Is Objectivism Beyond Criticism?

[softwareNerd]

To make it simple I am using GDP per capita as the sole criterion of value. ...

I am just pointing out a weakness that I see in it compared to socialism which would conceivably allow such violations of individual rights.

History has had many examples of countires that have tried all sorts of mixed-economy systems. From history, it is clear that every time private property and other individual rights have been more respected GDP has risen, and it has demonstrated that the more a country has moved to socialist ideals, the less has been the GDP.

Anyhow, Objectivism rejects your criterion -- maximized GDP -- as being a primary goal. So, even the proof from history is sorta moot.

[themadkat]

To make it simple I am using GDP per capita as the sole criterion of value. I am ignoring the effect a law may have on a single individual. If a law increases GDP per capita it should be enacted, within limits.

What difference does GDP make to me? Can you explain to me why I, as an individual, should go along with your glorious plan? What if I decline to participate in your plan, what will you do to me? And how will you justify that action? Is your system prepared to lose in total the value I can offer it should I withdraw my productive capacity?

[Tenure]

Glynelewis, do you understand where the 'product' in 'Gross Domestic Product' comes from? Do you understand why the initiation of force by the government destroys the source of that product? Do you understand why it will never raise production and will only destroy its generation?

[musenji]

How is limiting yourself to one child, when you want to have two, a "small" sacrifice? Further, how is cutting the population in half over the span of a few decades supposed to raise GDP?

Edited September 4, 2008 by musenji

[dadmonson]

To make it simple I am using GDP per capita as the sole criterion of value. I am ignoring the effect a law may have on a single individual. If a law increases GDP per capita it should be enacted, within limits. If legalizing slavery somehow happend to increase GDP that would be wrong for obvious reasons. However, asking people to make "small sacrifices", filling out disclosures for an IPO, not having a second child, recycling, etc., if these sacrifices increase economic efficiency, should not be ruled out just solely because they infringe on an individual's rights and make their life a little more inconvenient.

My goal is not too trash objectivism. I am just pointing out a weakness that I see in it compared to socialism which would conceivably allow such violations of individual rights.

Off Topic but are you an Alias?

[Ordr]

Glynelewis,

If you are truly interested in the specific economics of laissez faire capitalism, how it can be implemented, and how it is the only economic system that can truly protect individual rights, I strongly suggest that you read Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics by George Reisman. It is available for free in *.pdf form if you do not wish to purchase it. I believe that it specifically addresses every question that you have asked.

Edited September 4, 2008 by Ordr

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Well, now, suppose we accept your premise, that it is OK to violate individual rights in order to have lower costs of crucial products.

Objectivism, contrary to any other philosophy, upholds the rights of everyone, even those we disagree with strongly, so long as the initiation of force is not present on their side. While my previous post in this thread might have come across as a personal threat to people holding that "society is supreme" mindset, it wasn't that kind of statement at all, but rather a hypothetical regarding what would happen if those premises were accepted by the majority of the people in a society and without any regard for individual rights. However, finding something someone loves -- i.e. driving and being on the Internet -- and reminding them that if the policy they propose were enacted, then they would lose their right to do those activities. In the extreme, of course, if the individual doesn't matter, then the life of the individual can be forfeit as well -- and this has happened in many societies and governments where the policy of denying individual rights was upheld for the sake of something deemed higher or more important than than the individual life.

Of course, talking about denying individual rights is not a violation of rights, as they have free speech as well as we do, but to enact an anti-individual rights policy is the initiation of force on the part of the government; which Objectivists are most certainly against.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Here is an interesting story concerning the good of the many outweighing the good of the few. The US Federal Government has just taken over two mortgage giants, leading investors into those companies with valueless pieces of paper that said that they are the owners of those companies. I realize that these companies were at risk of insolvency and that one of the options was to declare bankruptcy, which would have left the investors high and dry anyhow, but for the government to do this is the initiation of force perpetrated onto those investors willing to voluntarily take the risk of investing in a company that is not doing well. This is what happens when individual rights are not considered to be sacrosanct and inviolable. Apparently, the Feds have done this several times in the past few years and the previous investors have been left with valueless investments.

Added on edit: Actually, the initiation of force was done twice -- once when the Feds took control of the companies by force, and once when the taxpayers will be forced to foot the bill.

Edited September 8, 2008 by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Here is an interesting story concerning the good of the many outweighing the good of the few. The US Federal Government has just taken over two mortgage giants, leading investors into those companies with valueless pieces of paper that said that they are the owners of those companies.

And the whole world cheered!

Of course, according to the initial premise of this debate, it's OK that the Feds have violated property rights on an unprecedented scale. Joe Investor, who could stand to lose hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollar at the stroke of a gun backed pen, just doesn't matter and is irrelevant -- and it is just a minor inconvenience that he has to bear.

So, Glynelewis -- if you are still out there -- do you think this is OK? And what if the US Government decided to forcibly take over your property, say your house, and kick you out for the good of the people? Would that be OK by you?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Some of you might have thought I was being a bit far-fetched when I said that if a society agrees with the principle that society is more important than the individual, that the individual can be killed if that individual acts against society too much. Well, here is a news story depicting just that:

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — A senior Saudi official said Sunday that owners of satellite TV networks that show "immoral" content should be brought to trial and sentenced to death if other penalties don't deter them from airing such broadcasts.

From the Cleric's own mouth:

"I want to advise the owners of these channels, who broadcast calls for such indecency and impudence ... and I warn them of the consequences," al-Lihedan said. "What does the owner of these networks think, when he provides seduction, obscenity and vulgarity?"

"Those calling for corrupt beliefs, certainly it's permissible to kill them," al-Lihedan added. "Those calling for sedition, those who are able to prevent it but don't, it is permissible to kill them."

In other words, if you broadcast against the accepted views of your fellow countrymen or of the government, you will be killed.

Still want there to be violations of individual rights? Still want society or those in charge to decide when and if you will be free to speak your mind or live your life as you see fit?

[Rearden_Steel]

To make it simple I am using GDP per capita as the sole criterion of value. I am ignoring the effect a law may have on a single individual. If a law increases GDP per capita it should be enacted, within limits. If legalizing slavery somehow happend to increase GDP that would be wrong for obvious reasons. However, asking people to make "small sacrifices", filling out disclosures for an IPO, not having a second child, recycling, etc., if these sacrifices increase economic efficiency, should not be ruled out just solely because they infringe on an individual's rights and make their life a little more inconvenient.

How are you increasing demand for the increased GDP? Were is all this increased buying and selling coming from? You can always produce more but if nobody wants it why would you? Your theory makes no sense.

In laissez faire capitalism the market is always at equilibrium.This is the most efficient the market can get. So what your proposing is impossible. There is no way to force people to want more then their self interest demands.

[Rearden_Steel]

My goal is not too trash objectivism. I am just pointing out a weakness that I see in it compared to socialism which would conceivably allow such violations of individual rights.

I'm sorry but I saw this and laughed because its the exact opposite. How is socialism going to spur demand?

I picture a guy in a Russian hat pointing a AK-47 at a peasant: “comrade, I strongly recommend you begin to desire ipod” (The socialist version of a commercial). They can call the product the “imust”.

Edited September 15, 2008 by Rearden_Steel

[JJJJ]

i dont know if glynelewis is still out there, but i'd be very interested in knowing why it is "obvious" that slavery is wrong if it increases GDP, if GDP is the primary value? Is it just because you don't particularly like slavery, or is there some "objective" reason for why slavery shouldnt be used to achieve the primary value, GDP?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I guess glynelewis has conceded the debate, but I did come across a news story confirming another one of my points, that the Internet is running out of addresses.

So, if we are going to uphold individual rights across the board, the men who can fix this ought to have their rights protected so they can operate unimpeded to fix it; given glynelewis' position, many more people would have to be kept off the Internet.

Unfortunately, I've heard along with this that many websites may not work after the switch-over, and will have to be updated to the new protocols, but that can happen fairly smoothly -- if individual rights are preserved. Of course, if you think the initiation of force and breaking individual rights according to society are supreme; well then, who knows, your website can be forced down or you can be thrown in jail for over utilization of societies resources.

Actually, if they can't come up with a ready fix, that will also mean that things like domain names and Internet access will go up in price; so I hope they can fix it

Edited September 25, 2008 by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.