Let me just preface this by apologizing in advance fore two things a. I am still a novice when it comes to Objectivism, and my knowledge on the subject is far from complete (though I have read her fiction and almost all of her non-fictional books). B. While the questions I am about to pose may appear to be assertive in nature (though I feel they are backed with sound logic) I do not intend to be standoffish. Please believe that I only ask these things to gain a better understanding of the Objectivist philosophy.
Not so long ago I had a conversation with an old friend who had adopted the philosophy of Objectivism. I had previously only read a small amount of Ms. Rand’s work (namely Atlas Shrugged, We the Living, and Anthem) and as such was by and large ignorant with regards to the philosophy’s core principles. I argued with him for a few hours on the subject before he convinced me to take a deeper look at the Ms. Rand’s ideas. The very next day I purchased everything she had written and devoted myself to reading her work. Admittedly when I began reading I did so with the intention of finding loopholes in her arguments so that I might better argue with my friend. However, I found that for the most part she made a cogent, well supported argument which I could not help but agree with—for the most part anyway. There still remain one or two sticking points for me particularly on the subject of her economic ideas.
Question #1: Ayn Rand points out that the closest the world ever came to true laissez faire capitalism was during the years of (and immediately following) the industrial revolution. While significant advancements were indeed made during this period (which was arguably one of the, if not the most, ridiculously prosperous eras in human history) the actual conditions under which the laborers lived was horrendous. In my understanding the wealth was controlled by an immensely small elite who treated the workers poorly, supplying them with scant salary and forcing them to work in poorly equipped and often dangerous areas. The massive lower class lived in cramped tenements under conditions which were scarcely better than those under which the serfs and debt-slaves of old lived. The factory owners forbid the workers from forming unions or in any way protesting their condition, and this lead to riots and outbreaks of violence. It was only when the plight of workers was recognized and labor laws were introduced that the discontented lower class was mollified. My question is this, why advocate a system which leads inevitably to such a gap between the classes. I do not mean to assail the capitalist system (of which I am a firm supporter) but is it not necessary to avoid such a disproportionate distribution of wealth if only for the sake of avoiding dissent?
Question #2: (this one is shorter) In the event of absolute capitalistic freedom what is to prevent companies from selling extremely harmful products. (Ex: The placement of addictive narcotics in food or other such products, in order to create a more urgent demand. Or perhaps medicines and drugs, which have not yet been tested)
Once again, I apologize and hope that I didn’t come across as belligerent (or as too idiotic either).