Question for Objectivists:

Great Debates
21

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

Social mobility is a diffiult thing to achieve in both the UK and US, 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.

It is as unnecessary to ask “who the mixer is” as it is to ask “who increases GDP?”. Social mobility is a measurable parameter. If you believe a plutocracy would increase it, that’s fine - I just don’t see how.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Agreed. I’d suggest such superior skills and abilities will be far less in evidence amongst the educationally deprived.

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?

22

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.

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.

23

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.)

Why, and how? It’s my inability to see a feasible, demographic-wide mechanism for this (beyond a few blessed ‘bubbles’) that makes Objectivia as distopian as North Korea.

24

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.

25

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.

Nonsense. Civilized societies provide the unemployed with at least what they need to survive.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, riiiight. They’ll be slaves. Or dead.

26

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.

27

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?

28

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.

29

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.

30

Is this the way things work now?

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.

How, really? If all wealthy people hoarded resources and stuffed them in giant matresses, maybe, but they don’t.

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.

31

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?

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?

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?

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?

32

No, they prefer bank accounts and such.

History. Current events.

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

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

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.

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

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.

33

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

From teaching in public schools?

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

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.

34

Do you have any actual evidence for his claim?

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

Do you have any actual evidence for this claim?

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

What does that even mean?

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

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

Do you have any actual evidence for this claim?

35

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?

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

Teachers, of course.

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.

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.

36

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

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

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

What makes you think you’ll have a choice?

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.

37

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.

38

I did.

Now do you have any actual evidence for this claim?

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?

Err, yes. And?

Because it is inherent within the very definition of Objectivism.

Cite.

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.

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.

39

Like who?

40

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.