Clawg

Well, it's the usual free-rider problem, you invest much but get very little (in terms of direct personal gain) of your efforts, while society as a whole profits. But of course, if a free society is one of your important values then you do get a lot in return. From the perspective of a collectivist government/people: They will act and decide to form the state in a way so that you always achieve much less from any personal effort you have invested (for example through majority rule). Only if some people step outside of their own world and value freedom of the whole society more than personal gain things will change. Remembers me of Mark Twain: "In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, For then it cost nothing to be a patriot." (change patriot into objectivist )

Well, the government is 'unwilling' to enforce a 'law'/protect a right if the law is not part of the laws of the country/if the right is not part of the constitution, for example the right to own property is abused by taxation, the government is 'unwilling' to (fully) protect your property. An example where the government was already mentioned (copyright). Ok, true, money is not everything and just one values of many. I think it boils down to the question how much you value your liberty compared with your right for property. Speaking out against it helps, acting on it makes your argument more convincing. I've re-read the article "How does one lead a rational life in an irrational society". Do I understand it correctly that in the paragraph at the end she basicly says that when the society turns to irrationality one has not only to speak out against it but also to act against it, even at the cost of self-sacrifice (I don't necessarily mean giving up your life but investing your time and money into things where your reward is only minimal and long-term, like trying to improve society) because if you do not act against it, set no example for others, the society will get worse and worse and taken over by thugs?

I have a question about the chapter 'How does one lead a rational life in an irrational society?' in 'The virtue of selfishness'. I agree with Ayn Rand that one has to speak out against the irrationality. But she does not specifically adress the question on how to act in such a society (does she?). Let's assume the field your business is working in recently gets massive government subsidies. Should you self-sacrifice yourself and refuse the money (and go out of business) or should you just speak out against it but take part in the looting? Or let's assume there is a law that the government is unable (or unwilling) to enforce (which is, concering property rights, basicly the same as the example from above). Should you remain lawful while everyone else makes profit from it (and driving you out of business)? Thanks for any thoughts

@Hal: Existing roads are a problem because you cannot choose the new owner of a road directly and because the government is the current alone owner. But you also have to look at these points: - You will not be able to monopolize the road in front of a house - You will not be able to make profit from it (except if you are for example in the weapon sale business ) , the only thing you can cause is destruction - It would very hard to get a monopoly if you cannot buy the whole network in one strike from the government. If you own everything but a single road that one road owner will get VERY rich I think in future the problem will be solved by blimps or 'flying-cars' ( ), competition will automaticly keep the prices of the roads low. A different solution would be if only people who live in that street may own the street, i.e. it's part of your real estate which you can only sale together with your whole real estate. And this is happening right now in Europe and the US... You are taxed for the roads and you have to pay for using the roads to a private owner which the government has chosen for you. And if that is not enough socialists then claim that it's the fault of Capitalism If every road is owned by a different group of people (ideally those people who live there) this would be no problem. If you charge too much people will choose a different route. If your road has lots of holes people will choose a different route. If you own the center you can charge whatever you like. People will either pay you or people will use a longer route around the center. The problem of 'key roads' that may cut a whole part of the city from the rest is not a problem of the free market but a problem of the development of the road system under a state owned system. @JMeganSnow: Sounds great

How? You just do it. The only problem with roads is that they are already there. It is a problem of the previous system, not of the free market. One might think that private ownership of roads will allow the owner to deny you to step out of your house or charge enormous sums of money for you to use it. But that situation only applies if the government privatizes the road while you are still living there. A solution in a free market is that you rent the street in front of your house for a few years/decades when you move in your house / appartment. You can choose between different streets and different street-owners.

Not sure if this is correct: Acting spontaneously without thought would be irrational but it still can turn out morally right. That means you don't know exactly what you are doing, but, looking at it from a different perspective, you are acting according to your morals. Another possibility would be if you (unknowingly) take a lie as a fact but you do not act on it. If you know that person X is a known swindler and you still trade with that person you act irrational. But if it turns out that all what you know of person X were lies then you have acted not immorrally but irrational...

I've found these two videos very interesting. I was never able to explain why there is a thing like 'religion' at all. The basic premise of the documentaries is that all religions are basicly used to integrate people in a growing empire, that they have similar stories and that they are based on worship of the stars / the earth (especially the rituals). When other tribes were conquered their gods were placed into the religion (as lesser gods, saints etc.). For those of you who are informed this is certainly nothing spectacular but it is very well researched and presented in the videos. The naked truth (110 min) Interview with Acharya S. about Religion (100 mb, ~60 min)

There is no evidence that Osama is alive and numerous reports that he was injured / died of disease. Sounds more like a Goldstein to me. Same goes for that Zarqawi guy.

It is a problem. To understand it you have to study evolution and some biology (and maybe some computer science) but I try to explain it easily: DNA is like a computer program. Although science has shown that single genes are responsible for certain aspects all genes work in a network if you change a gene it could have an effect on an other gene. What the food industry does not is long-term tests. Animals and plants have evolved in parallel in billions of years, the animals have adapted to the plants' genomes. You 'trust' an apple more than for example a drug more because the creator was nature (i.e. billions of years of development and testing compared to the few years within a pharma company). But with GM food nobody knows what long-term effects it could have. Maybe some effects will show only years later or in the children. The problem, especially with food, is that people can hardly tell what they buy. That causes the market to move in the direction to exploit that lack of knowledge. With GM food it is certainly possible to increase the food supply by a factor 2-10. But it's often at the cost of other factors like nutrition (e.g. vitamines). And if you look at current legislations in the US there is a move to reduce the labelling of GM food even more. Theoretically it does not matter if GM food is possible dangerous or not. If it is then you simply switch to organic food. But if organic food is 'infected' with the GM food then your choice is gone. In addition companies like Monsanto sue the farmers whose crops were infected by the GM food (-> patent infringement) and try to gain more and more patents to corner the market. Cornering the market IS possible because the possibility to infect other plants and to enforce the own patents through the government. I encourage you to research this, it's a complex subject and worth to take interest (it's your own health after all): I've put some videos on my homepage: Contaminated Food (7 min, 27 mb) Future of Food (85 min, 290 mb) @Eternal: Yes, exactly

Well, the main problem of the GM food is that once you introduce a gene it is very hard (if not impossible) to remove it from nature again. While the new species itself would probably easy to extinguish seeds of the plants will mix with 'normal' plants. People argue that man always has modified the genes of plants, so what's wrong with 'genetic modified' plants? Well, the main difference is that the modifications man used in the last few millenia can also happen naturally. Simply said: A dog is a wolf. It's just a special combination of wolf genes. But in GM Food new genes from other species are introduced. It cannot happen naturally that fish genes mix with tomato genes or cockroach genes with strawberry genes. And these genes stay in the gene pool and slowly mix with all plants.

I've bought the movie because I liked the name. 'Corporation'. Well I liked some parts of the movie. It's a very mixed message. There are some very good points against Corporatism (business plot, military industrial complex, United Nations, WTO, (Corporate) Intelligence Services etc.). Unfortunately no effort was undertaken to stress the point that there is a difference between capitalism and corporatism. Some points are raised which are real issues. You cannot call it 'privatizing' by letting the government decide which competitor to have the monopol of the water supply. The only real privatization is possible by allowing competition. Television can be a problem, too. People should be more aware of the influence moving pictures have on the subconciousness. If you are not aware of the influence you are manipulated, even with an objective view. Food production can also be a problem. But I think it sources again in the government and not in the market. If there was no FDA people would need start to think what to eat and what not, they would have to pay companies to investigate what food is healthy and what not. Instead companies just pay the FDA to stay silent and people are fooled into believing the safety. Without the FCC there also would be a better access to information. In Genetic Modified food I see also an issue because the modified seeds is able to spread to other fields. Michael Walker also makes some good points about privatizing the nature to rescue it. Or Vizer how they secured the neighborhood because the city was unable. Chomsky makes me puke

You forget that there is gain in reporting a crime (or a penalty for not reporting). If you do not report it you honor the criminal and punish the honest. You help increasing the economic (if it's an economic issue like stealing) position of the criminal (the irrational) while punishing the honest (the rational) and therefore you help the market getting irrational. => If your own income depends on a rational market (i.e. if you achieved your position not by fraud but by your own qualities) you gain from reporting the criminal.

Now I do, yes.

Well, there is a trade-off between those two factors. Ideally the company let's his workers (if they agree) work for free so that the company gets a better place in the market. But that can't go on forever, so the investments are lower because people who take personal interest in the company (and therefore work for free) are hard to find (except they own shares in the company). Well, I have clarified that point already. When a company starts much more goes into future investments than at any point later. The people who found the company have to create all the values from what the company will profit long-term, like for example a brand name. But those who do that voluntarily are generally not hired members who you pay (who would join you if you offer much less than an established company with secure income?) but those who _own_ the company, i.e. invested money (and time). In prospect of a much higher outcome than they have invested in the first place (and a personal realization of their own values and goals). 'Plowing revenues into future investments' does deprive the present worker of money. BUT if the worker wants to work at that company he has also to pay for all what the company already achieved. If the past investments equal the current investments the worker is not deprived of any money. If a company starts and an employee works for zero (everything goes into research / marketing and/or there are no revenues yet) he is of course deprived of his money. In that situation he has to be paid by additional capital the owner / the company holds, for example shares. Forget it. I just wrote down my own thoughts and came to the conclusion that all that applies only in certain circumstances. When the amount of investments changes, e.g. when a new company is founded, the employees have to be paid out of the owners pocket. He/She can hardly put as little as an established company, which already has a market position and gains revenue, into development but has to take additional capital to pay the employees until the company is established in the market. After that all employees who (indirectly) 'pay' for current investments actually pay for past investments. And the amount of current investments can hardly change if the market itself does not change. And if the market changes in a way that the company would fail if it does not increase its investments the employer has to either lower the wages (if the employees agree) or have to take additional credit (or pay in form of shares).

I'd say that Objectivism would recommend to throw out anyone who wants to throw out you (or your loved ones). This way (if you can manage to do that) all people who follow this principle will stay in the boat and all people who don't will not (if they are able to do that). If ALL people think that way we have a problem

What do you mean with 'heroic'? Isn't that "just" to value egoism and individualism? Are you more successful if you make 2000$ out of 1000$ compared to someone who makes 200$ out of 100$? If you live up to the best your body / your environment can produce then you are 'heroic' in my opinion. I see no point in defining 'heroic' as an absolute value but a relative value, relative to what you have started with.

With rationally calculating the own value of labor I mean that if all data is availible (which is hardly possible, but we are talking theory here) then you would be able to substract from the expected market price (which, I agree, ultimately determines the wage) the rent of all the parts of the company you use and all the other wages. From this basic value you substract costs for current investments of which you will profit from within your time you work at the company. Of course, it depends on the employer. The question is if when all employees who apply there for a job do this - from their point of view rational - calculation does the employer then have to increase the wages (or put up a higher wage at the first place) and decrease the investments? On the other hand, if a person thinks he does not get enough and switches to a competitor who pays him enough (during his time in the company, i.e. without investments that affect later years) the company would go out of business afterwards because that company did not make the necessary investments. But who acted irrationally in this scenario? Certainly not the employee, he got exactly what he worked/paid for. The employer/the company acts irrationally as he/it does not conform to the market. Do the employees of the competitor (who pays them less in order for the company to survive after they have left) act irrationally? Yes, they do. Therefore the wage is lowered because of the irrationality. But I think I'm making two mistakes here: 1) If the current investments of the company are not significantly higher than prior to the date you have joined the company the amount you have to (indirectly) pay for development equals amount you (indirectly) save because of earlier developments. Afaik it is sometimes the case that, instead of additional payment, the employees in 'hour 0' get shares of the company. 2) A sudden change in the current investment normally occurs only when founding a new company. The founding workers will have to invest much more than employees that join the company later. But without their higher investment the company wouldn't even be created at the first place. I also begin to agree that the wage of the employee cannot be determined 'rationally' by the employee him/herself but is really only determined by the market / the employer. Thanks, Spano. If the company used the same amount of investments in the past as currently, then this is justified. You profit from all the past investments the company has made, therefore it is rational to pay that price / lower your wage expectation. But if current investments are higher than past investments you have a problem (which does not really happen/is not really a problem, see the 'founding a new company' example above and the conclusion at the bottom) Well, I'm looking at it from an individual perspective where you 'rent' your workplace and 'sell' your work to the company. You yourself have to see that your efficiency rises or else the company will look for a different, more effective, worker. This way you would have full influence on the way the money (for development) is used. Yet, even this way, you have to pay for the past development of the company (see below). Yes, sure. But I'm talking of all the investments that the company makes now which will affect the company only after you are long gone. Theoretically you, as a new employee, would have to pay a part of the development costs of the old products which put the company in the position to employ you (i.e. gain market success). Yet, in reality,, you (indirectly) pay for the current development of products that will allow the 'next generation' to be employed. It sounds 'fair' but what makes me a little uncomfortable with this is the similarity with retirement pension system (at least here in germany the current generation pays for those who are currently retired, no problem if the economy and demography is stable). If the amount of investment rises the current 'generation' has to (indirectly) pay more than the previous. ... Employee starts (profits from product 42) Company diverts profits into research of new product 43 Employee quits Product 43 starts to make profit Employee starts (profits from product 43) Company diverts profits into research of new product 44 Employee quits Product 44 starts to make profit ... All in all I would say that if a company does not significantly change the amount of investment all employees will profit from it equally. And if it significantly changes then it would have to be due to a general issue in the market because if not all other competitors raise their investments (and lowering the wages), too, then I would switch the company. And if such a market change occurs (for example the current flu-virus that affects all the poultry producers of the world) the companies are back in 'hour 0'. As above a rational decision would be to negotiate lower payments in exchange for shares (would it?). Fantastic how it now all fits when one thinks it through And I already had my doubts Ok, I'll sleep a night over it. Thank you for all your input, helped me very much in solving this question

Yes, because you leave something behind in the company that you have indirectly paid for but no longer can profit from when leaving the company. Well, you would create the value out of the money the company makes. So you can hardly create it outside the company as you have no money to begin with. If we assume the model of 'employee = trade partner' then the 'disconnect' between the two entities - company and employee - is clear. But in such a modell the employee would merely pay for for example the desk, organisation and workspace he/she uses. The employee would also use all the resources the company has drawn together in the past (for example research, a marketing position, a brand name etc.), but why should he pay for investments that he, in his temporary assignment, will never be able to access or profit from? When looking at the employee as an integral part of the company things even get more complicated, he/she can't seperate from the company without loosing an investment. Why shouldn't you demand more money? Because the company would not hire you. But isn't that just because many people are irrational and agree at a lower price and supporting the company in their future undertakings (from which they often do not profit from)? If all employees (in the world) are rational then they will demand a price for their work that only allows a very small amount of additional research, only as much as they would profit from during their employment. The only other way a company - in a rational world - would make 'profit' (i.e. invest the money generated by sales in anything that is not needed in the current work process, like raw materials) is if someone would spend capital in the company in prospect of additional future income. But this also creates another free-rider problem, because the whole company profits from such investments, not just the investor. I hope I'm making some sense here

Ok, thanks for your comments. I thought it through again and I can agree. Well, I totally agree. But this affects only the current costs of the machine and the development/research costs etc. until the day you get employed. My point is about future investments that have nothing to do with you or your job, like funding a 5-year research project in a different department of the company while you have planned to work there only for a years. You pay indirectly for the improvement of the company although you do only profit from it if you work there for a long time. @Spano: From the viewpoint oof the company it is totally justified. Question is: How should I calculate my own wage that I demand for my work? I agree. But my question does point in a little different direction. It is clear how the company itself has to pay its employees (take the one with the best abilities demanding the least). But that wage also is (besides the amount of money that can be made by selling the product) also dependant on how much people would sell their workforce to the company. How should I calculate the price of my work that I 'sell' to the company? Or is my wage really dependant only on the market price of the product and my competitors (in the work-force)? Mmmh... but thinking about it I got the solution: What if the whole workforce sets their price for their work completely rational? Then the longer one plans to work at that company the lower one can set the price of the work because she/he benefits from the fruits of the 'investment' in the company. I think it's also a question of how to view the employee relative to the company. Is the employee merely someone who trades with the company or is he/she part of the company? When I'm just using a ferry once I would want to pay as little as possible while when I'm using it at a daily basis I can agree to a higher price because I profit from its wellbeing and success. (somehow bad example, but I think you got the point ) The only problem I see is that if people do not calculate their wages rationally then the wages will drop. They are punished by the system because they gain less than their work is actually worth. But that's not a problem of objectivism

This thought struck me today: When I work for a company I sell my work for money. The company takes a part from that to pay for machines, marketing, organisation etc.. The worth of my work is dependant on the worth of the final product on the market. So far so good. But the company also has to look into the future. It has to make investments to guarantee future developments, it has to expand and research and therefore has to take a part of the current profits (i.e. I get a lower loan). The question is: How is this morally justified? I am aware that the company has to do that to remain in the market in future. But I do not work at that company forever so I cannot profit from it and I might even disagree with the type of future investment the company makes. (Only) From the viewpoint of the company this behaviour is justified. But shouldn't I (the worker) rather voluntarily pay the company part of my loan and decide which part of the company to improve (or for example invest the money to improve my own worker skills which I can take with me even when I leave the company)? I am aware that I have of course the possibility to do so by negotiating the contract. I am also aware that I can switch to a competitor if my company does not give me enough money and that a company that gives me all its money will go bankrupt in the longterm. The question is that, being objectivist, shouldn't I look at first at my own income and expect/demand exactly that loan that my work will bring for the company (minus the amount of money that I profit from the company doing research) and invest on my own in new machines/education/research to improve my own workplace? I don't necessarily care about what happens to the company in future, I am not necessarily bound to its success / failure. I hope my point was comprehensible. Please tell me where my error lies or if I'm right. Thanks

Good point, thank you, didn't thought of that. @softwareNerd: I'll do that

Hello I recently got in objectivism and was (positivly) surprised about this completely different view. What I am wondering about is if it is really possible to reach a 0% taxation, especially in connection with security, i.e. the police. When there is no taxation the state will have to rely on donations. But even when ignoring the free-rider problem (all in all big corporations do have an interest in a general low crime rate) wouldn't the motivation for an individualistic approach for security be much higher than donating money? What I mean is: The most rational approach (in the case of a big corporation) would be to hire an own security firm or (in the case of an 'average citizen') simply to buy a gun. What is even worse is that those with much capital, i.e. those who profit the most from security, will not only rather pay for their own police force than donating money but also profit from any general police force outside of their property because the less crime the more rationality is honored and the more rational decisions can be made which helps the economy in general. And even if there are donations the risk of corruption rises, security firms will try to sell their own security equipment to the police by bribing officials with donations or by a simple dependance of the people of these corporations. Total privatized police is also no solution, this is corporatism / anarcho-capitalism. The only solution I came up with was that a very low, but still forced, taxation is necessary to secure the system itself. What do you think?