Why Objectivists are so hostile to the idea of consumer rights?

[Moebius]

I understand Objectivism. Did you read the quote? That is what Moebius is asserting, not me.

I ask you AGAIN and for the final time to please stop putting words in my mouth.

I already stated that the free market would solve the problem in theory. Following your inability to comprehend what I had actually said, I further clarified that I am a believer of the said theory. And here you are attempting ONCE AGAIN to claim that I do no believe the free market actually works in practice.

First of all, the free market concept IS a theory. So I am correct in stating it as such. Second of all, when someone specifically said they believe in something, they generally believe that it works.

My point was simply that to put the said theory in practice requires more than simply ridding all regulations in one swift stroke. IN PRACTICE, a government monitoring system and a heightened consumer awareness must be set in place first, before the market can be deregulated. In other words, you do not teach a child to swim by throwing him into a shark-filled ocean. You begin with a shallow pool and some floating devices and work your way up in order to minimize the potential risks. A free market is the eventual goal, but it would be better for the system as a whole if we take it slow. While I believe that humans are rational beings capable of making their own decisions, the capacity to do so is something that needs to be honed and cultivated.

[Moebius]

It is quite difficult to understand a person's tone through the internet. My mistake.

Then I advise you in cases where you are confused to take the words precisely the way they are stated instead of adding your own assumptions.

Yes actually. That makes it look like you believe it to be only a theory and not practical. Again, sorry if I was mistaken.

And I am sorry for your confusion.

So now you don't regard the theory as practical. Do you see why I was unable to understand your position? What sort of collusion would the government need to monitor? And of course the government will protect against fraud. That is one of its assumed roles in a free market.

I regard the free market theory as the highest ideal and the final expression of human rationality. It is the eventual goal, to get there we must take it one step at a time.

An example of collusion between manufacturer and third party evaluator is a pharmaceutical company providing kick-backs or gifts for doctors and hospitals that recommend their product. As far as government protecting against fraud -- that is its assumed role under an Objectivist system. By definition a Free Market assume no coercion or fraud between buyer and seller (or from third parties), with everything determined by transactions based on mutual consent governed solely by the law of supply and demand.

As you can see, that requires ALL CONSUMERS and PRODUCERS to be honest, rational, and aware. That is why while I consider it to be the ultimate expression, practically other steps must be taken first. Rather than commenting on the validity of the Free Market, I was commenting on the length of the path getting there.

[ers]

As you can see, that requires ALL CONSUMERS and PRODUCERS to be honest, rational, and aware.

This statement right here is where all doubts I have about Objectivism comes from.

Most people aren't rational and honest. Most people are ignorant, barbaric cattle.

Stating that the market will auto-correct and discourage individuals and businesses from acting unethically is almost naive. But maybe that's just because I have no faith in people.

[KevinDW78]

Stating that the market will auto-correct and discourage individuals and businesses from acting unethically is almost naive. But maybe that's just because I have no faith in people.

I don't think this is the case. If individuals and businesses act unethically or irrationally, they will die (under a true free-market.)

[Qwertz]

A free market doesn't require anyone to act rationally or ethically in order to work. If someone acts irrationally or unethically in a free market, the market still works - it punishes him by ensuring that he faces all the consequences for his irrational or immoral act. In a non-free market, the government absorbs the ill effects of irrational behavior and spreads them out to the whole economy, where they don't belong. In a free market, the government leaves well enough alone on the irrational acts, letting them take their natural course, and punishes those who act immorally - i.e. commit fraud or some other initiation of force against other market actors.

~Q

[ers]

I don't think this is the case. If individuals and businesses act unethically or irrationally, they will die (under a true free-market.)

I'm being somewhat of a devil's advocate, but allow me to elaborate.

This is a real story:

A guy with no license and no insurance rides his motorcycle. A guy in a truck switches lanes without looking and hits the guy on the motorcycle. Guy in the truck stops to see if guy on motorcycle is OK. He is slightly injured and his bike is totaled. Guy in truck finds out guy on bike has no license or insurance. Guy in truck knows that guy on bike can't call the cops, so guy in truck drives off without fear or repercussions.

Now, is the guy on the bike in the wrong for not having a license or insurance? Of course. But what the guy in the truck did is still extremely immoral. But, he lives to drive another day.

This is what businesses do as well. They cut corners when they know they can get away with it, and given the opportunity will behave unethically when it behooves them.

[eficazpensador]

An example of collusion between manufacturer and third party evaluator is a pharmaceutical company providing kick-backs or gifts for doctors and hospitals that recommend their product.

And if the product is crappy, how long do you think the hospital will keep its reputation?

By definition a Free Market assume no coercion or fraud between buyer and seller (or from third parties), with everything determined by transactions based on mutual consent governed solely by the law of supply and demand.

As you can see, that requires ALL CONSUMERS and PRODUCERS to be honest, rational, and aware.

No, under a Free Market coercion is illegal. Those who initiate force are punished (fraud is the initiation of force). The Free Market protects property rights. It is not anarchy. The Free Market doesn't require everyone be rational, it just promotes it.

That is why while I consider it to be the ultimate expression, practically other steps must be taken first.

Once again, you say quite clearly that it is an ideal that is not practical right now. If suddenly we were placed into a Free Market, it would not require government regulation. It is not a utopia like communism. It doesn't require anyone to be anything but human.

[eficazpensador]

A guy with no license and no insurance rides his motorcycle. A guy in a truck switches lanes without looking and hits the guy on the motorcycle. Guy in the truck stops to see if guy on motorcycle is OK. He is slightly injured and his bike is totaled. Guy in truck finds out guy on bike has no license or insurance. Guy in truck knows that guy on bike can't call the cops, so guy in truck drives off without fear or repercussions.

Now, is the guy on the bike in the wrong for not having a license or insurance? Of course. But what the guy in the truck did is still extremely immoral. But, he lives to drive another day.

Yeah, the guy in the truck initiated force against the motorcycle driver, but its the bike driver's fault he can't call the police. The situation is similar to a man who is out streaking in only a trench coat. Lets say while running around flashing people, he gets robbed and the thief takes his coat. The streaker can't call the police and report the theft for obvious reasons. The streaker and the bike rider, decided that their illegal hobbies were worth the potential downsides. They ultimately chose to take the risk.

This is what businesses do as well. They cut corners when they know they can get away with it, and given the opportunity will behave unethically when it behooves them.

The story about the truck driver is entirely unrelated to businesses. If a business can get away with cutting corners, then clearly the consumers don't care that they do it.

[Tenzing_Shaw]

A guy with no license and no insurance rides his motorcycle. A guy in a truck switches lanes without looking and hits the guy on the motorcycle. Guy in the truck stops to see if guy on motorcycle is OK. He is slightly injured and his bike is totaled. Guy in truck finds out guy on bike has no license or insurance. Guy in truck knows that guy on bike can't call the cops, so guy in truck drives off without fear or repercussions.

And capitalism is somehow to blame for this? Since you are assuming that the police should but won't act properly here, would this not be the fault of the govenment?

Now, is the guy on the bike in the wrong for not having a license or insurance? Of course. But what the guy in the truck did is still extremely immoral. But, he lives to drive another day.

First of all, you cannot somehow cause unjust behavior to disappear by granting extra powers to the government. Your claim seems to be that the government should force the truck driver to pay for damages. If so, how does this example have anything to do with capitalism?

This is what businesses do as well. They cut corners when they know they can get away with it, and given the opportunity will behave unethically when it behooves them.

But unethical behavior never "behooves" anyone, and those who "cut corners" will suffer under the free market due to loss of reputation, loss of trust, loss of money from lawsuits, and loss of self-esteem. If a businessman wishes to cheat his customers, nothing the government can do will stop him. Conversely, if the businessman is honest, nothing the government can do will make him more honest. For an eloquent argument concerning the practicality of ethical behavior in business, I highly recommend the following speech by BB&T chairman John Allison: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDAn51D_YxY.

You claim that you lack faith in people, and you use this to justify government regulation. You forget that the government is merely a collection of these so-called "ignorant, barbaric cattle" whom you profess to distrust. Not only that, but government employees lack even the incentive to be honest which exists in the free market. The whole line of reasoning about most people being untrustworthy is simply a double-standard.

[Juxtys]

From: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=145724

If consumer rights would be so important, you might as well put a warning on this topic: WARNING: You might get a heart attack by reading discussion about nuts and peanuts. If my heart conditions were poorer, I could have died from laughing too much.

[ers]

You guys are taking what I said the wrong way.

Of course I don't think more government involvement is the answer. And I'm not trying to justify more government regulation at all. I'm just pointing something out.

The story about the motorcycle guy is just an example. Given the opportunity, people will just simply be shitty. Just because the guy didn't have a license didn't justify the truck driver in abandoning his responsibility after hitting someone. Would he have gone to jail? Probably not. He might get some points on his license and as well as higher insurance premiums. To him, he saw an opportunity to shirk his responsibility to the person he caused harm because he knew there would be no repercussions due to a technicality.

This kind of behavior applies to business simply because businesses are comprised of individuals.

But unethical behavior never "behooves" anyone, and those who "cut corners" will suffer under the free market due to loss of reputation, loss of trust, loss of money from lawsuits, and loss of self-esteem.

This is simply not true. I have to work with a company that has several lawsuits against it that could have been prevented if the company had acted ethically in the first place. They don't care. To them, it's an expense of doing business, and they succeed regardless. A business will act this way as long as they can fiscally get away with it. When they are caught behaving unethically they pawn the blame off to either certain individuals or management in order to save their reputation. Maybe things change for a little while. Years later when the incident is forgotten, the business resumes it's unethical behavior.

See, I work under the assumption that everyone is an irrational, unethical moron until they prove me otherwise. This is due to many things; mostly a general observation of life in my dealings with people every day. Most of the time I'm correct.

Objectivism seems to exalt mankind to some high state. In reality, people are simply trite, backstabbing, stupid, irrational, disrespectful, mean, jealous assholes who will do what they can to get ahead in life, even if it involves stepping on others. If you give people an opportunity to behave unethically if they think they won't get caught, they'll take it.

I honestly don't know what point I'm trying to make here... because I certainly don't think the government has any business regulating... well anything. Like I said, I just have no faith in anyone.

Edited July 23, 2008 by ers

[EC]

It's not that Objectivists are "hostile" to "consumer rights" it is that they don't exist. The following from the Lexicon should show why.

Individual Rights

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

“Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 93.

“Rights” are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.

“Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 92.

Edited July 23, 2008 by EC

[Tenzing_Shaw]

This is simply not true. I have to work with a company that has several lawsuits against it that could have been prevented if the company had acted ethically in the first place. They don't care. To them, it's an expense of doing business, and they succeed regardless. A business will act this way as long as they can fiscally get away with it. When they are caught behaving unethically they pawn the blame off to either certain individuals or management in order to save their reputation. Maybe things change for a little while. Years later when the incident is forgotten, the business resumes it's unethical behavior.

It is absolutely true. Do you believe that it is possible for a man to act in a consistently immoral manner and still succeed in life? If so, then I ask you: what, in your opinion, is the purpose of morality? Morality is not based on arbitrary "responsibilities" to others. On the contrary, morality is about long-term successful survival.

As for lawsuits being an expense of business, why do you automatically conclude that this attitude is immoral? It is certainly true that companies should produce the best product they can with the resources they have available. Mistakes happen, however, and it is not the responsibility of a company to bankrupt itself by spending every spare penny on safety and quality control. If a company makes few mistakes and takes responsibility for the mistakes it does make (by paying law-suits), I do not see what the problem is. Now, it would be immoral for a company to ignore a serious defect it knew existed. I do not accept that companies do this as a matter of course. Look around you: how much of the technology you use every day works flawlessly, and how much randomly breaks and/or injures you?

See, I work under the assumption that everyone is an irrational, unethical moron until they prove me otherwise. This is due to many things; mostly a general observation of life in my dealings with people every day. Most of the time I'm correct.

That is a very irrational assumption. I advise you to read about Gail Wynand from The Fountainhead or Dr. Stadler from Atlas Shrugged, and to examine exactly what affect this premise had on their lives.

Objectivism seems to exalt mankind to some high state. In reality, people are simply trite, backstabbing, stupid, irrational, disrespectful, mean, jealous assholes who will do what they can to get ahead in life, even if it involves stepping on others. If you give people an opportunity to behave unethically if they think they won't get caught, they'll take it.

I am sorry that you think so. You seem to be a defender of individual rights, though. What do you think is the purpose of individual rights?

Like I said, I just have no faith in anyone.

You needn't have "faith" in anyone. In fact, your position amounts to having faith in evil, by arbitrarily assuming that those you meet are irrational. You seem to believe that businessmen are predominantly unscrupulous predators. I suggest you view the lecture which I linked to in my last post, keeping in mind that John Allison is chairman of a multi-billion dollar bank.

[ers]

As for lawsuits being an expense of business, why do you automatically conclude that this attitude is immoral? It is certainly true that companies should produce the best product they can with the resources they have available. Mistakes happen, however, and it is not the responsibility of a company to bankrupt itself by spending every spare penny on safety and quality control. If a company makes few mistakes and takes responsibility for the mistakes it does make (by paying law-suits), I do not see what the problem is. Now, it would be immoral for a company to ignore a serious defect it knew existed. I do not accept that companies do this as a matter of course. Look around you: how much of the technology you use every day works flawlessly, and how much randomly breaks and/or injures you?

I'm not necessarily talking about mistakes in this instance, I'm talking about serious negligence and unethical behavior. I of course can't go into detail/specifics because of legal reasons , but I'm talking about outright fraud, nepotism (which leads to demoralization), fabrication of data, and safety concerns. These aren't mistakes... they're actually PART of this company's business model. They have shown their desire to continue acting like this, accepting the inevitable lawsuits and of course high turnover rate as a cost of doing business. And this company succeeds and *thrives*, primarily because it's clients never know they are being cheated. When one occasionally does find out, the lawsuit happens, but like I said, it's simply the cost of doing business. There's no permanent damage. And there's certainly no shortage of naive clients.

Again, I'm in no way suggesting that it should be the government's responsibility to police these kinds of organizations, I'm just trying to point out a cold, nasty truth about many people in this world. It's a horrible thing, but to ignore it is just stupid.

That is a very irrational assumption. I advise you to read about Gail Wynand from The Fountainhead or Dr. Stadler from Atlas Shrugged, and to examine exactly what affect this premise had on their lives.

No, it's quite rational. Respect must be earned, never given blindly. If I give someone the "benefit of the doubt", I am usually disappointed. There is nothing cynical or negative about this outlook, it's just simply based on empirical observations from day to day life. Besides which, those are characters from fictional novels. I don't let my outlook affect my life. I'm just a realist.

You needn't have "faith" in anyone. In fact, your position amounts to having faith in evil, by arbitrarily assuming that those you meet are irrational. You seem to believe that businessmen are predominantly unscrupulous predators. I suggest you view the lecture which I linked to in my last post, keeping in mind that John Allison is chairman of a multi-billion dollar bank.

Alright, I'm going to go out on a limb here. Most of us on these forums can probably agree that anyone who subscribes to one of the major religions in this world (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism) is likely not a rational human being (at least in some capacity, as religion underscores and dictates many aspects of life). In my day to day affairs, my chances of meeting another atheist are slim to none. Then my assumption that most people I meet are not rational is certainly not arbitrary, it's grounded on the FACT that most people in this world are religious, and thus, irrational.

And I'm not saying that ALL businessmen are unethical jerks. But a lot of them are- and I simply recognize that.

True, if every person on this planet were a rational, intelligent being then we'd already have a completely free market based on capitalism because it would make sense. The problem is, most people are not like that, and consequently, there is no such thing as a real free market right now.

It almost reminds me of those Muslims who claim, "The world would be perfect if only everyone were a Muslim." Right. Good luck getting that to happen.

[Tenzing_Shaw]

I'm not necessarily talking about mistakes in this instance, I'm talking about serious negligence and unethical behavior. [...]

Fair enough. I do understand that there are companies that act in this way, but I dispute two points in your analysis:

1. Such unethical behavior is common practice.

I say again: look around you. When I do so myself, here is some of what I see: My wrist-watch has run for years, and still keeps time accurately to at least the nearest second. The computer I am typing on does not suddenly self-destruct. There was a big storm a few days ago, and the power lines outside of my window did not come crashing down. I take several medications, and most of them work spectacularly. I could continue this list indefinitely. The point is that, next to the achievments of productive individuals, phenomena such as financial dishonesty and engineering failure are rare and insignificant.

2. Such behavior can be gotten away with.

If you believe this, I ask you again: what, in your opinion, is the purpose of morality?

Again, I'm in no way suggesting that it should be the government's responsibility to police these kinds of organizations [...]

Why isn't it their responsibility?

No, it's quite rational. Respect must be earned, never given blindly. If I give someone the "benefit of the doubt", I am usually disappointed. There is nothing cynical or negative about this outlook, it's just simply based on empirical observations from day to day life. Besides which, those are characters from fictional novels. I don't let my outlook affect my life. I'm just a realist.

Since humans possess free will, you cannot use your observations of irrational people to draw conclusions about strangers. Neither respect nor dis-respect should be granted blindly. Either choice is arbitrary (a judgement not based on relevant facts).

Then my assumption that most people I meet are not rational is certainly not arbitrary, it's grounded on the FACT that most people in this world are religious, and thus, irrational.

It isn't arbitrary if you know that the person is religious. It is arbitrary to use the fact that most people are religious to pronounce judgement on a stranger, or on mankind in general. Also, keep in mind that many people are rational in some areas of their lives and not in others. Thus, it may still be possible to gain great value from associating with a person who holds certain irrational ideas, as long as those ideas are not relevant to the nature of the interaction.

And I'm not saying that ALL businessmen are unethical jerks. But a lot of them are- and I simply recognize that.

How do you know that "a lot of them are"? My experience suggests the opposite.

Your experience with irrational people does not free you from the responsibility of selfish action. Some people are indeed irrational. It is up to you to judge rigorously who is and who isn't, and to act accordingly. It is up to you to try to make others see reason when it is in your interest. It is up to you to reward the good and to refuse to sanction the evil. In essence, it is wrong to regard chosen human actions as metaphysically given (people are evil; oh well, who is John Galt?). Instead, you must confront irrationality in other people (in the context of your own life), as something which is not necessary to man, and which can be dealt with and defeated (if violence is not involved) through reason.

[ers]

1. Such unethical behavior is common practice.

It is. I can also list examples indefinitely.

My mortgage company appended a "reserve requirement" to my monthly payment without notice. They figure most customers won't notice the extra amount since it's so small. They take my money and get to earn interest on it without my permission. I was able to remove the payment, but I had to waste nearly three hours on the phone hopping from representative to representative to get it accomplished. Sure, I could refinance and go with a different company but that would cost me thousands of dollars in fees and in all likelihood, my mortgage would end up getting sold to the previous company anyway.

My car salesman outright lied about the coverage of the extended warranty he sold me. When I called to complain, his manager said, "I can't do anything." I had to call the Better Business Bureau to resolve the issue.

I used to work at Best Buy. We were told by supervisors to lie to the customers to sell junk accessories and service plans. If we refused, our hours were reduced to nothing and we were written up for things we didn't do.

Some jerk at a pizza place wrote in a tip value on my credit card receipt even though I crossed a line through the tip and total fields. After weeks of playing phone tag with my bank and the credit card company, faxing multiple documents, and signing forms in person, I was refunded the $3.50. Yes, that was worth hours of my time.

What is the common theme here? Yes, they might all be small annoyances, but that is the point. Most people consider them to be small enough to not even bother with, which is why they happen in the first place. Countrywide will continue with reserve requirements, pizza guy and car salesman still have their jobs, and Best Buy (the largest consumer electronics retailer in America) continues to screw it's customers by lying to them ["Of course that service plan covers water damage!... <snicker>].

Which brings us to..

2. Such behavior can be gotten away with.

People get away with it largely because it goes unnoticed. I happen to notice *everything.*

I say again: look around you. When I do so myself, here is some of what I see: My wrist-watch has run for years, and still keeps time accurately to at least the nearest second. The computer I am typing on does not suddenly self-destruct. There was a big storm a few days ago, and the power lines outside of my window did not come crashing down. I take several medications, and most of them work spectacularly. I could continue this list indefinitely. The point is that, next to the achievements of productive individuals, phenomena such as financial dishonesty and engineering failure are rare and insignificant.

Well, this is the saving grace, that good work does get recognized. Which is why when I see an exceptional employee anywhere I always fill out a card to let the management know.

If you believe this, I ask you again: what, in your opinion, is the purpose of morality?

I'm not questioning the *purpose* of morality, I'm simply pointing out that unethical behavior not only exists, but is rampant, and goes largely unpunished because people are apathetic to it.

Since humans possess free will, you cannot use your observations of irrational people to draw conclusions about strangers. Neither respect nor dis-respect should be granted blindly. Either choice is arbitrary (a judgement not based on relevant facts).

Why not? It doesn't affect how I treat people. I don't dis-respect anyone. I am always polite and smile, make small talk when necessary, and treat people *with* respect, even though I might not fundamentally respect them. I'm not some sort of troglodyte who hisses at people when they walk by me. Besides which, as I said before, my "prejudice" (if you want to call it that) *is* based on relevant facts (observation and statistics). I don't think to myself, "this person I just met is probably an irrational moron, I'm not even going to give him a chance." More simply, I just assume the worst and hope for the best. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. But probably not.

Thus, it may still be possible to gain great value from associating with a person who holds certain irrational ideas, as long as those ideas are not relevant to the nature of the interaction.

Right, but like I said, religion tends to underscore everything a person is all about. Our science stagnated for *centuries* because of religion. We might have colonized Mars by now if it wasn't for religious attitudes in the past, and the millions of apathetic people who *let* it happen. And it scares me that in this day and age, so many people adhere to ancient beliefs that have no place in a truly civilized, rational, society.

How do you know that "a lot of them are"? My experience suggests the opposite.

Because I've had to deal with many of them. Again, observation.

Your experience with irrational people does not free you from the responsibility of selfish action. Some people are indeed irrational. It is up to you to judge rigorously who is and who isn't, and to act accordingly. It is up to you to try to make others see reason when it is in your interest. It is up to you to reward the good and to refuse to sanction the evil. In essence, it is wrong to regard chosen human actions as metaphysically given (people are evil; oh well, who is John Galt?). Instead, you must confront irrationality in other people (in the context of your own life), as something which is not necessary to man, and which can be dealt with and defeated (if violence is not involved) through reason.

I agree. I fight against irrationality every day.

My point is simply this:

Sometimes it's overwhelming. Often it's discouraging... like shoveling sand against the tide.

[fletch]

The story about the motorcycle guy is just an example. Given the opportunity, people will just simply be shitty.

You might be right about that, but you cannot make policy or law based upon the lowest common denominator. Just because someone, somewhere might do the wrong thing does not mean that we should all surrender our liberty. In any society, free or otherwise, there will always be plenty of people eager to swindle you out of what is yours or cheat when they think no one is looking. All a bunch of layers of government regulations do is give you a false sense of security--thus making the cheaters job that much easier.

[Moebius]

And if the product is crappy, how long do you think the hospital will keep its reputation?

This would really depend on how efficient the market is. In a perfectly efficient market, the effects would be seen IMMEDIATELY. The pharmaceutical market in particular is extremely inefficient largely because of government regulations AND the fact that it is an extremely specialized field where information acquisition is difficult and require a high level of knowledge to make rational judgments and analysis.

No, under a Free Market coercion is illegal. Those who initiate force are punished (fraud is the initiation of force). The Free Market protects property rights. It is not anarchy. The Free Market doesn't require everyone be rational, it just promotes it.

No. Under a Free Market coercion does not exist, BY DEFINITION. The concept of anarchy does not apply since comparing the Free Market to a political system is like comparing apples to oranges.

Once again, you say quite clearly that it is an ideal that is not practical right now. If suddenly we were placed into a Free Market, it would not require government regulation. It is not a utopia like communism. It doesn't require anyone to be anything but human.

There is really no point arguing about this. I will say again -unequivocally- that I believe the Free Market works. However I think an instant de-regulation would be like throwing a man dying from hypothermia into a tub of extremely hot water. If he is strong enough then perhaps he could survive the shock, but if he isn't his systems might shut down from shock and you'll end up with a bigger mess on your hands. I am suggesting that it is better to place him in cool water and slowly bring up his body temperature. The ultimate goal in both approach is to restore the man's health.

[Moebius]

This statement right here is where all doubts I have about Objectivism comes from.

Most people aren't rational and honest. Most people are ignorant, barbaric cattle.

Stating that the market will auto-correct and discourage individuals and businesses from acting unethically is almost naive. But maybe that's just because I have no faith in people.

I agree that there are a lot of ignorant people out there. But I also think we have overall a much more rational society today than at any other period in our history.

Bottom line is that I think all people are born with the capacity for rationality. But that capacity is something that needs to be developed and cultivated. It might not be possible to make every single person this way, but realistically I think you just need to reach a critical mass of rational people in a population for the system to work.

[KevinDW78]

ers, all the examples you gave above are red herrings. I don't care about a lick of them. They are simply all examples of bad business practices. Oh well - that's life. Caveat emptor, baby!

Don't like the terms of your mortgage? Don't get a mortage through them in the FIRST PLACE.

Don't like Best Buy's practices, DON'T SHOP THERE!

Don't like the pizza guy? DON'T EAT THERE!

Edited July 24, 2008 by KevinDW78

[ers]

ers, all the examples you gave above are red herrings. I don't care about a lick of them. They are simply all examples of bad business practices. Oh well - that's life. Caveat emptor, baby!

Don't like the terms of your mortgage? Don't get a mortage through them in the FIRST PLACE.

I didn't. It was sold to them [Countrywide] by Wells Fargo three months after I bought the house. And like I said, refinancing costs a considerable amount and wouldn't be prudent at this point.

Don't like Best Buy's practices, DON'T SHOP THERE!

I don't.

Don't like the pizza guy? DON'T EAT THERE!

I don't.

These examples aren't meant to do anything than illustrate the point that bad business practices do exist, are common, and largely go unnoticed and/or unpunished by consumers (who generally shrug it off as unimportant or insignificant).

[KevinDW78]

These examples aren't meant to do anything than illustrate the point that bad business practices do exist, are common, and largely go unnoticed and/or unpunished by consumers (who generally shrug it off as unimportant or insignificant).

And again, my answer is, so? Why should I care?

[Tenzing_Shaw]

My point is simply this:

Sometimes it's overwhelming. Often it's discouraging... like shoveling sand against the tide.

If your point is simply that, then I don't disagree with you, except about the extent of the irrationality. Ayn Rand herself was often discouraged by the evil she saw around her. The real question is: what principles, if any, do you draw from this attitude? You implied earlier that this point causes you to have doubts about Objectivism. However, Objectivism does not hold that most or even many people are necessarily rational (only that rationality is possible and right).

You seem to agree that the government should not attempt to regulate the ethical behavior of businesses. Where exactly do you depart from Objectivism, if you do?

[ers]

And again, my answer is, so? Why should I care?

I never asked you to care. What is your problem?

This conversation stems from the idea that businesses, under a true free market, will automatically and logically always behave ethically because it will behoove them. I am arguing that this is not necessarily the case, and providing valid counterexamples to show that unethical practices happen, are common, and continue to happen, regardless of the supposed "consequences" of bad reputation and lost customers.

You said

If individuals and businesses act unethically or irrationally, they will die (under a true free-market.)

And I completely disagree. Best Buy is one such business. People are willing to tolerate their unethical practices because they have low prices. [best Buy] is willing to outright lie to and cheat their customers because they know the hit to their reputation won't be enough to dissuade people from shopping there (if anyone even finds out they are behaving unethically).

Which brings me back to my original point... people aren't by default rational and logical. It takes a drive to become that way and many more people are comfortable stagnating in their own ignorance. So many of you seem to profess such blind faith in ideas like the free market, and capitalism, that you fail to recognize the flaws in people. Yes, if every one were rational, the free market would function perfectly.

In reality, consumers are stupid, and businesses are shady. Life goes on.

Edited July 24, 2008 by ers

[ers]

If your point is simply that, then I don't disagree with you, except about the extent of the irrationality. Ayn Rand herself was often discouraged by the evil she saw around her. The real question is: what principles, if any, do you draw from this attitude? You implied earlier that this point causes you to have doubts about Objectivism. However, Objectivism does not hold that most or even many people are necessarily rational (only that rationality is possible and right).

You seem to agree that the government should not attempt to regulate the ethical behavior of businesses. Where exactly do you depart from Objectivism, if you do?

What principles? Maybe none. In practice, I end up being very cautious in my dealings with, well everyone. By assuming that people behave unethically, I always come out on top of most situations by prudently planning ahead. I don't consider that prejudice or discrimination, I just think that's common sense.

I don't depart from Objectivism as I've never claimed to actually be one, never having read anything by Ayn Rand. I am, however, surrounded by them (my fiancee is one, as well as her brother) and I know enough about it. Plus I like arguing.