The Individual

So the bottom line is whatever a company claims its products can do, even if it is horrendously untrue, isn't a fraud? If it is, then I don't understand. Isn't fraud an intentional deception made for personal gain or damage to another individual? The consumers were cheated out of their money. They bought what they thought was advertised when in reality the advertisement manipulated certain facts about the products.

How about this? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/education/24baby.html?hp People bought the Baby Einstein videos because Disney claimed the videos were educational. But it was not and therefore Disney did not fulfill its claim. Is it a fraud when Disney marketed its Baby Einstein videos as educational when results have shown otherwise?

So for example, it would be a fraud if an advertisement of a new medical product presented false benefits of consuming the product?

I was reading this article in The New York Times about the ethics of advertising - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/opinion/...l?th&emc=th Should the company who produces fake advertisements to deceive consumers be punishable by law? It is a form of fraud isn't it?

Raging Panda, have you been convinced?

"Surely, a man who lacks rational capacity cannot be considered a rational being." - ragingpanda All man has the capacity to be rational. It is whether they choose to exercise it.

A "right" is a concept, not something we keep in our pockets and carry around. Rights can only be violated but not stolen.

What are we waiting for? We should all go Galt now.

On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the highest), I was wondering if all of you are complete 10/10 Atheists? Do any of you recognize the possibility of God's existence? Richard Dawkins admitted himself he wasn't a full atheist. He was "6.9/7" Atheist. He said it would be "unscientific" if one was fully convinced God doesn't exist.

Can you be specific, like which policies did the Government enact that caused the Great Depression?

Welcome to the real world.

The people in my country expect the Government to look out for them. We (I'm not one of them) actually want the Government to look out for us. That is the relationship between Singaporeans and their Government. Our Government has a sort of a paternal relationship with the people. We want the Government to do everything for us. We allow our Government to enter into the housing market to provide "cheap and affordable housing" for everyone who needs it. I cannot imagine how much our Government has profited. Our Government plan our retirement by creating a mandatory social security plan which you can only withdraw from at 55 (retirement age) and there are so many ramifications to the plan. Basically the Government is planning everything for you till the day you die. And Singaporeans are proud to have such a "caring" and "people-centered" Government. I am revolted by the majority of spineless Singaporeans. Singaporeans males are required to go through a compulsory 2-year National Service. We pay a 7% Goods and Services Tax for everything we buy. That means even a 7-year-old is being taxed when he buys his candy bar. We have a Water Conservation Tax. I could ramble on but I think I made my point. From the beginning since Independence Day, my people has been heavily dependent on our Government. We have allowed our Government to solve whatever crisis that comes our way, instead of being independent and tackle the problems ourselves. How do we change? How do we shift the mindset of a people who has been perennially dependent on the Government?

Yeah, people normally assume Ayn Rand is right-winged because of her pro-capitalism ideas. It bugs me too. Enjoy the book; I shall wait for your review.

Ah...I see. "Securities firms would pay to get inspected and claim the reputation of having voluntarily met the gold standard of veracity and ethics. The inspection firm would have every interest in being as thorough as humanly possible because one scandal and they're done for. " - I hadn't thought of this, about securities firms paying to get themselves validated. Okay, I understand. Thanks for clearing it up, Jake and Castle.

I'm interested in Ayn Rand's personal life and how she developed her philosophy throughout the years. I watched her speech at Kepler's bookstore. She seems quite okay. But judging from the interview she gave in The Daily Show, she doesn't seem to have a full grasp of Objectivism.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with what Madoff did. It was the complacency of SEC and the thousands of Madoff investors which allowed Madoff to operate a Ponzi scheme undetected for so long. Red flags were raised to SEC about Madoff as early as 1999 by financial analyst, Harry Markopolos, who tried to deconstruct Madoff's strategy and could not replicate Madoff's consistently positive rate of return using his mathematical models. Markopolos eventually decided Madoff was either running a Ponzi scheme or he was engaging in illegal "front running," improperly trading in investors' private accounts ahead of orders the firm received from outside clients. In the following years Markopolos appealed repeatedly to SEC to investigate but the investigations yielded no result. Madoff's investors on the other hand never asked questions. The attitude among them was that it was almost blasphemy to question the actions of a legendary investor. Markopolos described Madoff as “one of the most powerful men on Wall Street,” and that there was “great danger” in raising questions about him: "My team and I surmised that if Mr. Madoff gained knowledge of our activities, he may feel threatened enough to seek to stifle us." I understand that SEC, a government agency, hasn't been effective in its role. My question is would a more vigilant SEC with active regulation policies be more effective in preventing such crime from occurring again? If SEC takes a non-investigative and reactive stance in a laissez-faire society, what would prevent the next Ponzi scheme?

Should I get the Burn's book?

I get what you mean David. But my people has a "Prevention is better than cure" mentality and thus approves of our Government actively participating in, as you said, prohibition of actions which might lead to force or fraud. How about situations where there is already a fraud going on and it is due to active government inspection that the fraud is discovered and subsequently dealt with? If there were no such active policies, the fraud could have ballooned into something huge and the aftermath would be disastrous. (That could be the justification for active Government policies: preventing disastrous aftermaths with ongoing frauds) How is the Government's reactive policies going to restore the balance? Let's take the example of Madoff and assume that the SEC takes a reactive stance to force and fraud, what could happen is Madoff committing his treacherous Ponzi scheme undetected and it is only when his scheme ultimately self-destructs and reveals itself, the Government steps in to punish Madoff. There is going to be a massive trail of destruction (more than US$50b of capital gone, etc). Whereas if the SEC is vigilant and actively pursuing those who are secretly using force and fraud, the Madoff scheme could be unearth earlier, deterring the potential aftermath. Can this be a justification for active Government regulation which is to pursue those secretly using force and fraud and not potential force and fraud? I'm anticipating the question "How then would the Government know which organization is participating in force and fraud?" The Government would have to inspect everyone to uncover the fraudulent ones which is exactly the situation we are against.

I see. Thanks.

My friend recently presented an interesting scenario. He said: If you value your life as your greatest value, then you should have as many altruistic "friends" as possible, knowing that they will sacrifice their life for you, thereby preserving your greatest value. On Objectivist ground, I rejected it (I said I'd be thankful if people sacrificed their lives for me but I wouldn't approve of their actions on altruistic ground) but he claimed that it isn't consistent with my philosophy of one's life as the greatest value. Ultimately, it was reduced into what mattered more - my philosophy or my life. I explained to him that my life is built upon my philosophy. Therefore I value my philosophy more than my life. Was it a correct way of argument?

I understand that the government must have laws in place for force and fraud. But should such policies be proactive or reactive? Should the government take an active role in preventing force and fraud? Or should the government take a reactive role in punishing those who exact force and are fraudulent? Yes, I agree with Nerd that "with regulation, investors are lulled into a sense that all the "obvious" loopholes have been taken care of. Also, because of regulation, people routinely get 100-page documents to read, with every possible warning in the world, that they no longer take any such warnings seriously." Without such regulations, one should think investors would wise up and start planning their investments with more caution and calculation.

The level of regulation in Singapore's financial market (and mostly everything else) is crazy. The Central Bank of Singapore or MAS (Monetary Authority of Singapore) regulates the financial market in almost every place one can think of. MAS, together with SGX (Singapore Exchange) which is the stock exchange, are in a sort of partnership to regulate the banking, insurance, securities and futures industries. And their reason for enforcing such regulation is to "safeguard investors' interests, prevent industry malpractices (ensure markets are fair, efficient and transparent) and minimize systemic risks." I tried to reason with my lecturer that regulations aren't necessary in a laissez-faire capitalistic society. He countered by saying how then do we prevent the likes of Bernard Madoff and irresponsible financial companies from taking advantage of the situation which will eventually result in the loss of thousands of jobs. His issue centrals around the loss of jobs. I explained that, in a free-market society, a company's best rational self-interest is not to manipulate or abuse their consumers. I agreed when he said that there are bound to be a few irrational people who will take advantage of the system and they will cause many job losses when the companies collapse or create a giant Ponzi scheme like Madoff did. If there is a complete separation of state and economics, what will prevent the "industry malpractices" which could cost jobs or prevent another Ponzi scheme from happening? Should the government ensure that individual rights are maintained in the financial market?

Do you know exactly what arguments he put forth for the existence of a Deist god?

Sorry, I do not get what you mean. "Personal choices of Ayn Rand are just that", what's "that"?

Flew converted from Atheism to Deism in 2004. I'm curious as to what convinced him and the arguments he presented for Deism in his books - God and Philosophy and There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind with Roy Abraham Varghese.