn't about "punishing people". It is about freedom, dealing with reality and personal responsibility.

First of all, one cannot sell themselves into slavery in an Objectivist society (or any other free society) so your question is moot.

Second, like any other debt, the person would be responsible for paying them off.

Third, in an Objectivist society the lender also bears a burden on verifying the credit worthiness of the lendee. So if you lend money to someone who can't pay you back, consider that a bad business decision and be prepared to suffer the consequences (I'm looking at you AIG, Lehman, Bear Sterns and others).

Finally, as I said, it's not about making someone pay for their failures. It's about not making everyone else pay for your failures.



Objectivism is really just Ayn Rand's word for existentialism - basically the idea that minds and ideas didn't exist during those 13 billion years when (on Earth at least) there were no complex neural networks around to house them. By this token, I'm as Objective as any (while still understanding and appreciating many of Kant's counterarguments.)

I suppose that's true but hardly relevant.



What Randroids then propose, however, in a step that I've never understood at all, is that pure law-of-the-jungle capitalism (which I actually don't distinguish fom plutocracy) is the only true Objectivist political philosophy. I disagree with the maxim "the freer the market, the freer the people", because I consider that the statistically inevitable 'losers' in such a Game of Life are subjected to economic oppression and tyranny which is every bit as grave as if they were living in Soviet Russia.

So you disagree with being able to apply for any job you feel you are qualified for? Do you agree with companies being able to hire the most competant employee and fire those who can't or won't perform to the standards of the company? Do you disagree with being able to buy or sell your goods or services for the best price you can get for them? Do you disagree with being judged on your abilities and contribution? Do you disagree with the company that provides the best product or service should beat out their competition, no matter who they are?

I see two possiblities here. One - You do agree with these things but don't realize we don't have them in our current economic system. At least not to the degree that Objectivists would like. People have access to high paying careers because they know someone. Incompetant employees and managers can't be terminated because of beurocracy. People demand government intervention to keep their company or industry propped up. They demand the government step in when they don't like the market price of certain goods or services or they think they should get paid more.

The other possibility is that you do not, in fact, want to compete. How many people really believe that if they are one of 5 candidates for a position, the best person should get it? The usually believe they should get it.

Objectivists and fiscal conservatives believe that when you tamper with the free market, you distort the economic value of goods and services. It is essentially a form of slavery . You have some third entity coming into a transaction between two parties of their own free will and saying "you cannot enter into this transaction under the terms you agreed on. I will now set your terms." Goods and services are no longer priced according to their economic value but according to the whim, sentiment and corrupt biasses of other people who probably have nothing to do with it. And ultimately everyone loses out.

To use an example, let's pretend we have a company called Sentient Widgets that is putting together a deal to manufacture some product in India. They only have to pay a fraction of what they would pay American workers, but it will result in a much cheaper product. Now lets say someone comes in (as per the Fairness in Outsourcing Act) and says "You can't manufacture in India. It will cost American jobs and you are exploiting these poor Indians because they have nothing and will gladly accept your unfair wages." So the deal is blocked. Who loses? The Indian workers who stay dirt poor instead of mostly poor, Sentient Widgets which won't be as competetive and the consumers who are stuck with a higher priced product. The only winners will be the American workers. At least until they go out of business because our representative on the Fairness in Outsourcing Committee decides his college roomate who is the CEO of Amalgamated Widgets is not violating the Act by manufacturing a similar product in India.


For the record, I don't think it is possible to have completely free markets without proper regulation and oversight.

[SentientMeat]

I suppose that's true but hardly relevant. Well, her ontological philosophy is what she supposedly bases her political philosophy on. I don’t see quite how it follows, of course, but she would consider its truth relevant, even (ahem) essential :).

So you disagree with being able to apply for any job you feel you are qualified for? Do you [dis]agree with companies being able to hire the most competant employee and fire those who can't or won't perform to the standards of the company? Do you disagree with being able to buy or sell your goods or services for the best price you can get for them? Do you disagree with being judged on your abilities and contribution? Do you disagree with the company that provides the best product or service should beat out their competition, no matter who they are?No. Like I said, I’m as far from political Objectivism as anyone here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=330918).
I see two possiblities here. One - You do agree with these things but don't realize we don't have them in our current economic system … The other possibility is that you do not, in fact, want to compete.Of course, the third possibility is that I believe you can have a free market and something called taxation which can be used to address the welfare of your population, to which political Objectivists would, well, object.
Objectivists and fiscal conservatives believe that when you tamper with the free market, you distort the economic value of goods and services. It is essentially a form of slavery.Heh heh - I know you're not a political Objectivist, but it is such absurd equivalences which make Rand so hilarious.
To use an example, let's pretend we have a company called Sentient Widgets that is putting together a deal to manufacture some product in India. They only have to pay a fraction of what they would pay American workers, but it will result in a much cheaper product. Now lets say someone comes in (as per the Fairness in Outsourcing Act) and says "You can't manufacture in India. It will cost American jobs and you are exploiting these poor Indians because they have nothing and will gladly accept your unfair wages." So the deal is blocked. Who loses? The Indian workers who stay dirt poor instead of mostly poor, Sentient Widgets which won't be as competetive and the consumers who are stuck with a higher priced product. The only winners will be the American workers. At least until they go out of business because our representative on the Fairness in Outsourcing Committee decides his college roomate who is the CEO of Amalgamated Widgets is not violating the Act by manufacturing a similar product in India. Errr, what? If you’re honestly asking for my take on this situation you’ve constructed, I’d tell the Indians to say bollocks to IP law and make it themselves independently, but I’m struggling to see how it relates to anything I’ve said. Can you help?

[Rhythmdvl]

First of all, one cannot sell themselves into slavery in an Objectivist society (or any other free society) so your question is moot.
Wait, what? :confused:

Did you just handwave the whole OP? Given the effort and thought put into the rest of your post, that's extremely odd.

[smiling bandit]

Wait, what? :confused:

Did you just handwave the whole OP? Given the effort and thought put into the rest of your post, that's extremely odd.

It's not a "handwave". That part of the OP was founded on completely wrong premises. Objectivists usually have the concept that people can't be owned as their primary practical principle.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

First of all, one cannot sell themselves into slavery in an Objectivist society (or any other free society) so your question is moot.

You can join the army, though, right? Even if you're flat broke and a little in debt?

[SentientMeat]

Objectivists usually have the concept that people can't be owned as their primary practical principle.Which is actually where I disagree with them most fundamentally since I consider that when one depends upon the property (ie. monopolistic use defended by force) of others for one's very life, one becomes their economic slave. Like I said, I see very little difference between Marxism and Objectivism when viewed from the bottom up.

[msmith537]

Wait, what? :confused:

Did you just handwave the whole OP? Given the effort and thought put into the rest of your post, that's extremely odd.

Because the concept of slavary is a complete antithesis to Objectivism.


Of course, the third possibility is that I believe you can have a free market and something called taxation which can be used to address the welfare of your population, to which political Objectivists would, well, object.


Fair enough. I never really understood who was supposed to maintain the public roads, police and fire services or if there were public schools and hospitals in Atlas Shrugged. I suppose everything would be privitized.

The problem that Objectivists see with the concept of addressing the welfare of your population is that the population continues to demand more and more. The people eventually saddled with providing end up being those who are are successful and productive. Atlas Shrugged takes this philosophy to its logical conclusion. The government continues to take more and more from the successful companies and they enact legislation to prop up the inefficient and incomentant companies in the name of "fairness". Eventually there is no one else to take from as all the industrialists and other "Men of the Mind" opt out and society grinds to a halt.



Errr, what? If you’re honestly asking for my take on this situation you’ve constructed, I’d tell the Indians to say bollocks to IP law and make it themselves independently, but I’m struggling to see how it relates to anything I’ve said. Can you help?

Basically, according to most economists I've read, free trade (including outsourcing) between two nations only has a net benefit. Each nation is able to provide the good or service it can best provide. This frees up resources that can be utilized in other areas of the economy. And it ultimately ends up with more affordable products for the consumers.

Politically it is unpopular because some people may find that their jobs are no longer competetive. So they pressure the government to enact protectionist legislation which ultimately hurts the consumer through higher prices.

Basically the government is saying "While Company A is cheaper, we have decided it is more politically desirable for you to do business with Company B." Well if the government or anyone can tell you who to do business with, based on geography, why not other forms of favoratism that may be even more arbitrary?

[SentientMeat]

Well, I'm still not sure where I've advocated protectionism or anything like it, ms (indeed, I've advocated jettisonning IP law, which is surely the ultimate anithesis of protectionism!), but hopefully your example will be instructive to someone else.

[msmith537]

Which is actually where I disagree with them most fundamentally since I consider that when one depends upon the property (ie. monopolistic use defended by force) of others for one's very life, one becomes their economic slave. Like I said, I see very little difference between Marxism and Objectivism when viewed from the bottom up.

How are you dependent on the property for your very life? Objectivism isn't feudalsim or mannorism. You don't become some sort of ronin engineer roaming the countryside if your CEO dies. You just look for a new job.

Much like it is today, it is up to you to figure out a way to make yourself valuable to others. In Atlas Shrugged, Rand frequently makes a point that the companies and their owners are as dependent on hard working, motivated employees as those employees are dependent on the company. And the owners who understand this treat their employees well in order to keep them.

We are all economic slaves. Business owners, who bear the enormous responsibility for the livlihoods of hundreds, if not tens of thousands of employees, must constantly find new ways to innovate and keep the company competetive. Middle managers who are responsible for finding better ways to organize and lead their employees. Employees competing to demonstrate their value to the company.


The difference between Marxism and Objectivism is that in Objectivism or Capitalism you can actually move up from the bottom with hard work. Marxism you can't

[SentientMeat]

How are you dependent on the property for your very life?If someone else has a medical treatment or apparatus which will save you life, say, or a suplus of food when you have none.
We are all economic slaves.Some more than others, as Napoleon the pig might say.
The difference between Marxism and Objectivism is that in Objectivism or Capitalism you can actually move up from the bottom with hard work. Marxism you can't Neither a Marxist nor an Objectivist I, but just because one can move up in an Objectivist system rather ignores the brute statistical fact that, by virtue of a deprived upbringing, many simply won't. Social mobility is a very difficult thing to acheive even in an enlightened and reasonable tax-based system. In an Objectivist plutocracy, it seems to me that a few bubbles might rise to the top but the drink will remain largely unmixed.

[Rhythmdvl]

Because the concept of slavary is a complete antithesis to Objectivism.

How so? Look, that was the foundation of the OP, so it's not like I'm jumping on some semantic issue/hijack, and I'm really not trying to be a wiener (honest!).

Just saying it's a fundamental premise seems kind of, well, arbitrary. I guess it would be one thing if the OP was asking about capturing people and using them as slaves, but the OP is asking about a voluntary arrangement between ostensibly consenting parties.

What is it about Objectivism that prevents me from entering into a carefully crafted engagement--inhibits my freedom to contract?

Does Objectivisim prevent indentured servitude? Why?

Does it prevent injunctive relief for contracts?

Is there no recourse against someone who willfully violates a contract?

[IdahoMauleMan]

P1. If someone else has a medical treatment or apparatus which will save you life, say, or a suplus of food when you have none.

P2. Social mobility is a very difficult thing to acheive even in an enlightened and reasonable tax-based system.

P3. In an Objectivist plutocracy, it seems to me that a few bubbles might rise to the top but the drink will remain largely unmixed.


P1. But how did the medical treatment or apparatus come into being, in the first place? How did the surplus of food come to exist, in the first place? It didn't just spring forth from some fountain in the desert. It was created by people who put their own resources at risk. If you take away the reward that is commensurate with that risk, they won't bother to try again.

P2. Seems to me that is a bland assertion without any facts to back it up whatsoever.

P3. Ah. But who does the mixing? If you designate a 'mixer', with Supreme Authority To Mix, you have just violated your own principles of social mobility, fairniess and whatnot. Because now that dude has it all. He is at the top of the heap. He will decide your fate from now on.

You have just disempowered yourself, and transferred that power to a Supreme Mixer who now has final say over the mixing. And you won't get that power back.

[magellan01]

Which is actually where I disagree with them most fundamentally since I consider that when one depends upon the property (ie. monopolistic use defended by force) of others for one's very life, one becomes their economic slave. Like I said, I see very little difference between Marxism and Objectivism when viewed from the bottom up.

Are you kidding me? In an objectivist world, people can rise up through the ranks, and will, one at a time.

An important part of Objectivism is the worth of the individual, and that he can not only change his situation, but change the world. If one has a better work ethic, or a stronger back, or a bigger brain, or a better idea, he can rise. I have no idea where you get a notion to the contrary.

As far as your slave metaphor, it is just that. Trying to then equate it with actual slavery is beyond absurd.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Objectivism is really just Ayn Rand's word for existentialism - basically the idea that minds and ideas didn't exist during those 13 billion years when (on Earth at least) there were no complex neural networks around to house them. By this token, I'm as Objective as any (while still understanding and appreciating many of Kant's counterarguments.)

Could you expand on your claim? I don`t see how anything you said after "existentialism" relates to existentialism, but maybe you weren`t actually trying to support that claim. I'm curious to hear more about how you think Objectivism is related to Existentialism.

[msmith537]

If someone else has a medical treatment or apparatus which will save you life, say, or a suplus of food when you have none.


I have a shitload of food in my fridge in my appartment. Should some homeless guy have right to just come in and take it?




Neither a Marxist nor an Objectivist I, but just because one can move up in an Objectivist system rather ignores the brute statistical fact that, by virtue of a deprived upbringing, many simply won't. Social mobility is a very difficult thing to acheive even in an enlightened and reasonable tax-based system. In an Objectivist plutocracy, it seems to me that a few bubbles might rise to the top but the drink will remain largely unmixed.

You probably won't move up unless you have some superior skill or ability. However those who manage you or run the businesses you own will be in their positions because they are very good at it, understand what contribution you add and will reward you accordingly.

In Atlas Shrugged, Rand describes inhereted wealth as one of the greatest possible gifts and with it comes a responsibility to use it wisely and productively. She also heavily criticizes class stratification and the entitlement, debauchery and idleness that can come from having excessive money you did nothing to earn. Rand's heros were not successful so they could live a life of leisure. They were successful because they loved what they did. Most expressed disatisfaction with having to socialize with the uper echeolons of society who did not produce anything of value and who struggled to find meaning and worth in their existance.






How so? Look, that was the foundation of the OP, so it's not like I'm jumping on some semantic issue/hijack, and I'm really not trying to be a wiener (honest!).

Just saying it's a fundamental premise seems kind of, well, arbitrary. I guess it would be one thing if the OP was asking about capturing people and using them as slaves, but the OP is asking about a voluntary arrangement between ostensibly consenting parties.

What is it about Objectivism that prevents me from entering into a carefully crafted engagement--inhibits my freedom to contract?

Does Objectivisim prevent indentured servitude? Why?

Does it prevent injunctive relief for contracts?

Is there no recourse against someone who willfully violates a contract?



The OP used the term "slavery" which is a loaded term with a very specific meaning. And I would almost catagorize it as a clumsy attempt to trap Objectivists and fiscal conservatives into revealing themselves to be pro-slavery.

Being tried and sent to jail for violating the law is not slavery. Fullfilling a contract you freely engaged in with another party is not slavery. And freely enlisting in the military is not slavery either.

Rand clearly did not believe in anarchy:

"the proper functions of a government are the police, to protect men from criminals—the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders—the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objectively defined laws."
-Ayn Rand


So the "recourse" would probably be similar to what it is now. If you violate a contract, you have to reconcile with the party you initiated the contract with. You may lose whatever assets you put up as collateral. Or you may have a lein against your wages until the contract is payed off.

Understand that is very different from slavery. The agreived party does not own you. They don't care what you do or how you get the money. They simply own the right to whatever labor you produce before anyone else.

Keep in mind that people do not lend out money arbitrarily (current financial crisis notwithstanding). If someone is a degenerate gambler or a wild speculator with little to no track record, lenders would be very wary about providing them with a loan if they didn't feel they would get it back.

[erislover]

It seems clear that one of the main themes of your philosophy is that people ought to pay directly for their failures.Ouch. The main theme is the competency of mankind.
I get where that comes from, it's the natural reverse to the idea that people ought to earn directly from their successes.I think that's a fair assessment.
My question is: are you okay with the idea of someone paying for their failures for their life? Like, if someone paid off their gambling debts by selling themselves into slavery, would that be a logical outcome of objectivist philosophy, or am I missing the point?As noted, slavery as such would have absolutely no place in an Objectivist society. (Note the capital 'O', to distinguish it from a far more innocuous philosophical position of the same name.) That said, I think it kind of depends on what you are going to count as slavery. As the term is understood in sort of everyday parlance, namely, that you become someone else's property, the answer can only be a resounding no. But, could you contract away your labor? Yes, certainly. Might this lead to de facto slavery? An interesting question. (I think yes, but I am not an Objectivist.)

[Der Trihs]

Objectivism is pro-slavery; they just don't like the word. It's an inevitable consequence of them refusing to admit the power of economic coercion, and insisting that only coercion by the government counts. The government which just happens to be the most effective way the common people can exercise power.

When the government won't help you and you have the choice of doing what you are told or dying, you are a slave in all but name. And no, "get another job" isn't an option because disobeying will cause the employers to collectively blacklist you, rendering you unemployable; the sort of thing they can and will do without the government intervening. And that's assuming they don't just have you beaten or killed; speeches about how they deplore violence aside, an Objectivist nation would realistically only enforce the rights of the wealthy*. One way or another they'll make an example of you.

So if the boss wants you to work until you are crippled or to submit as a sex toy that's what you'll do. And we know this to be true because that's exactly what employers have done when the government didn't prevent it.



* And if you say "That's not how it's supposed to work!", that's not any different than someone defending Communism by claiming that what Communists have actually done in the real world isn't what "real Communists" would do.

[SentientMeat]

P1. But how did the medical treatment or apparatus come into being, in the first place? How did the surplus of food come to exist, in the first place? It didn't just spring forth from some fountain in the desert. It was created by people who put their own resources at risk. If you take away the reward that is commensurate with that risk, they won't bother to try again.And I did not advocate Marxism, where there is no incentive to innovate.
P2. Seems to me that is a bland assertion without any facts to back it up whatsoever.Social mobility is a diffiult thing to achieve in both the UK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/jul/21/all-party-report-on-social-mobility) and US (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/27/usa.comment), even with tax-based education programs:
A recent study here showed that social mobility in America is actually decreasing. Comparing the incomes and occupations of 2,749 fathers and sons from the 1970s to the 1990s, it was found that mobility had decreased. "In the last 25 years, a large segment of American society has become more vulnerable," says Professor Robert Perrucci of Purdue University.

P3. Ah. But who does the mixing? If you designate a 'mixer', with Supreme Authority To Mix, you have just violated your own principles of social mobility, fairniess and whatnot. Because now that dude has it all. He is at the top of the heap. He will decide your fate from now on.It is as unnecessary to ask "who the mixer is" as it is to ask "who increases GDP?". Social mobility is a measurable parameter (http://www.springerlink.com/content/t20350v337q83mg6/). If you believe a plutocracy would increase it, that's fine - I just don't see how.



Are you kidding me? In an objectivist world, people can rise up through the ranks, and will, one at a time.One out of how many? If only one in a hundred does so while 99 of his or her deprived bretheren stay largely where they are, social mobility is confounded. One would not suggest that a state lottery which gave one Soviet citizen a life of luxury made the entire system fair because one can rise up. If I were educationally deprived, I would consider my prospects for rising up similarly bleak in both a Marxist and Objectivist state, statistically speaking. I've visited both Cuba and Haiti. Of course, Cuba isn't strictly Marxist and Haiti isn't Objectivist, but I can tell you right now where I'd prefer to be born into a poor family in terms of future prospects, statistically speaking.
An important part of Objectivism is the worth of the individual, and that he can not only change his situation, but change the world. If one has a better work ethic, or a stronger back, or a bigger brain, or a better idea, he can rise. I have no idea where you get a notion to the contrary.Or richer parents, or a better school, or any of a number of factors which allow a plutocracy to foil a true meritocracy. I am not saying one with natural merits cannot rise. I'm saying that to focus on the few while ignoring the largely hopeless plight of the many is myopic.

As far as your slave metaphor, it is just that. Trying to then equate it with actual slavery is beyond absurd.Well, I say becoming homeless in order to pay another to save your life does engender so great a diminution of one's liberty that it approaches vassaldom. Others say taxation is theft. Tomato, tomahto.



Could you expand on your claim? I don`t see how anything you said after "existentialism" relates to existentialism, but maybe you weren`t actually trying to support that claim. I'm curious to hear more about how you think Objectivism is related to Existentialism. The "Objective" in Rand's Objectivism is the position that there is a reality independent of one's consciousness. That's all I, and she, means when I say that minds didn't exist for billions of years. She chose Objectivism because, if her biography is correct, existentialism had already been taken. Again, existentialism - the position that things exist before our desciptions or categorisations of them do - is "Matter First" rather than "Mind First". (Essentialism is its opposite.) As far as I can tell, Rand didn;t draw much of a distinction between Objectivism and Existentialism, but I'd be happy to stand corrected.



I have a shitload of food in my fridge in my appartment. Should some homeless guy have right to just come in and take it?No. Please, just calm down and put away your straw construction kit. If the homeless guy is literally starving, I'm saying he is effectively the slave of those with a surplus since he relies on them for his very life. I made no further step advocating entry to your home, and would propose other, less personal ways of securing his life. Of course, you and Rand might label such programs "theft", but I would not construct such a label for you since I'm allergic to dried grass.
You probably won't move up unless you have some superior skill or ability.Agreed. I'd suggest such superior skills and abilities will be far less in evidence amongst the educationally deprived.
In Atlas Shrugged, Rand describes inhereted wealth as one of the greatest possible gifts and with it comes a responsibility to use it wisely and productively. She also heavily criticizes class stratification and the entitlement, debauchery and idleness that can come from having excessive money you did nothing to earn. Rand's heros were not successful so they could live a life of leisure. They were successful because they loved what they did. Most expressed disatisfaction with having to socialize with the uper echeolons of society who did not produce anything of value and who struggled to find meaning and worth in their existance.Interesting (I've only read some of her essays and the Fountainhead) - how, then, does the Objectivist state prevent such consolidation of wealth within families by inheritance? What is to stop the family fortune being invested in a high interest account and simply left there for generation after generation while the effete, pampered nobility enjoy lives of ease watching illterate farmers work their vast estates? If there is no inheritance tax, or tax of any kind, how is a new form of feudalism avoided?

[msmith537]

Objectivism is pro-slavery; they just don't like the word. It's an inevitable consequence of them refusing to admit the power of economic coercion, and insisting that only coercion by the government counts. The government which just happens to be the most effective way the common people can exercise power.

When the government won't help you and you have the choice of doing what you are told or dying, you are a slave in all but name. And no, "get another job" isn't an option because disobeying will cause the employers to collectively blacklist you, rendering you unemployable; the sort of thing they can and will do without the government intervening. And that's assuming they don't just have you beaten or killed; speeches about how they deplore violence aside, an Objectivist nation would realistically only enforce the rights of the wealthy*. One way or another they'll make an example of you.

So if the boss wants you to work until you are crippled or to submit as a sex toy that's what you'll do. And we know this to be true because that's exactly what employers have done when the government didn't prevent it.


This is, of course, utter nonsense.

First of all, "economic coercion" exists in every single society. It's called "you have to work at something to make a living otherwise you will starve."

Second, the government is NOT the most effective method for the people to exercise power. The free market is. Each dollar spent is a vote for or against something.

Third, the idea you would be blacklisted or beaten is pure fantasy.

And finally, the entire point of Objectivism is the use of reason instead of force of violence to compel people to do something. An Objectivist government would exist to protect individuals from such treatment.



No. Please, just calm down and put away your straw construction kit. If the homeless guy is literally starving, I'm saying he is effectively the slave of those with a surplus since he relies on them for his very life. I made no further step advocating entry to your home, and would propose other, less personal ways of securing his life. Of course, you and Rand might label such programs "theft", but I would not construct such a label for you since I'm allergic to dried grass.

My point is the solution is not to make those who "have" slaves of those who "have not".

I don't know who takes care of the poor in Objectivtopia. But I assume their standard of living would rise along with the rest of society.

[SentientMeat]

My point is the solution is not to make those who "have" slaves of those who "have not".My counterpoint being that ceding some property does not constitute slavery. (OK, maybe depending on someone else's property for your very existence isn't precisely slavery either, but it's a much closer approach thereto than paying income tax or VAT.)
I don't know who takes care of the poor in Objectivtopia. But I assume their standard of living would rise along with the rest of society. Why, and how? It's my inability to see a feasible, demographic-wide mechanism for this (beyond a few blessed 'bubbles') that makes Objectivia as distopian as North Korea.

[erislover]

Interesting (I've only read some of her essays and the Fountainhead) - how, then, does the Objectivist state prevent such consolidation of wealth within families by inheritance? What is to stop the family fortune being invested in a high interest account and simply left there for generation after generation while the effete, pampered nobility enjoy lives of ease watching illterate farmers work their vast estates? If there is no inheritance tax, or tax of any kind, how is a new form of feudalism avoided?Even in a relatively imperfect market I don't see how a lack of inheritance tax could ever lead to anything approaching feudalism; in a perfect one, even less. A high interest account is just another way of being a lender; who are they lending to in order to get interest? I think inheritance has other problems, namely, that it distorts a meritocracy, but as I doubt any Objectivist is really concerned with what it takes to have a well-functioning meritocracy, this is probably just a red herring.

[Der Trihs]

Even in a relatively imperfect market I don't see how a lack of inheritance tax could ever lead to anything approaching feudalism; in a perfect one, even less. A high interest account is just another way of being a lender; who are they lending to in order to get interest? I think inheritance has other problems, namely, that it distorts a meritocracy, but as I doubt any Objectivist is really concerned with what it takes to have a well-functioning meritocracy, this is probably just a red herring.Without an inheritance tax the inherited wealthy will eventually control most of the wealth, and therefore ( especially in an Objectivist society ) almost all of the power. Objectivism is ultimately about the recreation of a form of feudalism; they just don't like to admit it.

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

First of all, "economic coercion" exists in every single society. It's called "you have to work at something to make a living otherwise you will starve."Nonsense. Civilized societies provide the unemployed with at least what they need to survive.

Second, the government is NOT the most effective method for the people to exercise power. The free market is. Each dollar spent is a vote for or against something.Nonsense again. First, in a market the most "votes" goes to whoever has the most money; not to who has the most numbers. Second, without government intervention there IS no free market ( to the extent one is even possible ); an Objectivist society would mostly be composed of massive monopolies who have complete control over their employee's lives. You'd buy what you are told to buy. Third, the sellers are perfectly capable of deciding to ignore what's profitable in favor of their own agenda.

Third, the idea you would be blacklisted or beaten is pure fantasy.No, it's how employers act when they can get away with it. It's your idea that employers are all noble self sacrificing people who'll refuse to take advantage of their power or to cooperate with one enough to their own advantage that is a fantasy.

And finally, the entire point of Objectivism is the use of reason instead of force of violence to compel people to do something. An Objectivist government would exist to protect individuals from such treatment.Just like Communism is for the welfare of the common worker?

An Objectivist government would exist to prevent people from fighting back against such treatment.

My point is the solution is not to make those who "have" slaves of those who "have not".In other words, the "haves" should be allowed to loot society to their heart's content, and if that means that the common people starve well they are all vermin anyway.

I don't know who takes care of the poor in Objectivtopia. But I assume their standard of living would rise along with the rest of society.Yeah, riiiight. They'll be slaves. Or dead.

[erislover]

Without an inheritance tax the inherited wealthy will eventually control most of the wealthThis is really a remarkable claim and for the life of me I cannot see the mechanism that would allow this to happen in just about every realistic case, and even a few unrealistic ones.

[Der Trihs]

This is really a remarkable claim and for the life of me I cannot see the mechanism that would allow this to happen in just about every realistic case, and even a few unrealistic ones.What would stop it? The natural tendency is for the rich to get richer, and the more of society's resources the wealthy hog the less there is for anyone else. And the greater the wealth disparity becomes, especially in an Objectivist society which will lack any means of restraining them ( and lack the will to do so ), the more power they will have to take more wealth for themselves and prevent anyone else from becoming a rival.

Really; remove all restraints from the privileged and exactly what do you expect to happen? An outbreak of egalitarianism?

[msmith537]

What would stop it? The natural tendency is for the rich to get richer, and the more of society's resources the wealthy hog the less there is for anyone else. And the greater the wealth disparity becomes, especially in an Objectivist society which will lack any means of restraining them ( and lack the will to do so ), the more power they will have to take more wealth for themselves and prevent anyone else from becoming a rival.


Except that isn't really true, is it? Bill Gates doesn't use proportionately more water or eat more food or use more gasoline than the rest of us.

[Der Trihs]

Except that isn't really true, is it? Bill Gates doesn't use proportionately more water or eat more food or use more gasoline than the rest of us.Of course he does, except ( possibly; depends if he has animals ) for the food. He probably has a mansion, with grounds that take a lot more water and space and electricity and so on. He no doubt has any number of things he hires done that use up resources as well. He can go into competition with someone and use the greater resources of his company to drive them out of business, especially in an environment where he wouldn't have to worry about the government stopping him. He could if he wished acquire other companies, more estates, and so on.

And he DOES have more money.

[erislover]

What would stop it?Is this the way things work now?
The natural tendency is for the rich to get richer, and the more of society's resources the wealthy hog the less there is for anyone else.This may be true if it is interpreted as "the wage gap is widening," but it doesn't support your claim, because it doesn't demonstrate that the same people (where "same" is "the same family") are necessarily wealthy.
And the greater the wealth disparity becomes, especially in an Objectivist society which will lack any means of restraining them ( and lack the will to do so ), the more power they will have to take more wealth for themselves and prevent anyone else from becoming a rival.How, really? If all wealthy people hoarded resources and stuffed them in giant matresses, maybe, but they don't.
Really; remove all restraints from the privileged and exactly what do you expect to happen? An outbreak of egalitarianism?You must mistake me for someone who supports Objectivism. My only concern is that the non-existence of an inheritance tax will not result in an effectively feudal society.

[Blake]

The natural tendency is for the rich to get richer...

Is it? What is you evidence for this?

And how do you explain that very few, if any, of the families that were wealthiest 100 years ago are still the wealthiest today? Doesn't that alone put the kibosh on the idea that the rich tend to get richer? Doesn't this prove that the rich get poorer?

..and the more of society's resources the wealthy hog the less there is for anyone else.

You aren't seriously arguing the "fixed sized pie" model of economics are you?

If not then can you explain how this works? Why is the world infinitely wealthier today than it was 100 years ago, despite the fact that the rich today use far more of society's resources than they did 100 years ago?


And the greater the wealth disparity becomes, especially in an Objectivist society which will lack any means of restraining them ( and lack the will to do so ), the more power they will have to take more wealth for themselves and prevent anyone else from becoming a rival.

Can you expand on this?

For example, what are they doing with all this wealth if not investing it and thus making it available to others? And why isn't a reticence to deal with such people a mechanism for restraint?

Really; remove all restraints from the privileged and exactly what do you expect to happen? An outbreak of egalitarianism?

But all restraints aren't removed are they? There is still a legal system, correct? So why do you posit that all restraints are removed when that isn't part of the hypothetical state?

[Der Trihs]

How, really? If all wealthy people hoarded resources and stuffed them in giant matresses, maybe, but they don't.No, they prefer bank accounts and such.

The natural tendency is for the rich to get richer...Is it? What is you evidence for this?History. Current events.

And how do you explain that very few, if any, of the families that were wealthiest 100 years ago are still the wealthiest today?Wars, revolutions, trustbusting; their assets were taken by force or destroyed. In places and times where that doesn't happen they stay wealthy indefinitely.

You aren't seriously arguing the "fixed sized pie" model of economics are you?When the economy grows, so does their share of it.

For example, what are they doing with all this wealth if not investing it and thus making it available to others?Sitting on it. Spending it on speciality luxury items that at best benefit only a tiny part of the economy. We live in a primarily consumer spending generated economy; not a rich person driven economy.

And why isn't a reticence to deal with such people a mechanism for restraint?Huh? How is letting do what they want a restraint?

But all restraints aren't removed are they? There is still a legal system, correct? So why do you posit that all restraints are removed when that isn't part of the hypothetical state?In such a state the legal system exists to keep the common people from rebelling and little more. It eliminates all non-violent forms of resistance ( government regulations and redistribution and such ), and forbids violent resistance. Therefore, the wealthy have absolute power; they can use economic coercion to get whatever they want, the government won't intervene to stop them, and will send in cops or soldiers if the common people become desperate enough to turn to force. Just like the good old days.

[Zoe]

msmith537: The difference between Marxism and Objectivism is that in Objectivism or Capitalism you can actually move up from the bottom with hard work. Marxism you can't.

Well, that's one of the differences. Since we're speaking theoretically here, in Marism, there is no bottom.

magellan01: An important part of Objectivism is the worth of the individual, and that he can not only change his situation, but change the world. If one has a better work ethic, or a stronger back, or a bigger brain, or a better idea, he can rise. I have no idea where you get a notion to the contrary.

From teaching in public schools?

msmith537: (quoting) "the proper functions of a government are the police, to protect men from criminals—the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders—the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objectively defined laws."
-Ayn Rand

Who teaches the policemen, the soldiers, the attorneys and the legislators how to read?

Sentient Meat: And I did not advocate Marxism, where there is no incentive to innovate.

Why do so many think that profits are the only incentive to innovate? Was it profits that lead Les Paul to invent the electric guitar or the Wright Brothers to keep working on their flying machine? What lead the founder of Halliburton Oil to also invent that padded carrying case? Even in capitalist societies, it just isn't all about profits. It's about problem solving, and being first, and valuing quality, and thinking creatively. You can do those things if you are a Marxist, a monk, or a millionaire.

[Blake]

History. Current events.

Do you have any actual evidence for his claim?

Wars, revolutions, trustbusting; their assets were taken by force or destroyed. In places and times where that doesn't happen they stay wealthy indefinitely.

Do you have any actual evidence for this claim?

You seem to be saying that the rich get richer, despite the fact that all the rich we know of have demonstrably become poorer in the past 100 years

When the economy grows, so does their share of it.

Do you have any actual evidence for this claim?

Sitting on it. Spending it on speciality luxury items that at best benefit only a tiny part of the economy.

Doing this would result in a reduction of wealth over time,simply because of inflation. So you are now contradicting your own position.

We live in a primarily consumer spending generated economy; not a rich person driven economy.

What does that even mean?

Huh? How is letting do what they want a restraint?

How is refusing to deal with someone who wants to deal with you letting them do what they want?

In such a state the legal system exists to keep the common people from rebelling and little more.


Do you have any actual evidence for this claim? Because we've seen quotes qhich directly contradict such a claim.


It eliminates all non-violent forms of resistance ( government regulations and redistribution and such ), and forbids violent resistance. Therefore, the wealthy have absolute power; they can use economic coercion to get whatever they want, the government won't intervene to stop them, and will send in cops or soldiers if the common people become desperate enough to turn to force. Just like the good old days.


Do you have any actual evidence for this claim?

[Blake]

Well, that's one of the differences. Since we're speaking theoretically here, in Marism, there is no bottom.

In Marxism there most certainly is. If there is no bottom then who is this person whose needs must be catered for from those with ability?

From teaching in public schools?

Public schools where you live are run on Objetcivist principals? I find that hard to believe.


Who teaches the policemen, the soldiers, the attorneys and the legislators how to read?

Teachers, of course.

Was it profits that lead Les Paul to invent the electric guitar or the Wright Brothers to keep working on their flying machine?

Hell yeah. Why do you think they took out patents if not for profit? They sure as hell weren’t doing it so they could share their discoveries freely with the world.


Even in capitalist societies, it just isn't all about profits. It's about problem solving, and being first, and valuing quality, and thinking creatively. You can do those things if you are a Marxist, a monk, or a millionaire.


I don’t think anyone suggested that profit is the only human motivator. However it is indisputably the primary human motivator. Surely even you don’t dispute this fact.

[Der Trihs]

Do you have any actual evidence for this claim?History, like all the others. Go look up periods like the Gilded Age.

Doing this would result in a reduction of wealth over time,simply because of inflation. So you are now contradicting your own position.No, you are simply ignoring the rather basic concept of compound interest.

What does that even mean?That the economy is primarily based on consumer spending of course.

How is refusing to deal with someone who wants to deal with you letting them do what they want?What makes you think you'll have a choice?

I don’t think anyone suggested that profit is the only human motivator. However it is indisputably the primary human motivator. Surely even you don’t dispute this fact.Of course it's not; our society is highly dependent on people NOT motivated by profit. Profit is just one of many motivations people have for what they do. Including, yes, technological innovation. Most technological innovation is by people who won't profit by it; the profit goes to the money men, not the engineers and scientists. If they were good capitalists they'd stop innovating until they were offered a percentage or something of the sort.

[Grumman]

No, you are simply ignoring the rather basic concept of compound interest.
If they are benefitting from compound interest, they are by definition not just sitting on it. You only earn compound interest by renting your money out to other people, who use it to capitalise, and establish their own sources of income.

[Blake]

History, like all the others. Go look up periods like the Gilded Age.

I did.

Now do you have any actual evidence for this claim?

No, you are simply ignoring the rather basic concept of compound interest.

How does one get compound interest by sitting o wealth, or spending it on luxuries, which is what you said they were doing with it?

That the economy is primarily based on consumer spending of course.

Err, yes. And?

What makes you think you'll have a choice?

Because it is inherent within the very definition of Objectivism.

Most technological innovation is by people who won't profit by it

Cite.

the profit goes to the money men, not the engineers and scientists.

Bullshit.

This is so clearly nonsense that I really don't think it's worth my while to continue to debate you.

You are claiming that I, as a research scientist, have less money after I develop my technology than before I do so. That's absolute nonsense. I get paid a good salary. I indisputably profit from the technological advances I make.



If they were good capitalists they'd stop innovating until they were offered a percentage or something of the sort.

Why the heck would I do that? That would place me at a competitive advantage and would give me less chance to work in the field in which I am educated and the field at which I can earn the most profit. My profits would fall to zero if I tried that trick.

[msmith537]

Of course it's not; our society is highly dependent on people NOT motivated by profit.

Like who?

[magellan01]

Why the heck would I do that? That would place me at a competitive advantage and would give me less chance to work in the field in which I am educated and the field at which I can earn the most profit. My profits would fall to zero if I tried that trick.

Actually there is an important point here. One that I'm not sure DT quite gets. You can certainly choose to work on your own or get private funding for your own research and potentially reap greater profits when you develop X. That is one option. Another option is for you to work for a corporation where you don't have to concern yourself with funding, rent, keeping the lights, on, etc., and focus on your work. The objectivist would support either decision. Most important, it would support the fact that you have those choices, and more. Like Rand's Howard Roark, you are in charge of your talents and how and where you chose to ply them. You can try to hold on to every penny they might generate, give them away freely, and strike a middle ground, as it appears you have done.

I think the most important part of your post is the part where you realize what is and what is not worth your while.