Objectivism/Ayn Rand

Great Debates
81

I’lll give it a go for the novelty value.

What on earth are you talking about? No law is ever absolutely objective. I have no idea what you are talking about in terms of absolute effects.

Given that you also believe in non-subjective morality (apparenlty your own, no surprise there) this is unsurprising. It’s also uncompelling. What’s a clearly stated law? Or morals? Application as much as wording creates the cloudiness.

Interpretation is a key feature of the anglo-saxon legal system. Your problem, ergo, is not with laws but with the common law tradition. Try Civil Code then.

Oh yes it is. As spiritus noted, you seem to be challenged in

Meaning you insist on reading non-fiction?

Anarchy has appeared in lots of places where government has broken down. Results were universally bad. Again, an acquiantance with history would be useful as assertions like this are just silly.

Facts and reality baby, facts and reality. I don’t find critiques of reality coming from utopian thinking to be terribly useful. In any event, your assertion above was false, making the above nonesensical --unless you are going to create your own personal definition of government for us.

When offering something new (which you are not) it needs to be compelling and well-thought out. Given the critiques from Spirit, myself and Kimstu, you might take a hint that your thinking has not been either compelling nor convincing.

Economic thought generally favors the minimium of government intervention possible. However, that does not ipso facto agree with your idiosyncratic definitions of “control”.

Some men are bald, some men dress like women… What’s your point? Any nation’s laws and actions may prove confusing and perhaps even disgusting to an outside observer.

I do not believe that given we’ve limited this to free market economists that there are any who support government ownership of large swaths of the economy. This is irrelevant.

I’ve tried to suggest to you that your conceptualization of the issues is at best warped. I’ll restate my analysis: you distort and exagerate while setting up straw man arguments. You’ve not show an ability to grasp the critiques presented here.

A straw man argument is setting up a false and easily attacked argument which the other person has not in fact made, and then attacking it instead of dealing with the actual critique/argument. I think Spiritus and others will agree this perfectly characterizes 90% of your responses. Look at your response to the Game Theory issue: first you attack P’s observation with some irrational and irrelevant rant on the evils of collectivism, then when called on that you bizarrely claimed that the observations derived from Game Theory supported your (extreme) position, which they do not.

Now here you’re addressing the argument. Thank you, now we have something. (As for not seeing it, try noting the repeated complaints about the same from other posters – hint the part where spiritus says I didn’t say that suggests you have made a straw man argument.

Of course liars and cheaters will go into government. And government will be imperfect. That’s why we try to set up systems with checks and controls, i.e. representative democratic government, to help reign that in. Such is the imperfect world we live in.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. I believe I stated that the government is an actor in the economy, as any social entity in society. I don’t recall the context of comparing government and economy, but of course since they are fundamentally different concepts it would be rather nonesensical to do so. Like comparing air and spirit.

You are challenged, aren’t you? See above. It’s not at all clear to me what you mean by this.

The logic of your train of thought, such as it is, utterly escapes me.

Please try to address what I actually write instead of your highly tendatious generalizations. I don’t appreciate this any more than Spritus did.

Your logic is impenetrable here. Morals are not absolute, they are dependant on social compacts, collective agreement on what is or is not moral. How the government works into this and how it is a criminal utterly escapes me.

That you address the arguments actually made, not your own, bizarre straw men.

What part of what I wrote before did you not understand?

And they have been accused of and a judge has been convinced that they engaged in anti-competitive practices whose aim was to exclude the entry of serious competitors into their main areas of business.

No, it cannot ipso facto exclude competition just because it already has all the customers. Presuming (and here is where the actual facts make a difference) that there is a sufficient customer base to support another store --not a terribly unrealistic presumption-- then the second store can open and begin undercutting the inflated prices of the first store. Unless the first store engages in anti-competitive practices aimed at keeping the other store out.

Yes, we already noted that – natural monopoly as noted above, so? Its quite irrelevant your argument prior. Of course you example depends on this little market being utterly isolated. Frankly if you’re positing a market so small only one store can exist and one which is utterly isolated, then we don’t have much of an example to generalize on now do we?

Maybe yes, maybe no. Why don’t we just assume that all people are nice while we’re at it? Makes our utopia world go round rather more easily.

Ah, so we are not closed to the outside world after all. Presuming that the store owner then is an economically rational actor, she will like any good monopolist, capture a part of the consumer surplus through prices above those which would exist in a perfectly competitive market. This will attract profit-seeking competition unless there are some binding constraints like (1) market size too small, in which case the consumers are just going to have to suck it up (2) anti-competitive practices.

Economic theory does not operate on moral business owners or other such things. You can of course posit that this particular business owner will not act like how we know monopolists act – emperically and in theory – but then you don’t have a model, you have a philosophical assertion along the lines of a philosopher king. Great, but they don’t exist.

I don’t even know where to start with this tar baby. As far as the law goes, I’m not a lawyer and I don’t really think the intricacies of law are either your or my forte. I amnot aware intent has much to do with this. As far as prosecution: the application of any law is subject to common sense and a certain degree of cost benefit analysis. I am frankly incapable of imagining a system based on humans which will not see a certain subjectivity in the application. If you think this is dictatorship… Well I’m afraid you’re going to find almost any human government to be dictatorship. Why not go live in a weeny cabin in montana and type up something about this. Don’t send any bombs though.

82

OK, not that I mind a huge debate, but would anyone mind toning this one down a bit for a moment? Instead of me commenting on fifty things and getting fifty rebuttals, can we perhaps drop a few off to be picked up later in the thread? Anyway…

Morals and economics are completely seperate. This is the first case I would like to make, but I can already see that we are going to run into problems. I would assume that you feel morals are a priori and not derivable? If I were to say something like “Murder is immoral because…” would I automatically be chastized for it? There are some very strong arguments for a priori morality which I am aware of. Ayn Rand felt this but she wouldn’t admit it; instead she felt things were “self-evident,” which was a cop out and simply hiding a priori knowledge by renaming it. A rose is a rose, though. As I’ve previously stated, Ayn had some serious problems with her epistemology. The other way to tackle morals is that they are derivable from assumptions about goodness, for example, “Anything which promotes human life is good,” then use this to show that certian actions are either moral or immoral because they promote or destroy human life, or perhaps that things are amoral. Though the case against me rests firmly, in at least one respect, on the idea that morals are subjective. And yet, you may note that every society feels that murder is immoral, even when it is justifiable. Justifiable murder is considered to be a necessity but not necessarily desireable. So what I need, before these arguments again dissolve into “yes it is; no it isn’t” is some sort of understanding of where morality comes from to you, and I guess I am using “you” in a more general sense because the case against me is similar by all three of you.

Free market capitalism is an outdated classical theory. This is not necessarily the case. Keynesian economics and its successive offshoots and improvements were largely a response to the stock market crashes and depressions early in America’s history, since classical free market ideas said that such things could not happen. Even at that time, however, the government was exerting control over the economy, so there wasn’t really a free market, and so classical theory was not much more than an approximation of reality, like Newtonian physics is to relativity. If you feel I am wrong in this understanding please stop me now to correct me.

Rand is not an economist and didn’t know her ass from her wallet. Obviously, if you feel that morality is wholly seperate from economics, this is the case. If I successfully show that to be false, any philosopher can, in many ways, be considered to have a part in economics. I am saying this now because economics has to do with people interacting with other people for profit/mutual benefit. Philosophy, in a large part, dictates human interaction (as opposed to psychology, which tries to explain it). That at least philosopy has an impact on trade should be clear, I hope, along with many other things. Since this is, after all, an ayn rand thread, perhaps we should just stick to what I hope to show are the philosophical aspects of economics? Or should we leave this topic off altogether…

If corruption is considered to be an irremovable part of some people, any system of government cannot escape becoming, in some way, corrupt from time to time, if not completely. I think we are pretty much in agreement here. What escapes the root of this topic is that one side feels a system of checks and balances can possibly, at some point, be complete. At least, that is what everyone else seems to be saying. If it is not completeable, then my point about democracy slipping into socialism is obvious. Though it could go into fascism, the former seems more likely.

I think that’s more than enough topics to get into in one thread, but those are my suggestions. Feel free to pcik, choose, or replace.

83

Thank you for these comments. I feel much more inclined to explain than to defend when I am not being attacked, as did you when I stopped overgeneralizing your position. side note, I read your response after I wrote the thread above, I’m still hoping to narrow topics if everyone agrees.

A few points:

. My point was not that they are synonyms, but that once the power to regulate something is realized, that thing is controlled and banning is implied. But lets look at it like this. The human animal, we both agree, is a pretty slippery an hard to define creature. You cannot simply put it in a box without it poking holes in the side. Because the human animal is also very creative, any attempt to chain it in any way will result in attempts to either sabotage the chainer or escape completely. We see evidence of this in tax loopholes, prison escapes, debates, zen, and so on. Thus, when things begin to be mitigated or restricted, one finds humans resisting this. There are two solutions: stop regulation and live with existing problems or try to plug the holes. In the case of economics, stopping direct regulation can lead to disasterous runaway effects. Thus we must plug the holes. There is no end to holes found/holes plugged dichotomy until either all human action is completely controlled (freedom is banned) or an elitist group comes into power much like 1984, and makes law completely arbitrary, thereby “moving” all the loopholes and in effect, again, banning freedom (where nothing is illegal but anything is punishable). This is not an instantaneous process, I should add.

The contractual coercion thing still doesn’t jive with me. A choice between life and death is not much of a choice, agreed. To say that if a worker was to leave his job he would starve, and so is “forced” to work for the employer is not a case against me. Let us take this in two cases. First, there are more jobs available than there are qualified workers. Surely a man will not starve if he leaves his current employer. The other case, where there are less jobs available than there are workers. This is obviously where this “choice” comes in. If this is an argument against business or freedom then I am a jelly donut. By merely working at his job in the first place (since there isn’t a real choice) this employee is “forcing” someone else to starve as much as as the employer is “forcing” the worker to stay employed. In any system that has unemployment, then, “force” is used by this line of reasoning. Meaning, unless there is a magic barrel of all goods required to live that never runs out, any system conceived will fall into this trap regardless of the amount of legislation, restriction, and whatnot placed or not placed on business or man. Two points should make this clearly not a matter of freedom vs regulation. Lack of a choice is not necessarily caused by imposition of force from one man/entity on another. While force itself does imply lack of choice, lack of choice does not imply force. Two, if both freedom and regulation have the same problem then it is not appropriate to use said problem to negate the validity of either one. I hope I personally have not done that in my arguments. Truly, there is a third case in this “choice” matter, and the only situation in which it can be said the business is forcing anything: when the amount of workers and the positions for work available are exactly equal. In this case, I can concede that all workers are forced to stay employed. I don’t think anyone here would assume this could ever happen, though.

You point out, indirectly (or perhaps this was what you meant to say all along and I missed it), a beautiful paradox in rights. Since rights need to be secured when they are not unanimously agreed upon, any right that implies freedom from initial force is a limitaion on action and, as such, is an initiation of force. Interesting. Godel would be proud, I’m sure. This is a huge problem with my line of thought, using absolute rights or morality in so far as they apply to force. I’m afraid I can’t resolve it. Point taken.
Absolute morals…first of all, if you are arguing that people don’t agree on morals then you are stating that morals are subjective, i.e.-personal to human experience/perception/individuality/etc. Either morals are objective, that is, inherent in man and absolutely defibable, or subjective, that is, inherent in a man but not in all men and subject to arbitrary definition. To discuss this requires my knowledge of where you feel morals come from. My case is such: morals are a priori because they are not measurable. To say that people don’t agree on morals AND morals are not subjective is to say they do not exist at all. If this is the case, why are you in this thread?

My point with the lemonade was to say it wouldn’t sell.

As far as unskilled labor goes with respect to slavery, you are right in the assessment that slavery is possible. I believe history has shown that a slave is not as effective as a free worker, a slave is just cheaper. In matters involving unskilled labor efficiency is not necessarily paramount, so I suppose that slavery is still possible. However, even slaves must be kept alive. Though it is a sick argument, one could put the position forward that slavery is impossible because there is an exchange of goods for services. Quaint, eh? Or, in light of our previous position on the starvation choice, everyone is a slave but without a master. I would like to point out that the south was an agricultural society while the north was industrial. The industrial society did not have slaves while the agricultural did. This is not a justification like you asked, I am aware of that. But an agricultural society is much more static than an industrial one. In order to maximize profits, an agricultural society needs to find more efficient ways to harvest with less labor. Machinery accomplishes this. Machinery replaces manpower. Thus, the number of slaves required goes down, but is not necessarily eliminated. So we have more efficient farms with less slavery, which is better so far. In practicing slavery it is found that there are invariably a number of slaves which refuse to want to stay slaves and desert. As the number of slaves go down, every slave that runs away severely cripples the area of production that it was being used for. The only way to keep a slave is to treat him better or completely monitor all actions to prevent sabotage and escape. When you’ve got fifty slaves it is easy to justify hiring someone to watch them with weaponry, or to treat some slaves very well to do something similar. As the number of slaves decrease, profit increases and the justification for hiring one man to watch one man seems a waste when it would be cheaper and easier to simply free all slaves and hire workers to replace them and forget about it. In other words, I guess, people wanting more for less eliminates slavery through technology. It is simply easier to hire voluntary workers than it is to monitor slaves when there is a workforce available (which I don’t believe there was at that time but I dont know) The only other way capitalism prohibits slavery is through economic morality which I cannot use as an argument yet until we come to some basic agreement on some points, so if you aren’t satisfied with the above I’m sorry.

Implicit contracts. They do exist. Are they moral? In my opinion, they can be. But implicit contracts that aren’t moral are also imaginable. I find it hard to discuss this matter because I’m afraid I’ve never really thought about it before. I see that being born into any non-anarchist society is entering into an implicit contract. Interesting. Sorry I can’t say more.

I hope I’ve made it clear that you are assuming, or at least asserting, that morality is subjective. When I say that “Without moral subjectivity law is static and crimes are obvious,” and you state that this is unrelated to market restrictions, you have completely lost me. The market is restricted by law, so any comment about law can be, in fact, about market restrictions. Similarly for socialism.

Under moral subjectivity the only governments that can exist are democracies. Dictatorships and monarchies are absolute. Democracies under subjectivity flow with the public’s whim which, given dynamic society that has always been around, will change the way things are regulated. If the market in such a place is regulated, this means that disposal of property, judgement of ownership, ability to extract wealth through taxation or other means, etc, are under control of the public. This is socialism in fact, no matter what the people have told themselves they are doing. The public is controlling production and ownership. Do you see it differently?

The operative phrase is “can change its mind.” Private property is defended by the government, of course. In this thread I thought it was clear that my argument was against vague laws. The more vague a law is the easier it is for the definitions to change without actually going through a legal process like ratifying a constitution, passing a vote, etc. Private property can only be as clear as the laws which defend it.
I m not saying “Restrictions which I like (non-subjective moral codes) shouldn’t be counted as restrictions. That way I can argue that the market should be totally free without actually having a totally free market” though I admit I sound like it. Restrictions I like are creation and protection of rights. If it is legal for an individual to do something, it is legal for all individuals to do that thing, or any other legally recognized entity like a corporation. It is, for example, completely legal for you to let a stranger in your house to proposition you for food and promptly forget, one day later, that this stranger was ever there. It is illegal for a business to allow a prospective employee to fill out an application, then have the business throw this application away. The economy, you see, can never be more free than the people who are in it. By regulating people you are, in some ways, automatically regulating the economy in a very broad sense. But it can go the other way, where the economy is regulated more than the people, and I am arguing against that.

Now, since I have involuntarily napped off three times while typing this thread, I am going to bed.

84

On the “inevitable” progression of economic restrictions
Your model is flawed. First, it ignores the truth that deregulation of economic segments is both possible and practiced. Second, it assumes that government will look upon every “loophole” as something that must be closed. Third, it ignores the observed psychological effect that humans do not always strain against restriction–sometimes they become comfortable with it and find security in boundaries. Finally, even if your argument held up to this point, an infinite progression of new regulations to close ever-smaller loopholes by no means leads to a fully regulated society. You seem to be feel that such a situation is like a divergent series: you should think fractal model instead (oe even convergent series, if you wish to simplify).

Also, if you are looking for a literary distopia to fret about I recommend Brave, New world over 1984. Huxley appears to have been a far better prognosticator than Orwell.

On contractual coercion
Hobson’s choice is by no means the only one. You can ignore the fact that economic forces can severely limit options if you wish, but if you do then you have a glaring flaw in any further argument. The coercion need not be “life or death”. It can be “health care or sufering”, “providing for family or falling into poverty”. These are still choices, obviously. But to argue that economic coercion is good because it is the action of the market while all other coercion is bad because it interferes with the coercion of the market seems justifiable only if the free market is exhalted a priori. Such an idea can, I think, be described as both dogmatic and extreme. Earlier, you found such a label insulting. I can understand that.

Nevertheless, it does seem to be accurate.

On securing rights
Yes, you are understanding me now. At least partly.

The flip side of my observation was that you have no justification to argue against others denying your rights IF you begin with the proposition that individual freedom must be maximized, not balanced against other values.

On lemonade
Point taken. I thought you were arguing that such pricing would be morally wrong and thus legislated against in your “absolutely moral” economy.

I am now confused about this, though: “If a businessman is such a prick that he thinks he can buy off all the police or dominate an entire area, he is clearly in violation of the freedom he enjoys and in fact required to obtain such a lofty position.”

How is he in violation of his freedom? I thought you posited that freedom be maximized, not balanced against other values. What could he possibly violate? Surely the police have freely chosen to accept his graft; he has dominated the area through the actions of the market; he is free, then, to exert his economic power as he chooses (since you deny economic coercion as an immoral act). What does he violate?

On absolute morals and relativism

No. This is incorrect. I got this idea from your earlier statements, which is shy I recommended that you refresh your understanding of epistemology and phenomenology. To say that humans understand morality differently is a statement of phenomenology. It is also an observation supported by vast amounts of data. It remains possible that there is, in fact, an absolute standard of morality (perhaps dictated by some God or another) which is apprehended imperfectly (or not at all) by some people.

A simple analog is to say that “people’s perceptions of this chair are not identical”. That does not imply that there is no objective chair.

The question of whether absolute morals exist is one of epistemology. The question of how people identify morality is one of phenomenology/ethics/sociology.

Even if your position that an absolute morality exists were correct (and I do not believe it is), you are not justified in ignoring/overriding the true statement that not all people will agree upon what those morals are.

You are also not justified in asserting a priori that your understanding of morality is the correct one.

And I am not asserting that morality is subjective (though I feel this is the case). That position is unimportant to this discussion. I am asserting that morality is not universally agreed upon. And I am reminding you that maximizing freedom means you cannot use coercion to force your morality upon those who disagree.

This is not correct. First, neither dictatorships nor monarchies are absolute. Second, government need not be in accordance with moral principles. Third, you ignore the other forms of possible government. Finally, I really wish that when you make such strong pronouncements you would understand that you need to support them with more than a simple assertion.

slavery
You seem to feel that technological advance must always make slavery less economically viable. Why? The agrarian south was more technologically advanced than agrarian mesopotamia, yet they practiced a form of slavery that was far more oppressive. For that matter, technological advances might as easily serve to make it easier and cheaper to control unwilling slaves: tracking devices, containment strategies, cheaper nutritional sources, tailored addictive substances, etc.

The street is by no means clearly “one way”.

on socialism

No. Not all forms of regulation are democratically driven.

No. I thought we had covered this already. Ownership entails more than simply the ability to regulate behavior. Socialism requires ownership and control. You cannot redefine the word simply because you like to use it as a boogie man.

On restrictions to the market

I’m afraid you are. You admit that you wish to place some restrictions on individuals and thus restrictions on the market. Yet you persist in pretending that what you want is an absolutely free market (control versus no control, remember?).

You are not. You are arguing for a market controled in those ways you think are moral. Now, I think this is an eminently reasonable idea, actually. I also argue that the market whould be regulated to the extent I feel is best.

But you also persist in painting yourself as ideologically pure as opposed to the rest of us grubby compromisers. I am sure that is nice for your self-image, but it is not an accurate picture.

85

I’ve thought about diving in, but Ms. Rand’s proxy is clearly feeling cornered already, and a bit overwhelmed by the volume of responses. Stick to it, randlover: it’s been an excellent debate so far. A word of advice, though: you should narrow your responses and focus more on detailed arguments; so far, your strategy seems to be to make a grand pronouncement, and support it with a parallel grand pronouncement. You’re getting kicked around on the details, and you need to retrench.

Spiritus, when I read your posts, I hear Toby Ziegler’s voice from the West Wing.

86

I have no idea how to respond to this, but I generally admire the writing on that show so I think I will shove it onto the compliment pile, say thank you, and run away before another interpretation presents itself.

Thank you.
[sub]run run run run run[/sub]

87

By saying that people don’t agree on morals, you are showing that morals are a personal matter. Personal matters are subjective matters by the definition of subjective. Merely rewording the definition does not remove its application. If we are going to argue definitions now we might as well abandon matters moral or economic altogether, buy the largest dictionary we can find, and proceed to beat each other over the head with it. :wink:

I believe my stance on matters subjective has been covered before, but I will go through it again because this thread is too damn long to reread, and I’m not even sure it was in this thread that I said it. Needless to say, I get into many similar arguments all over the place.

To say that morals are subjective can mean two things. One, morals do not exist absolutely even if(when) people agree on them. This is a tough argument to put forward, and it definitely isn’t my stand. The other is that morals are subjective (like perception of the color green is subjective,ie you need a person to perceieve them) but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist absolutely. To take the former case implies that both a person who believes in god and a person who doesn’t believe in god are simultaneously correct. To take the latter case is to say that only one can be correct. From here it is a matter of finding out which one is correct. This is where we disagree, I believe. Could be wrong, though. I’ve run into the former type before. If you are the former type I ask that you explain yourself, because I have rarely heard arguments in favor of it and would find it damn interesting. I digress.

Enevitable progression. Loopholes that need not be closed? Historical data clearly gives me the case. When a body of laws are formed (that do not, in themselves, treat people differently or create privilege) with loopholes, these loopholes create privilege to anyone who cares to exploit them. You might note that such privileges are generally distasteful to those not privileged, and so there will be attempts to plug these loopholes by either creating new laws, or clarifying existing ones. So our argument must either consist of:

  1. there is a point (your convergent series) where the loopholes are completly irremovable, and so no further laws or legal clarification will fix anything.
  2. there is a point where legal stratification through loopholes will no longer be percieved as undesireable.
    Brave New World, if I remember correctly, takes the latter.
    If your argument is that loopholes can cease to exist, I refer you to Godel’s study of logical systems.

Contractual coercion

Whoa, easy. I am not ignoring the existence of economic force entirely. That is like ignoring the laws pf physics. The latter is obviously not considered a restriction of perfect freedom, the former is (at least, by people other than me). I find us arguing that the pope is catholic in this case. We both assert economic forces exist, much like physical forces exist in nature. You argue that these are restrictive in the same way that gravity is restrictive. Uh-uh. Economic forces are inherent in trade, much like physical forces are inherent in nature: they are not removable. We may try to divert economic forces through legislation, replacing economic force with legal force. Did this, I ask, eliminate the economic force? Did it change it? Are the same things still possible? No, no, and yes. All the legislation has done is make economic force more powerful and in the hands of someone. You have not removed the force, nor improved it. To continue the analogy, economic force is a lump of uranium; legality applied to economic force is an atom bomb. In this state, economic force can still be benign, like an atom bomb sitting in some missle silo, or it can be utilized with incredible effects (no good/bad pronouncements here, please note).
When we place restrictions on the market by placing it under regulation we have restricted freedom but not eliminated the problems that were already there. If the said goal was to regulate economy for security from economic force we have competely missed something and lied to ourselves. What we have done is created a body of people, backed by physical force (the government) who control economic force. You have not traded freedom for security. You have focused the potential for misuse and embodied it in a group of people who by definition use physical force. Now the only way to ensure this force is not misused is to legally restrict the people who use the force by having them obey someone else (democracy, where “the people” control the government). Now there is a struggle between the people who control the original restrictors in HOW they should control these restrictors, and a struggle between the original restrictors and the new restrictors, the former hoping to show haow dangerous their power is in the first place and that without careful thought we could “drop the bomb on ourselves” so to speak. We have now not eliminated economic power, made economic power’s potential realized, and placed economic power up for grabs by a body politic.
Here is where economists come into play, they try and justify controls based on the study of market forces. But the only way economists can accurately control the economy is if they dictate all the regulation and actions necessary. So the “security” of regulation has been created by the squabbling of three seperate parties of people, and the internal squabbling of those respective parties.
Do you, perhaps, see the futility and self-strangulation of such a system?
When the economy is not under control the potential exists for an abusive monopoly to exist. How would one come about? By people buying things from it and giving it the capital and resources necessary to achieve such a position. Now, if we cannot trust people to see a monopoly coming and not supporting it, how can we trust them to get over their disagreements on economic policy (far from resolved, as every election shows) and stabilize things? This is my problem with your reasoning. Either we are smart enough to avoid economic disaster or we aren’t, because the economic force cannot be removed and will always be there. Your point about the businessman buying off police is moot, nothing stops him from doing that as it stands. When the economy is regulated, you double the power of the businessman by enabling him to purchase legal favor while maintaining his economic power. Where has anything changed?

Eh? Are you referring to the theocracy that existed during that time in history or are you referring to something more recent? However, I am (and did) conceding my argument was weak form an amoral standpoint.

I see. How, then, is it driven? By placing power in the hands of a few? Like a monopoly on certian regulatory power? It is ok, then, to have a monopoly on economic power but it is not ok to let economic power create its own monopoly. Removing privilege by creating privilege is not removing privilege.

Ah, economics blessed with morality. Now we are getting somewhere. We’re creating some serious factions, now, because I think coll. still thinks they are seperate studies. Maybe this will be a one on one on one argument yet…

I refuse to comment on the ideologically pure statement. I hope you can see why.

88

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by aynrandlover *

Rand’s arguments are not worthy of being commented on. I see no abosolute morality, I’m not an Xtian and don’t buy into it. As Spirit points out there is no single percieved set of morals. Economics does not describe or in any way relate to morality, except insofar as we may try to achieve Pareto optimal results, i.e. harm no one. However, in lrage part it describes economic interactions which may or may not be moral. Apples and oranges.

??? Where on Earth are you getting this. Keynesian economics is by the way free market economics. Keynes simply accepts some degree of government intervention to help correct short-term market failures. Your confusion on this point is unfortunate. Classical economic theory (Ricardo for example) is outdated. However there are both neo-classical and neo-Keynsian schools, both of vastly greater sophistication. Government regulation does not indicate there is no free market, unless you are creating your own idiosyncratic definitions – but I reject that as a basis of discussion.

No Rand clearly doesn’t understand economics very well, and simply uses some classical economic theory language to dress up her inverted leninism. Confusing morality with economics only adds to the mess.

89

You persist in mixing contexts indescriminately and use such confusions to draw unsound conclusions.

absolute morality

Nonsense. How many times must I direct you to the difference between phenomenology and epistemology. Remember the analogy of the chair, please.

No. You again construct boxes based upon your preconceptions. The possibiities can be enumerated thusly:

  1. An absolute standard of morals exists and can be perceived without phenomenological distortion.
  2. An absolute standard of morals exists but it cannot be perceived without distortion.
  3. No absolute standard of morals exists, yet all people can perceive an identical illusion.
  4. No absolute standard of morals exists and people cannot share a universal perception of morality.

Cases 3 & 4 can be construed as statements of subjective morality. Statement 2 is a statement about subjective perception.

It is inconsequential which of teh four I believe represents the truth. The observed fact is that human beings never have shared a universal perception of morality and I see nothing in human history to support the contention that the human race ever will share such a perception. Whether the truth behind that observation is case 2 or 4 is irrelevant when discussing actions in the real world. The effects are identical, and It is impossible for us to pierce the phenomenological veil.

You persist in focusing upon belief rather than observation. That is often a dangerous quality when setting rules for men to live by.

inevitable progression
You seem to be missing my points.

  1. Sometimes loopholes are left in the law precisely because legislators find value (either personal, ideological, or societal) in encouraging a particular type of behavior.
  2. Additional laws to close loopholes, where they are passed, do not necessarily increase the scope of regulation in a manner that tends toward the total control you call inevitable. A reasonable model posits that each loophole requires a modification of smaller scope to correct (where any action is taken at all). Thus, the fractal model. Infinite lines can exist in finite areas. Infinite regulations can have finite effect.
  3. It is by no means inevitable that every regulation have unintended side effects. Nor is it true that changes in human behavior in response to a new economic regulatory environment are negative. In fact, quite often regulations are passed in the hope of stimulating just such a reaction. Ever hear of the Federal Reserve?

Again your penchant for dichotomy causes you to oversimplify.
3) There is a process of refinement in closing loopholes wherein each successive regulation has more limited scope than the last. It is not necessary that all loopholes be closed or that this process be considered finite for it to have finite effect (fractal model).
4) Sometimes the “loophole behavior” is an inherent goal of the regulation and so no successive regulation is necessary or desired. (trivial function model[sub]just to keep the theme[/sub])
5) Sometimes changing market and/or social conditions make loopholes irrelevant without concious action on the part of any regulatory agency. (discrete function model)
6) Sometimes a loophole need not be perfectly closed, a behavior simply needs to be made less advantageous than a desirable (to the regulatory agency) alternative. (finite series model)
*) There are probably more, but that’s enough (I hope) to make my point.

I love Godel’s work. I doubt very seriously that it can be used to support an argument about the inevitability of loopholes. If you wish to use it to such a purpose, go ahead. But I warn you that you will have to be rigorous. I do not suffer shabby treatment of my mathematical heroes lightly.

economic coercion

Good.

I never said they were. That does not mean they must be looked upon as universally benign.

Actually. The answers are no, yes and yes.

Rather than continuing this step-by-step, I think I will cut to the chase.

You again focus on a dichotomy: If we can’t eliminate economic coercion we should take no action at all. Frredom must be paramount.

That, of course, is the opposite of your position on physical coercion. There, unless you have suddenyl decided to embrace unconditional pacifism, you recognize that physical coercion cannot be eliminated from human interactin. Knowing this, you argue for regulations against some coercion (initiation of force, for example). You also argue that self-defense is justified. This implies that a coercive threat of retalliation is acceptable to control the impulse by another to intiate force. None of these things eliminate physical coercion, of course. Such a thing is impossible. Yet you do not argue that since the possibility of physical coercion is inherent in human relatinos it should be unmitigated and unregulated in the interest of paramount freedom.

In fact, you seem to recognize that without some mitigation on physical coercion freedom is, in fact, compromised unacceptably.

I see no justification for exhalting economic coercion while condemning physical coercion. Indeed, the only support I have seen you give for the idea is that “it’s inherent in a free market”. So what. Only by beginning from the ideological conviction that a “free market” represents the most desirable possible outcome does this statement carry any meaning. Even then, the argument is circular.

You condemn every other coercion, but you exhalt economic coercion.

sigh One post you will surprise me by not reducing the world to black and white caricatures. We might, for instance, be smart enough to avoid some disasters but not others. We might be smart enough to steer ourselves away from a type of disaster which we have fallen prey to in teh past. We might be smart enough to place obstacles in teh way of certain developing disasters so that we have more time in which to avoid them. We might even be smart enough to see more than two options in any given situation.

Well, there are laws. Laws against graft are, of course, a restriction on free trade. They exist in our society because we have subjugated the policeman’s autonomy in forming economic partnerships to the public’s will. How socialistic of us. Perhaps you argue that graft is immoral and thus will be outlawed in your system, too. Why? Accepting graft initiates no force. Both parties are willing participants to the (implied) contract. Even if you argue that the policeman would have a contractual obligatio not to accept graft, that has no bearing on the actions of the businessman.

If you recall, my question was: “How is [the businessman] in violation of his freedom?” [sub](which was your original claim)[/sub]

slavery
Thank you for conceding this point. And, yes, I was referring to the city-states of Mesopotamia. They were not theocracies, however, though the churches did enjoy ownership and administration of some resources that we generally associate with civil government.

Not all forms of regulation are democratically driven

It can be driven in a number of ways: autocratically, dictatorially, oligarchily, representationally, monarchialy, theocratically, bureaucratically, etc.

STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH! NOW!

You said “If the market in such a place is regulated, this means that disposal of property, judgement of ownership, ability to extract wealth through taxation or other means, etc, are under control of the public.”

Your statement was incorrect. I said so.

I said nothing about the relative “ok’ness” of anything.

Your inability to treat statements of fact as statements of fact is irritating. When I say the sky is blue I am implying nothing about how I value blue as opposed to green.

economics and morality

They are separate studies. One can be used to inform the other, but it need not be. Chemistry and biology are separate studies, though one may be used to inform the other.

On self-image and accuracy

Any assumptions I make as to your motives are unlikely to be flattering to your character. Why not simply address the argument?

I put forth that you are arguing for a restricted market, specifically a market restricted according to your personal understanding of morality. You have stated that this is not the case, but in the same passage listed the restriction you feel should be enforced. Why?

My conjecture is that it is because you are unwilling to part with your self-image as someone who favors unrestricted markets as an absolute value. This would be consistent with your prediliction for dividing the world into dichotomies.

These are not difficult points to address. Simply agree that you want a regulated economy. Or reconsider your position that the economy should be restricted according to your understanding of morality. Or provide an alternative motivation for why you argue for a restricted economy while claiming you argue for an unrestricted economy. Or accept the accuracy of my conjecture, of course, though I can see where this would be uncomfortable.

{Excessive bolding fixed. 200-some lines in eyestrain-inducing bold can move to pity even the cold, stony machine we Moderators have in place of a living heart. Oh, that and the promise of beer, too. --Gaudere}

[Edited by Gaudere on 12-04-2000 at 02:28 PM]

90

Preview long posts.
Preview long posts.
Preview long posts.
Preview long posts.
Preview long posts.

Damn. I am resigned to my inevitable typos, but if a moderator felt like fixing that reversed bracket for me I would be willing to supply graft in the form of a thick, chewy, British brew of your choice.

[sub]unless of course graft is immoral on the SDMB ;)[/sub]

91

Could not have put it better myself. Bloody tar baby of confusion and illogic.

92

Godel’s work was the very essence of loopholes. He proved that there are things which are true mathematically that cannot be shown to be true, and that there are false things mathematically that cannot be shown to be false. In absolute mathematics, we find a true/false loophole that ideas can fall through. In legality, we make a law trying to ban action in a certian direction. We find that there are people who can break the law legally, a similarly unintended consequence. If you contend that the law purposefully set loopholes for people to slip through, then we need to backtrack and discuss just what the hell laws are for. When we find a paradox in Godel’s system like “I am not a theorem of number theory” (to simplify explanation) it came as a suprise. I knew that in trying to study logical morality I would eventually come to a pardox, and the force-rights issue was clearly that. I have found others as well that have not come up here.

You may subdivide categories as often as you like, spiritus, and not remove the dichotomy. Out of the four you mentioned, two had morals as absolute and two had morals as non-absolute. Subdividing categories is fine for exploring the matter, but forgive me if I don’t want to start in the middle of an argument anymore(you might note my backtracking). Your ideas are based on one set of assumptions, mine another. That we happen to meet somewhere doesn’t make us both right; instead, we need to backtrack and find what assumptions led us in what direction.
I know you do not like black and white arguments. I do not know why.

  1. either morals are absolute or they are not.
    Lets pretend they are not. Now we may further subdivide.
    2b) non-absolute morals may either be completely agreed upon or not.
    etc
    This is not gray, nor have we removed any dichotomy. By standing at the end of a highway and pointing out the thousands of exits you will always see your fractal pattern, and will happily point out that I was wrong to say you could only make one exit at a time.

Similarly, you point to arguments about chemistry and biology. As both sciences progress, tell me: where does one leave off and the other begin? At the beginning it is very easy to state “Alchemists and witch doctors are two different professions.” Today the distinction becomes very fuzzy now that we are into genetics. Indeed, the whole drug discovery process is one where the two fields “overlap” tremendously.
A similar trace can be found between physics and chemistry, biology and psychology, etc etc. In fact, it has been said, “Everything is physics or stamp collecting.” Indeed, a dichotomy, and from a quantum physicist no less.

Again, similarly, either we control something democratically (ie-en masse, through voting, representation, etc) or we do not (something is determined without external consent). This is a dichotomy. However, behind democracy itself is a world of dichotomies, all based on one assumption or another. This is just another fork in the path on the way to understanding governmental decision process.

At some point in biology, chemistry is overlooked because it brings in a level of complication not found necessary. Similarly, at some point in chemistry physics is often overlooked (though less so) for the same reason. In economics, morality is looked on as being a complication. But it clearly cannot be removed, just overlooked for model simplification.

A storekeeper sells a customer spoiled milk by deliberately changing the sell-by date. The customer brings the milk home, finds it spoiled, and checks the sell-by date. It is discovered, upon close inspection, that it was altered. “This shouldn’t be!”
Should! Should is a moral pronouncement. It is a word used to seperate the way things are from the way things ought to be. The storekeep should not have done such a thing. By what standard? By a standard of morality. There are things storekeepers should do and things they should not do. No matter how large the company or how vast the consumer base, the essence of morality is still in economics. If you choose to remove the producers from supply and the consumers from demand, be my guest. It is mathematically more pleasing. But in a thread dealing with a person who admits that morality is a part of economics, government, and personal interaction not necessarily a part of either of those, please try not to be shocked when it is pointed out that those things were never removed but ignored from study for simplification.

If you do not believe that we have the ability to talk things down to a dichotomy, then it will always seem like I am putting words in your mouth and you will always fail to understand me(regardless of whether I am right or wrong). In this manner, every discussion is futile for both of us. I thank you for your insight into the force issue, and collun, I thank you for the issue of game theory, but apart from that this conversation has been a waste of our time.

Perhaps we will meet in a less confusing thread. Indeed, I am taking my ball and going home, because the rules to the game aren’t clear at all. Why even play?

93

wrong as a statement of fact. Godels’ Incompleteness theorem dealt with truth values of statements. It has no trivially derviable consequences to loopholes (unforseen consequences which circumvent the intent of a rule), and you have certainly derived no non-trivial connection.

Wrong as a statement of fact. Godel demonstrated that no system capable of making self-referential statements of a particular type could both correctly identify only true statements and correctly identify all true statements. A system of mathematics could certainly be derived which is capable of proving all true statements within its field. I told you that I would expect rigor if you wanted to use Godel. You have failed not only to provide such rigor but to even attempt a rigorous treatment. That leads me to a dichotmoy, which I must assume you will appreciate:

  1. You are unwilling to discuss Godel’s theorems rigorously
  2. You are incapable of discussing Godel’s theorems rigorously

In either case, you should then refrain from citing Godel as support for your ideas.

Wrong as a statement of fact. If they break the law, they are not acting legally. Taking advantage of a loophole is not a criminal activity; isn’t that the whole point?

Also – you analogy breaks down even further because you have not, and you can not, demonstrate that every law must contain loopholes. An unintended consequence, in and of itself, is not a loophole. A law requiring all humans to be branded with a bar code on the forehead at their 18th birthday might have many unintended consequences, but it does not necessarily have loopholes.

Misleading. In the one example you chose to address I was not criticising you for your dichotomy. I was criticizing you for making an incorrect statement of fact regarding subjective morality. You were confusing a statement about morality with a statement about phenomenology. From all appearances, you still are.

You did not, I note, address the instances where I actually criticized you for making a false dichotomy.

You have demonstrated absolutely no understanding of what my ideas might be based upon. For that matter, our discussion could easily proceed from the shared position that whether or not an absolute standard of morality exists, human beings can not apprehend that standard directly and without distortion. Alternatively, you could actually provide a reasoned argument why morality is immune to phenomenological distortion.

Or you could whine and run away.

Because they are usually gross oversimplifications of complex issues. Please not that I did not say “always”.

I would be happy to entertain a black-and-white argument should it actually deal well with the issues. Dichotomies do exist. That is not equivalent to saying all things can meaningfulyy be reduced to dichotomies.

AGAIN YOU PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. Again you do so incorrectly. I would make no such statement, and that you would make such an absurd analogy simply demonstrates again your predeliction for addressing your preconceived boxes rather than the substance of my posts. Apparently, you also fail to understand fractal mathematics.

Wrong as a statement of fact. I made no arguments about biology or chemistry. I used them as examples of distinct fields which can inform each other. Of couse, the boundaries are blurred. However, it is trivially simple to point out elements that are part of the union but not the intersection. Or are venn diagrams beyond your understanding as well?

LOL

Are you seriously putting that forth as a support for your reductionist tendencies? Shall we add the difference between a rhetorical effect and a reasoned argument to the list of things which you fail to understand?

Wrong as a statement of fact. If I run you like my personal puppet you are controled externally but not democratically. Democracy :: Unrestrained self-determination is a false dichotomy.

Democracy has a very specific political meaning. It is often misused to extend to representative governments, but I have never before seen it put to a use so egregiously as yours.

Wrong as a statement of fact.(at least if you intend it as an explanation for all forms of government beyond unmitigated self-rule. If you intend it otherwise, then it is simply unclear.) In addition to Game theory, I suggest you do some reading about decision trees, hashing, data structures, etc. It might allow you to find a model other than binary trees so that when you subsequently read some political history you have wider selection of boxes in which to force things.

Wrong as a statement of fact. It is entirely possible to leave morality entirely out of economics. There is absolutely no inherent dependency between the two.

It requires an a priori assumption that markets should be regulated in accordance with moral guidelines for morality to become a necessary component of economic theory. You make htis assumption, which is fine. Many people do/have.

That does not make it inevitable.

In that statement, you subjugate economics to morality. That is fine, given your underlying assumptions. You might even be able to develop a convincing argument why such assumptions should be used. Said argument would have to be moral, of course, not economic.

And it needs a bit more support than pointing to your assumtions and saying “this is true!”

Of course, you have decided to sulk away rather than developing any arguments, haven’t you.

Seem? You have quite explicitely put words into my mouth on several occassions.

As to failing to understand you, I don’t think so. I do not agree with you. Those are two different things. Your position has not seemed at all complex or incomprehensible to me. Quite the opposite. It simply seems unjustified. Certainly you have failed to justify it with reason.

Discussion is futile only when one party stops listening or proves incapable of examining ideas meaningfully.

Well, it has now.

It was not a waste of time so long as ideas were being discussed openly and honestly. A conversation need not end in unanimity to have worth.

Threads are not confusing. Muddled ideas are confusing.

Rules? Logic, reason, and honesty seem both clear and sufficient, from my perspective.

For myself, because I enjoy examining ideas and testing my understanding – I even enjoy having my ideas challenged, occassionally. I cannot imagine why you would play, since you have demonstrated no such tendency.

Perhaps you will find the answer in your regression to the playground.

94

Spiritus, remind me never to be illogical in any dispute with you. You are a killer, saying that with admiiration.

I think from what we’ve seen here, the whole kit-and-kaboodle will be forced into some pre-concieved box and badly distorted in the process. Rarely have I seen such a magnificent display of unconscious reductio ad absurdem (damn I know I’m mispelling but its late for me here)

I think this escapes him.

One would have thought that this would have become obvious in the past few days.

Excellent rebuttal.

95

Gaudere

You have my unending gratitude. [sub]and a pint of your choice at the earliest opportunity, natch[/sub]

Collounsbury
I really try not to be, but the playground petulance was the proverbial bactrian backbreaker.

sigh

96

aynrandlover,

    Now I think I realize how the strikers felt!!!!!! Perhaps it's time to retire to Galt's Gulch, my friend :). (I'm sorry about not being here..........long holiday weekend, but I've tried to read everything ya said). Thank you very much for saying everything I would have said if I hadn't been under so much stress recently.

   To the rest of you, feel free to out socialize each other, so long as you don't force those of us unwilling to participate into it. Feel free to donate that which you make by your ability and hold onto that which you need. Hell.............form up nice big groups and have you all do the same!!!! Just don't expect ME to donate MY hard-earned money into it!!! My life and my work is my own and none of you have any right to it.
97

I take it you mean: feel free to build your own socialist utopias and act like good little socialists in, just don’t force me to be a member.

From what AynRandLover has said, and from this comment, it seems like Randians have this category called “socialist stuff”, and a lot gets dumped into it. Why? Spiritus has repeatedly tried to point out that socialism, per se, is a much narrower idea than has been portrayed; AynRandLover has has implied that the slipper slope to socialism is his greatest fear.

Why is it that socialism seems like the bogeyman of objectivism? At the very least, it seems like indiscriminate negative.

98

Sorry, buddy, but I do expect you to and I hope the government comes and arrests you if you don’t. Unless you made your money in some way that I cannot fathom that somehow does not involve using any aspects of our society (like our currency, as one mild example), you’ve got to contribute your part! When it comes right down to it, objectivism/libertarianism seems just like one big excuse to be a freakin’ free-loader!

99

Well, if that isn’t irony…for a socialist to call a libertarian a free-loader!!!

I never said I wanted anyone to give me a dime…I want to keep all of which I earn and not be forced by altruistic politicians to spoon-feed it to someone who cannot (or will not, sometimes it seems) produce on their own (a nice way to earn themselves votes in the future, by the way)

Quite frankly, I see no reason to use your meaningless, worthless, hyper-inflated money. If my employer would pay me in gold (a TRUE standard, unlike paper which is rather arbitrarily decided upon) I’d gladly accept it!! (and when your fiat money crashes, who’ll still have some legs?)

And if not…well, that’s what tax havens are for…to keep the money of the productive out of the hands of the destructive, and my life out of your hands

100

(1) I would not call myself a socialist. (Although if your definition of socialist is everyone who is not a libertarian, then I guess I would be.)

(2) Yeah…Well, I went for the irony because I know that libertarians like to think of themselves as being against free-loaders, but in the end, I just don’t see it that way at all.

(3) Unless you define “free-loader” as someone who is rather cheerfully willing to “pay in” more than they are probably “getting out”, I am not a free-loader. [Okay, admittedly, most people probably think they are paying in more than they are getting out…just like most people think their driving is above average. So, who knows…there really isn’t any good way to tell.]

Well, I guess that means one less libertarian driving down the highways…Don’t want to see you using our roads,now!! And, by the way, good luck trying to pay for everything you want in gold!!!