Maken

This is a really good point, and people here understand why it makes sense, but people in the real world who have not been shown how to reason and rationalize morals would not understand that these two are the same in ideals and principles. But I got what your saying, would just have to explain it.

This is a really good point, and people here understand why it makes sense, but people in the real world who have not been shown how to reason and rationalize morals would not understand that these two are the same in ideals and principles. But I got what your saying, would just have to explain it.

I pulled this off another website: The last scene to include Eddie Willers shows him stranded in the desert. At the end of the book, Eddie isn't dead, nor necessarily even abandoned, but he also isn't shown as having been saved. He might be rescued, or he might die in the desert. We just don't know, because Rand doesn't reveal what he does or what happens to him after he is stranded. This suspense is intentional: Eddie is supposed to represent the "common man," people who aren't inventive geniuses and leaders. His fate is left unresolved at the end of the book to reflect Rand's belief that the fate of ordinary people depends in many ways on the actions of people like Galt, Dagny, etc. Rand described Eddie's situation in a letter to a fan: Eddie Willers is not necessarily destined to die; in a free society, he will live happily and productively; in a collectivist society he will be the first to perish. He does not have the ability to create a new society of his own, but he is much too able and too honest ever to adjust himself to collectivism. (Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 564)

I see, so is this $1.50 an hour worth their time and their work effort is what you are more or less saying? Their work and production is a product and they should sell it at a reasonable price, if they choose to work for such a little salary, that is their fault?

Very good point indeed. Its just the altruism in people that makes debating/arguing fruitless. They have been blinded all their lives by this idea that government intervention is a necessity for equilibrium and success and without government intervention, the evil capitalist will take over and exploit every living being until everyone dies.

Yea I see what you are saying here. Just get the typical, "They can't do that" response so its more or less pointless to argue with ignorance. But I agree with you indeed.

Obviously in a laissez faire capitalism economy there would be no such thing as a minimum wage law, as that requires government intervention and control. In retrospect this is a good thing, mainly because it does not put a price or limit on the minds of the employer and it will ultimately decrease unemployment, as more people could be hired based on their work ability and not their "right" to work. But what if there was a small, rural community. Say there is 1 conglomeration of a factory there and the only thing this community produces is, say, cheese. Having a more or less "monopoly" on jobs for this community, it could do what most statists and altruists like to call "exploit" the workers, being as they would have no other place to work and they would have to find a job there. Being as they are in this position, the factory could set its wages at, just a random amount, $1.50 an hour. In today's inflatted society, one cannot reasonably live on $1.50 per hour and therefore this would be "exploitation" and would require government intervention. I ran into this scenario today when talking about monopolies and minimum wage with a friend and this is the story she told me. I didn't really know what to say besides the idea that they could move to a new location. She merely just presumed that people in this situation cannot even afford to move. Knowing that minimum wage does not solve the issues here, as even if the wage was "regulated" to be a mandatory $3.00 an hour, the company would only hire back half of its employees to even out its budget. This is how I explained that minimum wages do not solve and I ran into the road block of, "And that is also why government intervention is needed, so they could be FORCED to hire back employees at the new minimum wage". More or less I am just looking for input on this and what a good argument would sound like. Sorry if I lost some of you along the way, feel free to ask for clarification.

You assumed he did?

Maybe he was referring to animal classes, aka the food chain?

This is so weird, I was going to post a post JUST like this. This thought came up last night because I thought it was kind of ironic that if you were to die for a free market society to take over, it would be almost altruistic of you? I came to the conclusion that you would have to look at in terms of the Objectivist view on sacrifice. If you value the progression of society to a full free market society (which would benefit friends, family, etc) then it really wouldn't be a sacrifice. We all must realize we will die eventually, and as being a rational being, we should try to extend the length at which we will live, but I think this would be a worthy cause to die for personally, seeing as I would be making a significant contribution for a free market world. It would, be of waste however, if the general public were not educated as to what it means to have a free market society and what it takes to maintain it. If you left the public uneducated to the process and values/morals of a free market society, the altruist would eventually consume the mind of society again.

I am glad everyone enjoyed reading a bit about the "other viewpoint" and getting a good laugh at it. They sure do hate capitalism over there, and they REALLY hate Ayn Rand.

I was looking for some info about monopolies and Ayn Rand's view on them in the free market and I stumbled upon a Communist website (much like this one but for Communism obviously). Curious, I read their FAQ that defines Communism. Below is a link, I find the glaring holes in the theory and its mutated idea of "morality" to be quite funny. How many gaps can you spot?!!? http://www.revleft.com/vb/communismi-t42451/index.html

Thank you

Well lets just use this as an example. Say after we tally up all the necessities a school would need (janitors, teachers, paper, books, etc), what would the prices hit in order for this school to become a profitable venture? Lets just say they got it down to $3,000 a student per year in order to make profit. Wouldn't that be very expensive and rather difficult to pay for?

That was a beautiful response I agree with all of this, just wanted some opinions and ideas and you nailed it. Thanks for the link to the website too, was quite an interesting read!

I think cases like which I provided are uncommon in a "middle class" setting, but what about when you get to the slums of the nation? The few children there that do attend school do so only because it is free to them more or less. Their parents, based on the fact that they live in the slums, probably wouldn't even pay for them to have an education. This is neglect but not in a traditional way. Are these kids not to get a shot in life because of their parent's bad judgment calls?

Wow that is a great way to look at it. Need cannot be a claim more or less? And I am saying, just what if educational made a capitalistic turn and a set of parents refused to send their children to school to save a penny, though it would not be in the child's interest not to get an education.

Obviously the idea of a "nationalized educational service" is something Objectivists do not like. The problem is, is there a viable solution? One could say that we should just make education a private field and let competition control prices, but what about children with negligent parents? I was just arguing this point with someone today and I could not, for the life of me, come up with an alternative.

Yes lets all secede in Texas!

We gotta be optimistic as Objectivists! Maybe it will fail reconciliation and not go anywhere?!!?!

1984 :|

You just made my day a little brighter! Hoorah for the few reasonable people left in the world.

It makes me sick.

I totally agree with you on the whole "technological stunt" that is bound to happen. The whole idea of the "right" to health care is what is really sickening. I know most (if not all) the people on this forum agree with me, it just sucks still.

Actually sick to their stomach over the idea of a Nationalized Health Care? Maybe I am overreacting a bit, but I am only a junior in High School and when I first heard about the Health Care Bill being passed in the House, I was almost in tears with anger... I think it might be the most awful thing ever conceived of in American History.