# Question for Objectivists: **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 19, 2009, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-objectivists/506926 "2009-08-19T05:12:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-objectivists/506926/21 "2009-08-20T08:59:24Z")
[QUOTE=IdahoMauleMan] 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. [/quote] 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. > [@magellan](#): > > 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. > [@Fuzzy Dunlop](#): > > 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. > [@msmith](#): > > 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_? ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-objectivists/506926/22 "2009-08-20T13:03:07Z")
> [@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. 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. [QUOTE=SentientMeat] 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. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-objectivists/506926/23 "2009-08-20T13:16:35Z")
> [@msmith](#): > > 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 _dis_topian as North Korea. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-objectivists/506926/24 "2009-08-20T16:48:14Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-objectivists/506926/25 "2009-08-20T18:23:04Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > 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. > [@msmith537](#): > > 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. > [@msmith537](#): > > 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. > [@msmith537](#): > > 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. > [@msmith537](#): > > 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. > [@msmith537](#): > > 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. > [@msmith537](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-objectivists/506926/26 "2009-08-20T21:12:35Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Without an inheritance tax the inherited wealthy will eventually control most of the wealth 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. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-objectivists/506926/27 "2009-08-21T00:32:09Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-objectivists/506926/28 "2009-08-21T03:14:35Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-objectivists/506926/29 "2009-08-21T03:39:38Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-objectivists/506926/30 "2009-08-21T03:40:21Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-objectivists/506926/31 "2009-08-21T05:03:13Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-objectivists/506926/32 "2009-08-21T05:56:00Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > 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. > [@Blake](#): > > [QUOTE=Der Trihs] > The natural tendency is for the rich to get richer… Is it? What is you evidence for this? [/quote] History. Current events. > [@Blake](#): > > 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. > [@Blake](#): > > You aren’t seriously arguing the “fixed sized pie” model of economics are you? When the economy grows, so does their share of it. > [@Blake](#): > > 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. > [@Blake](#): > > 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? > [@Blake](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-objectivists/506926/33 "2009-08-21T08:58:40Z")
> [@](#): > > **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. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-objectivists/506926/34 "2009-08-21T09:40:55Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-objectivists/506926/35 "2009-08-21T09:47:37Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-objectivists/506926/36 "2009-08-21T10:12:34Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Do you have any actual evidence for this claim? History, like all the others. Go look up periods like the Gilded Age. > [@Blake](#): > > 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. > [@Blake](#): > > What does that even mean? That the economy is primarily based on consumer spending of course. > [@Blake](#): > > 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? > [@Blake](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-objectivists/506926/37 "2009-08-21T11:00:11Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-objectivists/506926/38 "2009-08-21T11:20:31Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2009, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-objectivists/506926/39 "2009-08-23T02:58:24Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Of course it’s not; our society is highly dependent on people NOT motivated by profit. Like who? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2009, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-objectivists/506926/40 "2009-08-23T03:37:05Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-objectivists/506926.md?page=1)