[How is the market regulated?]

Weren't you the one advocating civility in forums? You evidently don't understand my argument. You enjoy being a victim don't you? You don't understand the difference between thinking and identifying OR whims and values OR objectivity and subjectivity. Worse, you need to side up with someone to prove your point [you are not even trying to make an argument but just a compilation of false claims]. I wonder how you, Greebo, would respond to this post.

Spiral is saying that he is NOT a victim if he agrees to pay $2.00 for a widget that Dormin pays $1.00 for.

I think you should avoid the accusation towards others regarding false claims when you don't seem to want to support your own.

For any moderators out there : i hope you understand that the only difference btw. mine and Spiral's post is that he was sarcastic while I was straight forward.

First you were going to delete your account and never come back. Now you want the moderators to intervene on your behalf?

]This is exactly what I am suggesting, I'll look into it. (Why didn't someone suggest me this some 30 posts before?) This thread is getting too long. "It's most famous proponents were Adam Smith and Karl Marx" : hopefully that's not as bad an omen as it sounds.

This thread is getting too long?

Why? Does it being long highlight your inability / unwillingness to defend your assertions?

[How is the market regulated?]

But that is only because acquiring it is beyond your control and anything beyond your control is outside morality.

Thank you for supporting my point. Values are values only if they are of value to someone, for something.

Assuming you could acquire it, then it would have an objective value (independent of the person going after it). The use that a product can be put to is the same for different people (and is only dependent on the nature of the product) assuming their goals are the same but "reason" ensures that it is.

Yes, the same product can be used the same way by different people. How it can be used, however, does not determine the value of the thing to the person using it. How it WILL be used by that person does.

Assuming the poor guy doesn't have a house and the rich guy does [some rich guys do have several houses.

Quite an assumption.

Now without those assumptions answer my question.

I meant that you accepted that if a value of a product is set it is not upto you to decide the price (as you have accepted that trade is balanced for a fixed price for a particular value, which is not decided by the seller).

So the seller should not be allowed to sell his widget for less than another seller?

Why have you evaded these questions:

"What is the nature of that disadvantage? How was this disadvantage achieved?"

"You understand that achievement and work are not the same thing?"

And why have you seemingly ignored the rest of my post?

If Dormin uses my widget to replace a broken part in his car, while Spiral uses my widget to invent a new machine which will cumulatively save billions of hours for everyone, which widget was of more value?

[It is now illegal to give things away for free in France]

Agree with zombie - Google should block France.

[How is the market regulated?]

So you're saying that value for the same product is variable [but the money-equivalent for a particular value is fixed].

Sorry, I'm not following you. Please clarify the meaning of your terms, as my reading of this statement renders it nonsensical.

You are saying that a house should cost more to a poor guy [as the relative value is more for him] than a rich guy

How do you know the relative value of a house to someone based on their curent economic status?

[basically trying to make off with as much as you can since nobody's stopping you. Again you are abusing the power that you have due to the buyer's disadvantage].

What is the nature of that disadvantage? How was this disadvantage achieved?

But you do realize that value is defined by your work and not on the buyer's needs ["A trader does not expect to be paid for defaults, only for his achievements."].

You understand that achievement and work are not the same thing?

There is another common application for this too : online shopping, where a product has the same fixed price [so the price has to be determined objectively and not on "relative" values]. Frankly I think your "relative value" is mystical [you are welcome to prove otherwise].

You do not understand the relative value concept.

A value is that which one acts to gain or keep. As Rand pointed out, the concept of value is not a primary concept - to be a value means it is of value to someone, for something. To whom and for what are the questions that determine the *market* value of that thing.

To Dormin, the market (or "relative") value of the widget is $1.00. If the widget can only be obtained for $2.00, then Dormin will not buy it, because it is not of sufficient value to him for his purposes to make that trade. Spiral, on the other hand, will, because for spiral and his purposes, the market value of the widget *is* $2.00.

Also the same thing having different values is a contradiction of "A is A" principle and therefore, too arbitrary and not objective.

No, it isn't, because value presupposes "of value to someone for something".

The term I used before - "objective value" - is probably confusing. I said that the widget has objective value. This is true - but this is not to say that the widget *is* the value. If the widget were removed to some far corner of the universe, never to be reacquired, it would be of no value to anyone. All the gold and platinum in the asteroiod belt is worthless if we cannot make use of it. The objective value of the widget in the context above is simply stating that the widget does have some value to someone for something - therefore it is *a* value - something someone will act to gain and/or keep.

The widget above has objective value to both Dormin and Spiral - but how much value to each varies, thus the market value to each of them is different.

[How is the market regulated?]

If I trade my widget to Dormin for $1.00, that's balanced.

If I trade another identical widget to Spiral for $2.00, that's also balanced.

It's balanced because while the widget itself has objective value, only Dormin, Spiral and I each individually know the relative value that the widget has to us. We each determine - or rank - the widget objectively against our other values to conclude at what level trade is acceptable, and at what level trade for a widget is not worth it.

The arbitrary is introduced when you, human_murda, declare that the value of Widget is X and thus everyone must trade Widget at that level. You are not able to rank our values for us, so you are not able to judge for us what value the widget should have.

[Whose is this life anyway]

Greebo:"Was there a genuine question in your original post? "

Why Mr. Thompson cannot offer to Galt his life? Why man has right to live at all? Is this right man-made or metaphysically given? Is moral law and political rights are identical to the man's right to live? Yes, I definitely know how to answer these questions, but I'd like to know what other people think. BTW, you don't have to force yourself to read anything. On this site nobody expect sacrifices.

I did not say that you forced me to read it, did I?

With regards to the question - I find myself doubting that you actually were interested in what other people think, primarily because you have not responded to anything that anyone else said. That lends the appearance, at least, that your intent was actually just to set the stage to answer yourself, once you had confirmation that you had some readers.

If that was the desire, you would be better served by simply writing an essay, rather than apparnetly wasting everyone elses time by leading them to believe that you genuinely were seeking answers. If that was not the desire, well that's the impression you've given me, so you might want to consider some changes in your approach to these topics.

[Whose is this life anyway]

So after forcing myself to read that wall of text, it seems as if you asked the question not to get an answer, but to set the stage in order to simply state your own answer.

Was there a genuine question in your original post?

[Whose is this life anyway]

Holy Wall of Text batman.

[Whose is this life anyway]

by what right Galt owns his life and why Mr Thompson cannot own Galt's life?

What can Mr. Thomspon do wiht Mr. Galt's life without Mr. Galt's agreement?

He can lock it up, he can destroy it. Is that ownership?

Can you do more with the things YOU own than simply hold onto them or destroy them?

[Ponzi Scheme -- a good thing?]

"Your heirarchy depends on one thing only: Get more suckers to give up their money so the first people who joined can acquire more. It is not sustainable in the long term, it will collapse."

Not if the money pool willbe switched to purchase a real business and pay dividends as the percentages.

That's a big if requiring to take on faith that this will occur. Given the nature of ponzi schemes, I see no reason to extend that kind of faith.

[Responsibility in a collectivist society.]

Agreed.

Would you say then that your question has been answered sufficiently?

[Reblogged: How Not To Argue Against Environmentalists]

Technically she's not wrong.

Earth has been here for 6,000 years.

And a big big plus...

[How is the market regulated?]

I was talking about around the time when Rearden and Dagny reached the 'Twentieth Century Motor Company', when they say a couple of guys making off with loots. I can't seem to find it ; may be I just imagined it?

For the record, I finally found what 'human_murda' was talking about. It amounted to about one paragraph in the book

It was after Hank's trial, when he was engaging in black market trading to buy coal from an abandoned mine that had been taken over by a young man who in a different era, Hank suspected would have been a great industrialist, but in the highly oppressive anti-free trade world they were in, was likely destined to be a criminal.

And once again, human_murda completely missed the point. "he actually 'neened' the society to be different for him to achieve anything" - no, what he needed was a free society based on respecting free trade. What he HAD - what drove him to be a black marketeer - was the kind of society the OP proposes when he declares that everyone has to get a "fair share" and that "having money gives them the right to buy, no consent of the seller needed!"

[Ponzi Scheme -- a good thing?]

Why not think of it as a money pool -- a bank, building itself up in a hierarchical structure ? Those who recruit more people, manage them, and in a sense get a job as an administrator for that group. When the system stops growing at a high rate, the percentages will fall, but the management structure in this "bank" will remain -- this hierarchy has proven itself in action -- the people at key positions have shown that they can be responsible enough and efficient to manage their "branch". This kind of structure can be now thought of a company Xyz, that can buy a real product, factory or service, and manage it. For example, if the company buys a service business, then all members of the pyramid can work on that business. If it buys an Oil Rig, then all members become private share-holders.

Banks provide some value to their customers in the forms of loans which produce interest, and in savings accounts which are paid interest. Interest on savings is not paid from other people's deposits.

Your heirarchy does not model itself after a bank.

A company that buys a real product or service (did you just say money isn't real?) sells that product or service to customers, and collects money from them in trade, which is then paid to its employees.

Your heirarchy does not model itself after a business.

Your heirarchy depends on one thing only: Get more suckers to give up their money so the first people who joined can acquire more. It is not sustainable in the long term, it will collapse.

Even if the scheme is presented with perfect honesty to all concerned, it is a short term scheme only. We are long term thinkers here - your get-rich-quick scheme will not appeal to us. We do not consider such ventures moral.

[How is the market regulated?]

Justice. & Ragnar Danneskjöld.

Ragnar Danneskjöld hijacked Government owned ships carrying goods taken by force from producers.

Your parallel falls flat on its face.

That's all I am going to say (in addition to what I've said before : a person can use force to do what is right and force, even in justified situations, occur in the absence of consent of person against whom it is used & objectivism says nothing against using it to achieve justice). If you can't figure out the rest by yourself, I see no point it explaining any further.

This is the kind of language used by people who cannot actually defend their positions, in a blatant attempt to transfer the guilt over their own failure to think to the person who does think.

You are right about one thing, though.

There is no point in discussing this with you further.

[Responsibility in a collectivist society.]

I can be wrong, but don't you have to apply for medicare and other entitlement programs? Let me rephrase the question-- do the people that participate in these entitlement programs have a responsibility to others-- aka if apply for medicare-- a responsibility to start eating healthier?

Does "being forced to pay for it" count as participating in those programs?

[How is the market regulated?]

I think I understand quite a bit of what self destruction means, thank you.

I submit that you do not.

I submit that you have mistaken "self destruction" with "not producing".

If you need an example of self-destruction, I suggest you study Gail Winand from The Fountainhead, and Dr. Robert Stadler from Atlas Shrugged. Both men destroyed themselves - in two different ways. And Stadler's self destruction did not occur at Project X, by the way.

But she finally agreed to it [did she?] when she realised that they had a fighting chance [which you don't have] to effect a change [as every producer agreed to do it, collectively]

No, that's not why she went on strike. Try reading it again.

I was talking about around the time when Rearden and Dagny reached the 'Twentieth Century Motor Company', when they say a couple of guys making off with loots. I can't seem to find it ; may be I just imagined it?

Indeed.

Why not? It is fair trade. They could just lock the owner in the basement [if he isn't willing] until their holiday ends and just remember to pay him afterward. You can use force for what is rightfully yours [as property or by fair payment]. The owner had no right to keep away a fair customer [he should be fined if you as me].

So the hotel owner uses his time, money, blood sweat and tears to create a hotel, and some couple can come in and force him to trade with them if he doesn't want to?

Have you forgotten that a sale requires the consent of the seller?

[q]Sure he could close his doors to villains but not a fair trader. [/q]

Why does your having money entitle you to force me to sell you my grain?

You have said they have the right to do it - defend that claim. Prove the source of that right.

[Responsibility in a collectivist society.]

If you pass laws backed up by guns that compel me to participate in anything, do I have *any* responsibility to your system?

If so - to whom am I responsible? Those like me, who are also participating against their will? Or those who embrace the system that enslaves those of us who don't want any part of it?

[How is the market regulated?]

We could be going off-topic here, but,

@Greebo:

I think I get your first scenario, here. Of course, the gay couple couldn't do anything if they couldn't find a room and we are, in a manner of speaking, not forcing them out. But I dont agree with your analysis on two respects :

(1) In the first scenario, you assumed that the gay couple needed to be kept out for whatever reason, so closing the motel is the only way to rightfully keep them out. But you are also assuming that you had accumulated enough money before you went on strike. You cannot survive if you go on strike (and in reality you would be the only one to go on strike, so the prospects dont look good)

Nonsense.

I can work for someone else and earn just enough to cover my needs, without contributing one whit more to the society which wishes to enslave me than I must. I could work as a janitor, or day laborer, or any number of things to keep myself going WITHOUT providing a hotel for them to sleep in - without creating any values for them that requirs the productive efforts of my mind.

Basically what I am saying is, going on strike is not an option, you will only destroy yourselves in the process.

I think you do not understand what self-destruction means.

The only other way is for others to change [which 'your' need], so that you can make money. Even in the book world most objectivists had inherited capital to work on, so they both maintained and took it forward and could afford to go on strike.

You may need to read the book again. I happen to be on my 4th or 5th iteration, and I think you're forgetting quite a bit of important detail. Think about Owen Kellogg, for instance.

There was even a case where Rearden and Dagny look at a young person and wonder if he could have been great : but he couldn't because he had no capital - he actually 'neened' the society to be different for him to achieve anything

Sorry, what?

(2) I don't agree with you on the second scenario at all. The couple are the victim here.

So it is your position that the gay couple has the right to force their trade upon the hotel owner?

[The Law of Identity and God]

Nothing is more illogical than believing something for which there is absolutely no evidence.

I advise you not to go down this rabbit hole with Jacob - but if you do, well, you were warned.

[How is the market regulated?]

Secondly, from the point of view of an objectivist, it is our 'need' that the rest of the society functions according to our moral code (because an individual cannot make any money in a rogue society by just means and would probably not survive if he follows his own ideals). So we 'need' others to change as per our requirement. So this would mean we are holding others based on our needs, aren't we? (I know I am wrong but I dont know how to put it) Also how do we change others anyway?

Patent morality is a hotly debated topic here, so I'll leave that to others.

As to this: It is not *our* need, it is the basic need of Man that Man be free to act.

Do we need others to change? No. We can simply refuse to work.

Does us refusing to work exert some hold on others? How?

Ask yourself question - imagine two scenarios based on recent political events. In both scenarios, a gay married (or would be married depending on your state) couple wishes to rent a room in a motel. In the first scenario, the owner, who vehemently disapproves of gay marriage and homosexuality at large, refuses to rent them a room. (this actually happened in NH as I understand it) In the second scenario, there *is* no motel in the location where the gay couple wishes to rent a room.

In the first scenario, an argument that the motel owner was holding others (to wit: the gay couple) to his "need" (ie: his standard that gay is immoral) by leaving them no option to rent a room. In the second scenario the gay couple has no option to rent a room because no such room exists.

If the impact of our actions on others is exactly the same as the impact would be on others if we did not exist, what are we doing that can be said to hold anything over others? What force are we using?

Answer: None.

But now if you force the motel owner to rent his room anyway, what changes? The gay couple gets something they want, but what happens to the motel owner? If the gay couple did not exist, he wouldn't rent his room to them. If the gay couple gets their way, his room gets rented *against his wishes* - thanks to *their* "need".

Who was held to whom's standard then?

[Are all business entities somewhat coercive monopolies today?]

Businessmen can be just as moral as you or me, if we're not businessmen.

I disagree with your choice of words. We're *ALL* businessmen.

I'm a computer programmer. That's my business. I sell my time and ability to program for a salary and benefits. I'm also a landlord. I sell the use of my property for money.

If we're not businessmen, then we're living by some means other than productive effort and trade with other producers.

If we're living by some means other than productive effort and trade with other producers, then statistically speaking we're almost certainly living off of the productive effort of others without engaging in trade - which, as Man Qua Man, would be immoral.

One rare exception to the statistics would be the substinence exister who lives solely by producive effort and trades with no one.

[The Law of Identity and God]

Oooh, I can play this game. Just because a gorilla rejects most fruits does not make them anti-fruit. Just because a lumberjack rejects most oh I don't know let's go with fruit again, does not make them anti-banana.

Yes, if you take a perfectly sensible statement, and replace a couple of the words with unrelated ones, you can turn that statement into nonsense.

True, but in this case, calling people who reject *some* gods in favor of others "making them atheists for those [rejected] Gods" actually is nonsense. One is not an atheist to *some* gods. One is an atheist or one is not an atheist. Someone who accepts any idea of God is not an atheist in any sense, no matter how many other Gods they don't believe in.

What's really sad, however, is that the entire point being made by Spiral about the inconsistency (read contradiction) of those who DO believe is being lost because of a bad choice of words on his part.

[Capitalism board games]

While I think Robert Kiyosaki's advice is often not that good - I do think his "Cashfow 101" game is actually a good game for teaching finance and at least something about Capitalism. You circle the board, trying to buy properties that are profitable while avoiding bad decisions like going into massive debt for a boat, attempting to reach your ultimate goal not OF, but BY becoming rich. (Your ultimate goal is something you pick at the game start that can only be achieved by having a boatload of money)

[Should it be illegal for the news media to lie?]

I find it hard to receive this as other than "special" reasoning, allowed for the purpose of justifying IP and reputation, and whatever other delimited instances, but not for all of the other things which would logically follow. See, for example, my (and now also Nicky's) case of the love one person may engender in another; this love may well be "economically valuable" -- can it also therefore be property?

On the IP point...

If Rand did not intend for intellectual property to be property in her use of the language, then please explain why Hank Reardon so vehemently held onto his sole right to produce Reardon metal (until it was extorted) and refused to share the formula? The formula to his metal is just as much IP as software or music is - it's a combination of ideas that creates something new.