JeffS

Well, I finally did what I should've done from the start and re-watched the clip. I was wrong. In this particular case, I think Rand handled it appropriately. She wasn't overly defensive or hostile in any way. Her response was entirely rational and I wish Donahue wouldn't have cut her off every time she was about to make an important point. For example, the woman said (in effect), "Your philosophy creates a 'me' society." ("And, by implication, that's a bad thing.) Rand replies, "Yes. What's wrong with that?" (Asking for clarification to the implication.) Donahue talks over her and never addresses it. That was the whole point of the woman's "disagreement," and being forced to answer it would've allowed Rand an opportunity to clarify and shine. However, I'm going to stand by my original assertion that I often find Rand not the best defender of her philosophy. As Donahue says in the clip, "You have to understand that when you make comments like that you give the impression that you're intolerant." I'm not discussing whether what she says is true, or whether it's moral, or anything philosophical. I'm referencing only the impressions she leaves. When an audience hears, "You're selfish and that's bad." And they only hear part of Rand's response, they're left with the impression that Rand promotes selfishness as they understand it. Of course, I could be wrong. I'll have to go back and watch all the interviews again. The problem with that is I'll be watching them with a different perspective.

Very well. Money, in our society, comes in two forms: currency (the government's legal tender), and bank credit. For all intents and purposes, that of exchanging ownership of property or labour, they are indistinguishable (like if someone were able to so masterfully counterfeit currency that no one could tell the difference between the counterfeit and the real currency). An increase in either is an increase in the money supply, or inflation. All things remaining the same, inflation of the money supply leads to an increase in prices. Another way of looking at this is to understand that an increase in the money supply results in a decrease of purchasing power of each individual unit of money. If we continue our hypothetical to imagine that instead of me counterfeiting currency I merely print something that is, for all intents and purposes, used just like currency (credit), then I will have effected the same thing as counterfeiting. I would have increased the money supply because whatever I print is used just like the currency is used. What I have printed will be money and will be used for the exchange of ownership in property or labour. If instead of counterfeiting 400 more units of currency I print out IOUs stating I'll pay 400 units of currency upon demand, those IOUs, that credit, will be used just like money and therefore I will have effected an increase in the money supply by 100%. I will have increased my ownership of the economy's money supply by 150%. Simultaneously, I will have decreased your supply of the economy's money supply by 50%. My actions have decreased your wealth and increased mine. In fact, I have increased my wealth by taking wealth from each of the economy's participants (you, Kendall, and John). How is this not theft? If you agree counterfeiting is fraud (presumably becausing the counterfeiter obtains someone's property or labour without the owner's consent, or false promises), how is bank credit not fraud? Has the bank not obtained property without the owner's consent? Even if I don't pass the credit on to you, you still bear the burden of an increased money supply and decreased purchasing power. Hasn't this resulted in you having less wealth than before the credit was passed? Has the bank not obtained property under false promises? The bank promised to redeem the IOUs, the credit, for currency upon demand, but if everyone showed up at the bank demanding 400 units of currency it would be impossible for the bank to meet those demands - it only has 100 units of currency. Finally, isn't fraud just a another form of theft?

Really? So, we have a situation where your money is no longer worth what it was, solely as a result of my actions, and that's just fraud? Who do you think the victims of this fraud are? Since it's only you, John, Kendall, and I in our hypothetical economy, am I the victim, or are you (either individually or collectively)? Regardless, isn't fraud just a species of theft? It's just a hypothetical, Jake. When we get to the next step in the hypothetical I think you'll see there's no difference in reality between the money I create and the money in your pocket. What taking this first step has allowed us to do is concentrate on the question above: whether my actions, taken to reduce your wealth and increase my wealth, constitute theft. We'll have to resolve that before we can go on. If I can't convince you that my actions have resulted in a reduction in your wealth just as much as if I had taken money from your pocket, then the rest of my argument will be pointless. This is what I'm trying to do.

Yes, great point. Yes, as well as the faulty assumption that these Capitalists would continue to survive in a free market; that people would continue to buy their bad food despite the fact that everyone who eats it dies. The answer, of course, is that the only way they could survive is through protection. I have no data to back it up, but I would bet any turn-of-the-century food producer who was continually able to get away with poor safety and sanitation had some sort of government protection - probably in the form of strong-arming any journalist who dared to write about them, and a few local cops to make sure the journalist knew his pleas for protection would go unheard. I've always wondered how these food manufacturers kept such poor sanitation regimes secret. Didn't their employees talk? Did they eat the food? I must assume they didn't. Wouldn't they have told their extended families (and given the fact that these are primarily immigrant workers, we're talking about possibly huge extended families), or their friends? Wouldn't they have talked? It begs reason to imagine they wouldn't. To date, no regulatory body has ever discovered malfeasance; it's always been insiders and whistleblowers. Where were the whistleblowers before the muckrakers of the early 20th century?

My counterfeit money is no different from the real currency, no one can tell the difference, I will never be caught, and the money is circulating in the economy. These are the premises of the hypothetical.

I think we'll get there. Let's change the hypothetical a little. Let's suppose I don't actually take your money. Let's suppose instead that you each keep your 100 units, but instead I counterfeit more money. My counterfeits are really good; they look exactly like the real thing. I make another 400 units of, for all intents and purposes, more money. The economy now has 800 units of currency - you each own 1/8th of the economy's wealth where you used to have 1/4 of the economy's wealth; I now have 5/8ths of the economy's wealth. Your wealth has gone down by 50%, mine has increased by 150%. Did I steal from you? Did I reduce your purchasing power? If I didn't steal from you, how do you explain the fact that you no longer have the wealth you used to have? Wasn't it my actions which caused the value of your property to decline? Wasn't the effect to transfer part of your wealth to me? What would you call it, if not theft? Should what I did be considered a crime? If so, why? What initiation of force did I use against you if not theft? Is it true that I have not violated your right to property?

We're probably splitting hairs here, but I think it would've taken less time for Rand to look at Donahue and ask him if any guests have questions. IIRC, they kind of went on about this woman. I just don't understand what she gained with her response. I think there were probably three kinds of people in that audience: 1) those who think deeply about philosophy, 2) those who don't have a lot of time to think at all about philosophy, but are rational, can spot contradictions, and will give a fair hearing to different points of view, and 3) those who are dead set against Objectivism for whatever reason. The first group, if they haven't been exposed to Objectivism already, can find their own way there and make their own decisions. This is the smallest group. The last group will never change their minds, no matter what. They might not have even heard anything about Rand or Objectivism, but they know they don't like it and don't want to hear a word she says. This is probably the second largest group, and their spokesperson insulted Rand. The largest group, the second group, is willing to listen, but they're hearing something which is completely contrary to what they've been taught all their lives. That means it's going to be difficult to teach them, or to inspire them to teach themselves. They'd do it if what Ms. Rand says sounds interesting (which it did), and if she presents a good image of what living her philosophy means (which, I believe, she did not). If we can't teach people about Objectivism without badgering them, insulting them, or acting self-righteous then we'll never reach any kind of critical mass. That's bad for all of us because it just means a further and further decline into philosophies of sacrifice.

Yup, you're absolutely right. Thanks for clarifying.

So, she did it for other members in the audience? She seemed very angry to me, like a switch had flipped. Since very few people take context into account, very few people would understand it's a rational response. Instead, most people see it as Rand jumping down this woman's throat for, what appears to be, "only an opinion." Nothing of value was said; nothing that merits recognition of being worthy of taking one's time to address. What Rand showed this woman was that her opinion was important to Rand - she evoked a response. Remember in AS when Jim Taggart asked Rearden, "What do you think of me?" One of the greatest lines in literature: "I don't." Taggart asked, "Don't what?" Rearden: "I don't think of you." Taggart thinks he's important, that he deserves unearned recognition. Rearden's response is a slap in the face, "No, you don't deserve anything you haven't earned, especially recognition from me." Rand gave this woman recognition. Her response was like, "Your opinion is important enough for me to respond to you. What's more, I'll respond with emotion rather than reason." So, someone who uses their time and energy to insult you deserves some of your time and energy in reply?

Why would you respond like this?

As I pointed out before, you're ignoring the fact that the inflation began the moment the reserve rate went from 100% to some lower percent and banks acted on this new reserve rate by creating credit (IOUs); the theft had already occured. It doesn't matter if you keep the reserve rate the same till the end of time, the fact is you've gone from having X amount of currency in the economy to having (X/reserve rate) amount of currency in the economy where no one has produced anything (other than some paper with words on it) to get that extra currency. My example doesn't commit this error because my currency units aren't part of an economy where the reserve rate has been moved from 100% to some other percent - that's why I'm using "units" instead of "dollars," or "pounds," or "yuan." Well, I've had a number of basic courses in finance and economics, as well as a number of advanced courses. Is there anything specific you can point me to which would explain your point in more depth?

John and Kendall- It's unfortunate you think I'm being adversarial and rude. I'm not trying to be. We're working in an imperfect medium for debate, and certain cues available in face-to-face interaction aren't available. At any rate, you have my apologies for your perceptions. I didn't believe it was important because we're both talking about the concept of taking something from someone without their permission. Whether I call that "theft" and you call it something else, we're still talking about the same thing. You add an element of the victim knowing his property has been taken without his permission. For our purposes here, whether the victim knows it or not, I believe, is not important. But I do agree defining terms is important. Theft: to take someone's property without their consent. Sure, I could break into your house, put a gun to your head and tell you to give it to me, pick your pocket. Would you agree these are theft? Would you agree the effect is to reduce your purchasing power?

That's great, bluey. I think that's the answer, or at least I can't come up with a rebuttal to your points. Thanks for your help.

Dammit! You're absolutely right, bluey! I'm thinking of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. Damn, what a huge faux-pas. Mea culpa. That's a great point. I'll try my best at the rebuttal: How do we know they died from other stuff? Perhaps the poisoned food they were eating caused their illnesses? Chemicals in the food could've caused cancer, or any number of fatal diseases. They didn't have very good forensic science back then, medical examiners would've just written off an early death to hard work rather than the rat poison in their meat.

People exchange money or goods for products and labour, not promises. Would you give me your money for my promise? Promise for what? To pay you back? In what, another promise? The only way to increase wealth is to produce. If we're all just going to pass around promises to each other, then none of us are going to get anymore wealthy. None of our lives will improve in any way. One of us is going to have to produce something. Eventually, that person is going to want more for their production than just a promise. Though it's not really important to the discussion, I would disagree with your definition of theft. If I break into your house and take your T.V. is this not theft? You clearly have knowledge that it's been done. Well, perhaps I misunderstand Kendall's argument, but banks don't give out dollars - banks give out IOUs; they give out credit. Yes, if someone requests what the bank owes them (close their account, redeem their CD, etc.), they do give out dollars, but that's not what we're talking about. That's not the thrust of ReasonAlone's question. That's all well and good, but banks (at least in the US) don't create currency. Money is something which can be reliably exchanged for goods and services. If everyone accepted cows in exchange for goods and services, then cows would be money (and they used to be). In the US, there are two forms of money - currency and credit. The US government prints currency, banks create credit. Both can be used to purchase goods and services (products and labour). Inflation is defined as an increase in the money supply. An increase in the money supply devalues the money currently in circulation. The effect is, all other things remaining equal, to increase the price of the goods and services, the production, that money buys. When the government prints more money it devalues the money currently in circulation. When banks create more IOUs they devalue the money currently in circulation. In both cases, wealth has been stolen. If you prefer, it has been stolen without your knowledge. Let's do a little hypothetical, and if I could get you, Kendall, and John to play along it would help me reduce the number of posts. Can we all agree on these premises for our hypothetical: Each of us have 100 units of currency - that is, real money which can be exchanged anywhere in the economy for goods and services. Therefore, we each own 1/4th of the economy's wealth. If I take 50 units of currency from each of you (with, or without your knowledge) I would then have 5/8ths the wealth of the economy and each of you would have 1/8th the wealth of the economy. Can we agree that the effect of this is to reduce your purchasing power? Can we agree that I have stolen from you?

Do you have any evidence to support this? Collectivists have "Slaughterhouse Five." What do we have?

I would agree that's generally true. However, you're merely stating the theft has already occured. The reason no one ever says debt financing is theft is because the debt is back by real assets - something the bank could exchange for value; something either it, or someone else can use to turn into productivity. What is being exchanged when a bank creates promises to pay $1000 when it only possesses $100? Promises?

This is completely wrong. What you're arguing is a bank can create as many IOUs as it wishes and somehow assets are created everytime it does. I don't see where you're getting that idea from. Yes, a bank does have a marketable asset of goodwill, or trust if you prefer, but I doubt any person would accept some trust and goodwill when they go to withdraw their money from the bank. What will the bank pay them with? More IOUs backed by the bank's trust and goodwill? You're arguing for fiat currency - a currency which has no intrinsic value other than someone's ability to fool enough people for long enough. There's no asset, just a promise that whomever you got the currency from will fool someone else into accepting that currency long enough to pay you back. And what will they pay you back with? Another promise to fool someone else. What happens when you run out of fools? What happens when all the fools want something real - some labor, a new car, a house - in exchange for the IOUs? Let's take a simple example. You have 100 units of something which is accepted everywhere for trade - anyone on the planet will accept it in trade. I also have 100 units of this currency and that's all the currency in our economy. Suppose there's a painting we both want. You offer the owner 100 units of currency. Well, why can't I just go print off some IOUs and offer the painter 200 units? Once I do, the money supply has been inflated. And what has happened to the market participants - you and I? Your purchasing power has gone down, and mine has gone up. The effect is the same as if the money supply had stayed the same and I had taken some of your money. What asset have I created in doing so? You might want to argue I'm a total nobody, but that doesn't change anything. Suppose I'm a really trustworthy guy - suppose everyone on the planet trusts me to pay these IOUs I create. Does that make my creation of new IOUs somehow backed by something? What am I promising to pay? More trust? Would you similarly argue the US government can just print as many dollar bills as it wants and this isn't the same as creating money out of thin air? Would you argue the printing of those dollar bills does not reduce your purchasing power? How would that be different from prices staying the same, but you just having fewer dollars to spend? This is not the same as bills of exchange, commercial notes, bond, or any other promise of payment in the future. There's nothing intrinsic in these financial instruments which create currency. Currency now is simply exchanged for a promise to pay currency in the future. No, Ben is not discussing fractional reserve banking. He's explaining that an increase in the money supply results in a loss of purchasing power. Apart from that, I'm not really sure what you're arguing here. Rationalism is an epistemological fault? Interesting place to find that position. I overlook this fact because it's not pertinent to the discussion. New gold finds would devalue the purchasing power of the existing currency, but it would be an infinitely smaller degree of inflation due to the fact that finding gold, digging it out of the ground, and refining it is far more difficult to do than simply writing on a piece of paper, "Will Pay Bearer Some Trust." Inflation is not prima facie theft, inflating the money supply without any real asset behind it is theft. Why?

I choose to ignore them. Their input would be clearly worthless to me. Insults add nothing to any discussion. Coming back with an insult of your own merely wastes your valuable brain power, energy, and time. I'm reminded of the saying, "Fight with pigs and you end up getting dirty." In my opinion (and let's all remember, I'm only expressing my opinion here), Ms. Rand missed an opportunity to expose this woman for what she really is - a brainless drone with nothing better to do with her time than attend talk shows and spout nonsense. Agreed, but how many people take the time to consider context? I would love it if everyone considered closely anything besides the next American Idol schedule. But, they don't. Regardless of how I want the world to be, it is the way it is. People have the ability to think, but many of them (most?) simply do not. Especially the vast majority of day-time talk show audiences. Perhaps she shouldn't have even been on the program. I don't see how. It would be dismissive. How many people like to be treated as if what they say isn't important? Especially (and I'm not trying to be sexist here, just using my experience) women? What's wrong with acting as if nothing at all were said when nothing at all were said? Which is the vast majority of the population, again, especially those watching Donahue. What's her purpose there? I can only imagine her purpose is to get people to read what she's written and listen to what she has to say. When you're dealing with an audience which reacts emotionally rather than intellectually, you have to understand how what you say will make them react. If she were sitting in the middle of a college classroom, with at least college educated people, her response would've been entirely appropriate, and she probably would've received a standing ovation. First, I'm not arguing she should've tolerated it, I'm arguing she should have given it commensurate value - nothing; she should've dismissed it, ignored it. I'm not arguing she should've validated the woman in any way. Secondly, what harm would've come from tolerating it? It certainly wouldn't have done any harm to Ms. Rand - it neither breaks her bones nor picks her pocket. As you said, those who seek the truth wouldn't give it up. I don't think they would give it up just because Ms. Rand tolerated some ignorant bitch. But those who seek the truth are going to find Rand soon enough. It's those who need the truth who need to be shown there is truth to be found and it's worth searching for. Those are the people who need to be convinced to read her. Ms. Rand, and we all, have much to lose and nothing to gain by giving the impression that selfishness means exactly what everyone thinks it means. Thirdly, I don't care about Ms. Rand's feelings - those are hers and only she can know what information they provide her. She's supposed to be in control of her emotions, and when you're trying to convince people to be rational, that one must control their emotions, losing your cool is not the way to do it. I just want more people to read what Rand has to say. I want them to do it without emotional hangups and preconceptions. Thanks, ginny. I was beginning to feel outnumbered.

I understand Ben isn't discussing frational reserve banking, but the effect of printing money or printing IOUs is the same - an increase supply in purchasing power, and therefore inflation. I'm not arguing fractional reserve banking is fraud, I'm arguing it's theft. Whoever gets to inflate purchasing power is taking wealth from those who currently hold currency.

Sorry, jstar, but I've been a little too busy to reply to this thread. It seems to me that most are defending Ms. Rand based upon the premise that no real question was asked (true), and that the only proper response was to "act as if nothing worth commenting [had] been said" (knast). I agree. So why say anything at all? Why engage this woman? What purpose does it serve? Now, it's been a few months since I've seen the whole show (I had meant to do so before I wrote anything more, jstar), but I remember thinking, "I need to see the first show she and Donahue reference where they gave the impression she really came unhinged." If she did "really come unhinged" in that other show, then I'm even more disappointed. The fact that she engaged this woman in such a hostile way (if I remember correctly) is disappointing enough. A much better response would have been, "Oh, well. Next question." Or, "Does anyone have any questions?" Heck, I would've even been impressed with, "You're wrong. Does anyone have a question?" She always seems to be stuck in the desire to scare people with her selfishness, as she states in VoS. She seems to want to throw it their faces and gets the reaction even she expects - the people who most need her philosophy turn her off. Philosophy, especially hers, requires time for thinking and understanding. You're not going to get that in an interview or in an hour. So why leave people with the impression that what she means by "selfishness" is what they mean by "selfishness" when it's not? The two are quite nearly polar opposites. Why give them the ammunition to shoot Objectivism down before it they even understand what it's about? When I confront non-Objectivists, I don't convince them. If they are convinced at all, they convince themselves. I don't badger them, insult them, or act better than they. It's important to keep their minds open so they can think about ideas rather than stay stuck in the same old self-sacrificial dogma they've been raised on. When you act haughty and self-important you only trap them into thinking about that, rather than the logic of your argument. Now, by no means am I saying I'm a better debater on Rand's philosophy than Rand herself, and I suppose that's why I'm so disappointed in her in these settings. It seems to me she should've come up with ways of dealing with stupid people, willfully stupid people, quickly and decisively. The interview with Mike Wallace stands foremost in my mind of disappointing performances - and I think the answer is in your last sentence. Throughout the entire interview she stares at Wallace with a look on her face that says, "You must be a complete idiot." Now, if you understand Objectivism, even if you've only read AS, you understand why she's looking at Wallace this way - he is coming off as a complete idiot. But that's the problem with the format - she doesn't have time to let him conclude he's being a complete idiot. Furthermore, she's certainly not going to convince his audience he's a complete idiot. All the audience sees is Wallace asking apparently rational questions (because they don't know any better), and this woman who acts like she's his equal (remember, this is late 1950s) and looking at him like he's an idiot. "He's not an idiot! He's Mike Wallace, for God's sake! That woman is insane! I'll never read anything she writes!" I would've loved for her to turn the tables on him. Now, again, it's been a while since I've seen the interview, but I remember enough to know there were serveral instances where she could've said something like, "Is it wrong to want to live? Is it wrong to want to be happy? How can one person live another's life for them? What do you call it when someone demands your life for their benefit?" She missed these opportunities. I would've loved to have sat in her living room as part of the "Collective." I would've loved to listen to her shut down arguments left and right. That is the proper format for philosophy, and certainly for hers. It requires time, follow-up questions, and thought. In that format I'm certain she was brilliant and the most effective arguer for Objectivism on the planet.

I can prove this with statistics, but... I can't prove this. Do you have any data to support this?

I never cede that the FDA ensures anything. However, it can't be denied that before the FDA existed, and with the advent of mass production of food stuffs, one took their chances eating food from a mass producer; and those chances were not good. Certainly it's true that our food is safer than without any regulation. That regulation doesn't need to come from the government, it can be voluntary as with kosher and halal foods. But absent that regulation, things were not so good around the turn of the century. Why didn't the market provide a solution before the government was forced to? Thanks for the link.

Yes, very good points. I don't really love my first question because it's not usually how this debate begins. It usually begins with me asserting that regulation is not only unnecessary, but also detrimental. All collectivists seems to gravitate toward the food and drug argument though. With my question, I wanted to try and cut to the chase. I didn't do a very good job. As to your examples, were I to ask them, "If we closed the FDA tomorrow, where's the proof that every food and drug manufacturer would try to kill everyone." I've posed that question (and ones similar) and invariably get, "Because business people are only in it for themselves and will try to screw everyone they can to make a buck. If they can get away with poisoning people, or selling tainted food, they will." Me: I agree most business people are in it for their own self-interests, but what makes you think they'll "get away with" killing or hurting people? We have laws against these things which have nothing to do with regulating business - they're the same laws that proscribe punishment for you if you punch me in the face. They: You just want to go back to the days of Vonnegut and snake-oil salesmen. Me: No, I don't. I want the government to protect its citizens rights and not let people who harm others escape punishment. This is not how it was at the turn of the century. They: Well, without government intervention, people's rights would have never been protected. And, we'll go into a long discussion of rights, I'll get them to agree with me on rights, but they'll still cling to the fact that the government wasn't doing anything to punish producers who poisoned and killed their customers. I have to admit that creating the FDA did lead to protecting people's rights not to be poisoned by producers. It seems to boil down to: why didn't the market respond to these issues before the government stepped in?

What is the evidence that food and drug regulation hasn't been effective? I've had this debate enough with collectivists that I know how it will end before it begins. It typically goes like this (abbreviated because... well, can't everything be?): Me: Food and drug regulation is not necessary. Regulation dulls the senses of both producers and consumers; it makes consumers insensitive to demanding assurances that the food and drugs they buy are safe, creating no incentive for producers to provide those assurances. Collectivist: The only reason we have safe food and drugs is because of government intervention. Me: That's not true. First, we don't have safe food and drugs. Witness the nearly constant stream of people getting sick from both. Furthermore, kosher and halal food has a much better track record of providing safe food entirely through private market solutions. Collectivist: Well, you just want to go back to the slaughterhouse days of Vonnegut and the days of snake-oil salesmen. How many people died then? Me: Probably a lot fewer than popular myth would like us to believe. Collectivist: But the market didn't provide a solution. Tainted food and drugs were commonly sold. Me: No widespread solutions, that's true. But the market wouldn't have been able to poison people for very long. Vonnegut merely sped the process along. Collectivist: Isn't that the point? So, it seems to me, my argument breaks down at the end. If we closed the FDA tomorrow, where's the proof that we wouldn't just go back to tainted food and drugs? I'm interested to hear how others have addressed this debate, so please don't be put off if I rebut your arguments with collectivist rhetoric.