[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
No, I’m thinking I’m reading her right. She just wasn’t thinking too clearly.
[/QUOTE]
No, I don’t believe you are, which isn’t really your fault since, by your own admission you haven’t bothered to actually read the story under discussion, while maintaining that one doesn’t really need to do so in order to expostulate about it.
Except Rand didn’t write that. You mere think she did because, well, you are expostulating on a book you haven’t read and kibitzing with others who agree with you and who also haven’t bothered reading it, or claim to have read it while exhibiting almost zero understanding of the book in question.
Actually, in Rand’s world everyone reaps the rewards and fruits of their own labor.
What you mean by this is YOUR idea of what you THINK was Rand’s idea of what a producer might have been…3rd hand.
I don’t even know what to say to this, except that it’s laughable to anyone who has actually bothered to read the story under discussion. Your concept of what you think Rand wrote bears almost zero relation to the reality. I have no doubt that you wouldn’t actually like what she DID write, nor that you’d disagree with it fundamentally, but good grief, at least ding her on shit she actually wrote instead on what you think she wrote based on your 2nd or 3rd hand report, most likely from folks similar to the ones in this thread who ALSO didn’t read her books. It’s an almost perfect circle jerk of ignorance going on in this thread with a few people who actually read the things (in most cases years in the past) trying their best to fight the ignorance…all to no avail, because obviously on this subject, people WANT to be ignorant and just get their rant on. 8 pages to discuss a question that had a 2 line answer and was answered on the first page…unreal.
For the fiftieth time, Producer is not in any way synonymous with “Employer”. Moocher is in no way synonymous with “Blue Collar Worker”. Why can’t you accept this simple fact?
You seem to have a real mental block here. Most people will be producers. Most producers will be working for other producers. Why does this confuse you?
Oh FFS. No. that is utterly wrong. And the wrongness has been pointed out to you multiple times in this thread. And yet you keep repeating it.
If they feel they should be getting more reward they can shout that from the rooftops without being regarded as Moochers. They can bargain for higher wages using any means they see fit that don’t use threat of force or emotional manipulation. Nobody is ever denounced for just feeling they deserve more reward for the value they provide. That is the utter antithesis of Objectivism.
For the thousandth time, what is denounced is feeling that one deserves *anything *without giving value in return. Not for feeling one deserves more, For feeling one deserves anything at all. If one feels they deserve *less *than they are currently getting, but are still not giving value for that amount, they are still a Moocher.
And conversely, if one is giving value, there is nothing wrong with obtaining maximum reward in exchange for that. That is seen as a laudable thing, not something to be decried.
This has all been pointed out to you personally at least 5 times in this thread. And pointed out to others many more times. But you still don’t get it for some reason.
Look, it’s quite simple. Just acknowledge that you understand these simple facts so we don’t have to go around this mulberry bush yet again. Nobody is asking you to accept that they are true, just that these are the facts stated by Objectivism.
A producer can be a worker or an employer.
A moocher can be a worker or an employer.
Many workers are moochers.
Many employers are moochers.
Many workers are producers.
Many employers are producers.
Everybody is encouraged to obtain maximum reward for the value the give in any transaction.
Workers are encouraged to obtain maximum reward for the value the give in any transaction.
Employers are encouraged to obtain maximum reward for the value the give in any transaction.
Everybody is encouraged to make it clear when they feel they are not getting reasonable fair reward for the value the give in any transaction.
Workers are encouraged to make it clear when they feel they are not getting fair reward for the value the give in any transaction.
Employers are encouraged to make it clear when they feel they are not getting fair reward for the value the give in any transaction.
Everybody is encouraged to negotiate using all legitimate means to get fair reward for the value the give in any transaction.
Workers are encouraged to negotiate using all legitimate means to get fair reward for the value the give in any transaction.
Employers are encouraged to negotiate using all legitimate means to get fair reward for the value the give in any transaction.
The only non-legitimate means of negotiation are coercion and emotional manipulation. this is a business transaction and nobody has an *a priori *claim on anybody else just because they feel they need or deserve it.
Coercion and emotional manipulation are non-legitimate means of negotiation for workers. No worker has an *a priori *claim on an employer just because they feel they need or deserve it.
Coercion and emotional manipulation are non-legitimate means of negotiation for employers. No worker has an *a priori *claim on an employer just because they feel they need or deserve it.
These aren’t complex concepts. Please try to understand them so they don;t have to be stated yet again.
So they can get together and vote for candidates who promise to raise the minimum wage? That’s legal and it doesn’t involve threats of force or emotional manipulation. So objectivists are cool with raising the minimum wage?
I can argue against the problems in slavery. You arguing that I would understand how great slavery was if I had read Gone With the Wind isn’t a strong rebuttal.
Objectivism is nonsense. If Atlas Shrugged portrayed objectivism as a workable economic system, then Atlas Shrugged is also nonsense.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
I can argue against the problems in slavery. You arguing that I would understand how great slavery was if I had read Gone With the Wind isn’t a strong rebuttal.
[/QUOTE]
We aren’t discussing a general concept though. This is the equivalent of you arguing a plot point in Gone With the Wind (and ragging on the author for something not in the book) because you know a little about slavery and were in the south once.
But we weren’t really talking about objectivism in general. You were making references to a book…a book you haven’t bothered reading before weighing on…and projecting what you THINK is in the book and how the world in the book operates. Again, it’s like trying to discuss a plot point in Gone with the Wind while never having read the book because you know a little about slavery. It’s nice that you know a little about slavery, but it’s silly to think you can intelligently discuss the book and what the author was or wasn’t saying just because you do know a little about slavery. Yet that’s exactly what you are trying to do here.
If you want to have a discussion about objectivism, feel free to start a general thread on that subject. In the course of that discussion, what Rand may or may not have had to say on the subject will most likely come up, but it won’t be about a specific point in a specific book, and perhaps you’d have more insight in such a discussion than you (or most of the other posters spouting off in this thread) have shown here.
Okay, answer this question. Is there a passage in Atlas Shrugged in which Ayn Rand explicitly describes somebody collecting trash in Galt’s Gulch? If so, cite the page number.
I answered this on the first page in my first post. You can go back and re-read that or you can answer your own question and tell me where you read it in the book, and how one (who DID read it) might be able to answer the question rationally.
I read your post. It was the first response to the OP.
Now if the OP had asked something like “What was the name of Hank Rearden’s brother?” you could have answered “I read Atlas Shrugged and his brother was named Philip.” And if I were foolish enough to argue the point and claim his brother was named Larry, you would be fully justified in telling me the correct answer is in the novel.
But that’s not the case here. The OP’s question was “Who collects the trash in Galt’s Gulch?” And as you’re agreeing, that information is not in the book. You are, as you wrote, extrapolating an answer. There is no definitive answer but you’re giving your best guess.
And that’s what I am doing as well. Like you, I’m extrapolating an answer to the question. You’ve read Atlas Shrugged and I have not but there’s no definitive answer in that book. So your guess might be better than mine - or it might not.
How’s that, now? Negative value would necessarily be less that zero, yes? But, if I choose to mitigate the risk of replacing my car due to an accident by buying an insurance policy - exchanging my money for cost certainty - that policy is valuable to me…otherwise, I wouldn’t buy it. That the sum of all premiums paid exceeds the sum of all claims paid doesn’t change that, any more than the fact that a Diet Coke I buy costs more than the cost of making and distributing it gives the Diet Coke negative value to me.
For the policy to have negative value, I’d have to be getting nothing back for my money, in which case I’d be out the premiums I paid and the opportunity cost of whatever else I’d have used the money on.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
But that’s not the case here. The OP’s question was “Who collects the trash in Galt’s Gulch?” And as you’re agreeing, that information is not in the book. You are, as you wrote, extrapolating an answer. There is no definitive answer but you’re giving your best guess.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, there was, as far as I know, no reference to garbage men in the story. There were, however, references to other menial, service oriented work being done, even by the main characters, in the story, so someone who read the story can easily make such an extrapolation. Basically, you are doing the equivalent of someone barging into a discussion about an extrapolation of the plot of Star Wars and saying that, while you’ve never seen the movie or read any of the books, you have a pretty good idea of how to answer the question…while others are inputting that, really, they never liked Star Wars (even though many are also in the position of never seeing the movie nor reading the books), and wasn’t George Lucas a shitty writer and director…
Well, my ‘guess’ is at least based on what’s in the freaking book…and your extrapolations thus far in this thread don’t really bear much resemblance to what’s in that book. What it bears a resemblance to is what you and others THINK is in the book, based on…what others who didn’t read it thought was in it. Plus a muddle of beliefs, animus and disdain about the author and general disgust about objectivism. Like I said, I get that you and most of the folks in this thread hate/despise Rand and everything she stood for and hate the books she wrote (that most of you didn’t read). I really do. And you are all free to start threads expounding on that hatred and disgust. Hell, quite obviously you are all free to continue to post in THIS thread and give your keen eyed interpretations and extrapolations of a book you haven’t read, and be given the same weight (hell, more since you all seem to know so much about it…an innate ability no doubt to be able to know without bothering to read) as those who can quite easily answer the question in the OP simply from the point of view of someone who bothered to read the thing.
Sunshine and air are still free for now. Not everything is the product of human labor.
The problem is that in any functioning democracy, objectivism is stupid.
Trees?
The partner compensation is set by the partner compensation committee and they are based at least partly on reviews as well. At one point it was based on upward reviews.
Well, unions ain’t what they used to be, thanks in part to her acolytes.
The honor system? Producers would never stoop that low?
Vulcans have government, they have taxes, and religion (with a few religious prejudices against things like vulcans that can mind meld) and live in a fairly statist society run by their military “high command” (IIRC)
And so those who have friends and acquaintances with means are more likely to be able to weather great misfortune (and also less likely to be the victim of such misfortune) than those with poor friends.
I think what confuses people is how objectivism is used in the real world today, not how it is used in a fictional world that never existed and never could exist.
Sure, so long as the government doesn’t use any threat of force to make anyone *pay *a minimum wage, they can raise it to whatever they want. IOW, the government can set the minimum wage at $90 an hour, and any employer can tell them to get bent and pay their workers $10 an hour. That’s all cool. But if the government threatens to forcibly incarcerate someone for not paying $90 an hour, that’s obviously a threat of force. Similarly, if the government threatens to forcibly take money to make up for the $80 an hour shortfall, that’s also not cool.
If someone votes for a candidate who promises to raise the minimum wage through threat of force, then that person is the ideal definition of a moocher/rent seeker. They are taking value from their employer solely because they feel entitled to it, not because they are adding anything that is of value to the employer.
Would it be possible to have this discussion without taking it to silly extremes, like your $90/hr minimum wage? Nobody has come even close to your strawman example. Now, what if the government sets the minimum wage so that a person working full time could pay for housing, food and basic utilities-that might be a little above your example of $10/hr, but it is more realistic if you want workers to have any company loyalty whatsoever.
I said “They can either be happy with whatever their producer chooses to gives them with no expectation of anything more.”
And you denied this and said workers “can bargain by any means they see fit.”
But now you’ve clarified what means are acceptable.
So the means of bargaining that are open to workers are essentially that they can ask their employer to give them a raise. But they can’t do anything that would in any way compel their employer to give them more money because that would be “force”. The only wages workers are entitled to are those which the employer wants to give them of his own free will.
Getting back to my post, how is this different from “whatever their producer chooses to gives them”?
They can vote for whomever they want, but it would not be legal in GG to have a minimum wage. If you had read the book, you would know that. I know that may come as a surprise to you, but I feel I need to tell you that since no one else has.
Jones is President and owner of Amalgamated Sprockets. Smith is a janitor at Amalgamated Sprockets. One day, Jones decides Smith should be paid less money. He tells Smith that starting next week, his salary is reduced by a hundred dollars. Coincidentally, Jones plans on increasing his own salary by a hundred dollars. Smith is unhappy and protests this. Jones tells Smith if he doesn’t accept the new payrates, he will no longer work for Amalgamated Sprockets.
Is this allowed under objectivism?
Jones is President and owner of Amalgamated Sprockets. Smith is a janitor at Amalgamated Sprockets. One day, Smith decides Jones should be paid less money. He tells Jones that starting next week, his salary is reduced by a hundred dollars. Coincidentally, Smith plans on increasing his own salary by a hundred dollars. Jones is unhappy and protests this. Smith tells Jones if he doesn’t accept the new payrates, he will no longer work for Amalgamated Sprockets.
Is this allowed under objectivism?
If you gave two different answers, explain why. Remember that the rules you gave in your previous post apply equally to both workers and employers.
I did know that. But after reading Blake’s post, I wasn’t sure he knew that. We have now clarified that issue. When Blake said workers can bargain any means they see fit he meant that workers can bargain by by any means that the employer agrees to.
We’ve now moved on to the question of whether or not there are different sets of rules for employers and workers.
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
What thread have you been reading?
[/QUOTE]
Well, Vanna, I’m going to go with the one about the book than 90% of the folks posting to it haven’t bothered reading. Or should I answer your silly question in the form of a question, to get extra points?
It’s an almost perfect circle jerk of ignorance going on in this thread with a few people who actually read the things (in most cases years in the past) trying their best to fight the ignorance…all to no avail, because obviously on this subject, people WANT to be ignorant and just get their rant on. 8 pages to discuss a question that had a 2 line answer and was answered on the first page…unreal.