Sebastien

Boydstun and Merjet, Public ownership and public control, neither of these concepts is what gives us the fundamental insight into the core differences between a mixed economy and a pure, laissez-faire capitalism. A pure laissez-faire capitalism would still have controls. For instance, under laissez-faire, risky business ventures would contract with insurance companies in order to guarantee some return on investment, instead of relying on bankruptsy protection and bailouts, because bankruptsy protection and bailouts are against the principle of a free market, in which every new venture must suffer the consequences of failure if it is not profitable. The sign of a mixed economy is that the government will protect the failures of large businesses, as happened during the economic crisis of 2008. Is the insurance company's contract with the new risky business venture a public control? In some ways it is, because it is a so called "public interest" for the new venture to be successful. When I say it is a public interest, I mean that there is more than one individual who might be affected by a business failure. In the example of this risky business venture, those affected include both employers and employees, as well as shareholders. Since there is not such entity as society, there is no entity we can call the public, unless we say that the public is a group of individuals, in which case we must refer to all of the individuals involved. What we have currently is a government which caters to the public interest, by protecting individual rights. This is obviously not wrong, evil, or immoral, because this is exactly the definition of what a public interest is: protecting every individual who comprises the public.

Marx says that the value of labour is measured by the amount of money necessary to produce the worker's subsistence. Rand says that the concept of value is dependent on the concept of life. If I work for ten hours and secure my subsistence living by working for ten hours, then the value of my labour is the life that it has given me. So I'm not being exploited. Marx argues that I'm being exploited if my labour contract says that I am compensated for 10 hours labour with $100, but I only needed to work 5 hours to produce enough commodities for sale to produce my day of subsistence ($100). But if there is no profit, there is no incentive to hire me. If there is no incentive for my employer to hire me, then I can't cover my daily subsistence. I trade my surplus product and surplus value for employment. As long as my labour allows me to make a living, I am being paid justly. Marx's theory of exploitation is used to say that capitalism is unjust. But it is a benefit to me if some employer is willing to take the risk to hire me, and the risk that he is taking requires a reward (profit). Ayn Rand turns Marx into an epic fail.

Boydstun As I understand it, both objective and subjective are part of the Objectivist Understanding, not the intrinsic. The intrinsic theory of value is exemplified by the Marxian school of thought, which says that labour-time is the substance of the value of a commodity, that commodities have intrinsic value because they are products of labour. Marx completely negates the possibility that the value of commodities has a subjective element. He says value does not come from circulation or consumption. Ms. Rand, on the other hand, recognizes that commodities are valuable because, on the one hand, they serve an objective need, and on the other hand, they provide subjective pleasure or happiness. If I'm not mistaken.

Hi Boydstun, Thank you for your lengthy and interesting reply. I don't suggest that Rand and Hegel are in complete agreement. I agree with you that for Rand, existence has primacy over consciousness. But what if it is in my self-interest to only deal with parts of reality and existence that do align perfectly with my self? For instance, if I want to be a philosopher, and not a doctor, then I do not need to study medicine. I can simply trade my knowledge with someone willing to pay for it, and use my money to see a doctor when I need to. Or what if I study business because I want a guaranteed job and don't want to ever experience poverty? What reality we encounter depends partly on our choices. And if this is the case, then an adept mind can choose to deal only with parts of reality which are implicated in our life choices. And if this is the case, then reality can conform to consciousness, and consciousness will have primacy over reality. In The Objectivist Ethics, Ms. Rand says that productive work is the arena in which man does not need to adapt to his background, as the animals do, but can shape his background to conform to his own self. (Rand 29) Just my thought.

Thank you for the exciting discussion, Strictly Logical and Eiuol. I think we are agreeing on the fundamentals.

Dear Eiuol, Systematic racism is not the same as structural racism, and it is also not identical to all-pervasive racism. Systematic racism means that racism comes from the system itself. Structural racism means that there are social structures of oppression which operate independently of individual racists. All-pervasive racism means that all companies are discriminating. In theory, and also in practice, Capitalism actually provides incentive to not being racist, because if you produce for and sell to everyone, you will make more money. Rand would argue that if this incentive exists, there will always be markets for people of color. She might be wrong, but if you look at history, black people in the United States have rarely starved or gone without essentials for a long period of time.

Hi Elliot, Nice to meet you. What are your favorite books by Ayn Rand?

Hi Ali, Inspired by your story. If you haven't already, buy a copy of The Virtue of Selfishness and read the essay titled The Objectivist Ethics. It's a good guide to how to live.

Hi Giemel, What you will find is that collectivist, selfless religion is actually not what the bible teaches. The scriptures that precept moral behavior are intended to be oriented to what is in your interest. Consider Deuteronomy 28, blessings for obedience. This chapter says that if you adhere to the law, you will be blessed with abundance. Clearly, this is a doctrine of self-interest. The reason that the United States is so wealthy is because the US is doing what is right. Capitalism is a good system, and it is based on the principle of justice. Selflessness is not encouraged by the bible. But you don't need to read the bible. Ayn Rand will give you a stable foundation for successful living. Glad you are an Objectivist.

I haven't done much reading in this forum (I have a learning impairment), but I have an argument. Capitalism cannot be inherently racist because Capitalism is not an individual person. We might invoke the concept of structural racism, as being a disembodied phenomenon. But in order to understand structural racism, we need to understand that every structure is constructed by individuals. Structural racism is a legacy of the work and actions of individuals. Capitalism is actually not conducive to racism, because the primary activities in Capitalism are production and circulation. Production is not racist because commodities are made for everyone. Circulation is not racist because if you have money you can buy commodities. If some companies will not hire racial and ethnic minorities, because they are racist, there will be others who do not discriminate. If some stores will not sell to racial and ethnic minorities, there will be others who do. If all companies and stores are discriminating, this does not mean capitalism is racist. It simply means that all current existing companies and stores discriminate. Capitalism actually does a lot to destroy racism. It was the capitalist north that offered jobs to freed slaves who moved from the south to the north. It was the capitalist manufacturing sector which employed large numbers of black people in the fifties and sixties. Capitalism is not inherently racist. People are racist.

Hi Felix, Definitely read The Objectivist Ethics from The Virtue of Selfishness, when you get a chance and buy a copy.

Hi John, nice to meet you. What are your main interests in Ms. Rand's writing? Favorite books?

Thanks Boydstun and William O. Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit presents a progression of historical attempts to secure stable truth. What Hegel argues is that each historical attempt is unstable because it tries to secure an object of consciousness as object. When Hegel gets to absolute knowing, we discover that the Self (The I) is the only really stable object of knowledge. We find out that what we were trying to secure, an object of knowledge, is only stable when mediated by the self. It takes some skill to make this compatible with Objectivism, but here's my attempt. If the self is a stable object, this is a good starting point for arguing that self-interest is also a stable object. Hegel is not a subjectivist. He doesn't say there is no object. He says that the object lacks self-subsistence, that it is what it is largely through the I. This is moderately compatible with Objectivism because Ms. Rand says that reality is neither subjective nor objective, but is both at the same time. In the first essay from Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, she says that an airplane is objectively superior to a bicycle. But there is no need for a man to pay for an airplane if the range his transportation needs are entirely fulfilled by the bicycle. Therefor the objective superiority of the airplane is only realized through those who use the airplane, not the bicycle. So reality has an objective aspect and a subjective aspect, and the subjective aspect, the aspect of the I, is important. There are other examples. Let me know if I need more examples to make this point more solid.

Hi Jonathan, Nice to meet you. I like your rational behind reading Ayn Rand. One thing you should focus on is Ayn Rand's cardinal values and cardinal virtues. Her cardinal values are Reason, Purpose Self-Esteem, and the corresponding virtues are Rationality, Productiveness, and Pride. This can be found on page 27 of The Virtue of Selfishness (50th anniversary edition). Ms. Rand says that we are beings of self-made wealth, but also self-made soul, and earn our right to hold ourselves as our highest values by achieving our own moral perfection. (Page 29). You're on an exciting road. It's great to try to improve yourself.

Hello everyone, my name is Sebastien. I am well read in Ms. Rand's books, but I bring something new to her philosophy, which is a transition from Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit to The Objectivist Ethics. Let me know if you want to know how the two are connected. It's very exciting! Nice to be part of this forum! I wish everyone well. Sincerely, Sebastien