Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Questions

Rate this topic


JohnS

Recommended Posts

To adrock: I'll look into that. I've taken micro and macroeconomics in college; that is my only exposure. I learned about how a monopoly can slightly cheat the laws of supply and demand by controlling a market. :\ In any case, thanks for the info. I'm chagrined to admit I've never even heard of the Austrian / Chicagoan schools of thought on economics. I was an education major who took a lot of history classes (those damned humanities).

You've never heard of Menger, Mises and Hayek from the Austrian School or Frank Knight and Milton Friedman of the Chicago School? You will find that the Chicago School takes a "practical" approach to economics. Nevertheless, Friedman's work A Monetary History of the United States was the main proponent of the idea that government prolonged the Great Depression, and his arguments eventually won him a Nobel Prize and gained wide acceptance in the economic community.

It's good that you took a lot of humanities classes. To me, humanities is the most important area of study because it revolves around studying man. The problem results from humanities professors denying the fundamental component of man, his reasoning mind. As an education major, you can see the results of this rejection in practice through the acceptance of Dewey in our public schools and the neglect of Montessori, and you can see it in practice in history through the acceptance of materalist views of history, i.e. Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 159
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm afraid that the rich will control too much.

It is the collusion with Government that has given many of the extremely rich the power they have now.

I'm afraid my boss will fire me because of my atheism.

That's a concern about those who believe in fairy tales, not Objectivists. What does religion have to do with job performance?

I'm afraid my gay friend will be fired because of that.

Objectivists would wonder, I think, what sexuality has to do with job performance.

I'm afraid of the Carnegies, the Vanderbilts, the Fords, and the Rockefellers. I'm afraid of tyranny; not only governmental tyranny, but tyranny of one person who controls a huge amount of production.

Now ask yourself - how does one person or group get to control a huge amount of production? Name one HUGE company that could be as huge as it is now w/o Government's being in its pockets at some level?

What if in WWII Henry Ford decided to just shut down the US war machine by stopping production. This wasn't unheard of; FDR was afraid of it and had a plan to take over the factories. Now I don't want to make this into a WWII referendum, but the power of one industrialist to cold stop a war that was supported by hundreds of millions is simply not acceptable. In a left wing state, yes, the government will screw with you to some extent. At least I have a vote in that.

There are so many issues with our involvement in WWII that this cannot be easily addressed. You need a much better understanding of objectivist principles first, I think.

Edited by Greebo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid my boss will fire me because of my atheism

It's HIS business and he has the right to fire you for whatever reason he wants (however irrational that reason may be).

I'm afraid my gay friend will be fired because of that.

It's HIS business and he has the right to fire your friend for whatever reason he wants (however irrational that reason may be).

A private business owner is not obligated to employ people. No person has a right to a job. It must be earned. If you have earned your job, then what reason would your employer have to fire you? If he values your work, why would he want to throw you out? It is YOUR obligation to MAKE yourself valuable to your employer so that he VALUES your employment and wants to keep you - even to the point of paying you MORE than you would receive elsewhere because he wants to keep you and your work for HIS business rather then let his competitor have you.

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed you mention the 'Gilded Age' and speak negatively of men like Rockerfeller. You might find this article interesting:

http://www.andrewbernstein.net/capitalists/9_inventive.htm

FTA:

Not surprisingly, some of the geniuses depicted started their brilliant careers in the second half of the 19th century. Anti-capitalist historians regularly refer to this era as “the Gilded Age,” and deride its great industrialists as “Robber Barons.” They claim that its extensive industrial development was achieved by means essentially tawdry and unprincipled. They are profoundly mistaken, and have failed to identify the essence of the era. It must be known as: the Inventive Period.

I would add, by the way, to what Kevin said, that an employer has the right to fire you for whatever irrational reason he wants - but what he does not have is the right to avoid the consequences of an irrational hiring policy. He could hire chimps instead of humans, since, chimps have no rights and therefore deserve no pay; but then he has to face the consequences of this decision.

Edited by Tenure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He could hire chimps instead of humans

You mean they don't? Ever tried calling a customer support number? :dough:

I agree with Tenure. An employer accepts the consequences. If he fires you and you were a valuable employee, he now has to find someone of equal or greater value than you were or else his business will suffer. Therefore, it is always in an employer's own best interest to employ the best employees regardless of age, sex, or creed. (and just to be pro-active in this argument - the common scenario of "What if you had two people of equal skills but one was black and one was white..." That's hypothetical nonsense. I can attest from personal experience having interviewed many candidates for positions that NOBODY is "equal". There is always something one person has that others don't.)

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one dosen't make an issue of one's sexuality, or one's religious afilliation(s) (or lack thereof), I don't see how these would be an issue. Job performance, and how one fits, or not, into the culture of the workplace should be what matters. That said, I shoud have the right, as an employer, to fire someone for whatever reason I so choose, without the government's permission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hot damn Avgleandt now we are talking. I obviously disagree that the whole system would devolve into repression. I don't think it would become "everyone for everyone" and if it did then people would have done so with their own permission. I do reject the idea that evil cannot lead to good. You can't build civilization without breaking a few eggs and by eggs I mean tribals societies that didn't want to be in Rome and do as the Romans do (or did). I think that the Golden Middle can be maintained and that, pragmatically, immoral actions can have results that are both moral and immorals. You don't get the USA without Native Americans being killed off. I honestly don't know how to morally handle these events. Obviously I find the conquering of the New World as bad, but I like that the U.S. exists. Contradictory, no? Contrary to principle, no? Yet I know not what else to do. While pragmatism seems to make "all possible", I truly feel that principle is just too rigid and a non-starter as the only contributor to political action.

Percisely. You do not know how to handdle these events morally because do not have a moral code, you do not have an ethics. And since ethics hierchaly comes before politics, all you political ideas can be judged just as worthless. US vs Native americans is not a contradiction, nor is it contrary to principle, at least principles identified by objectivists. If you find it that the pricinple you hold contradicts, then it is wrong, check your premises and try again.

Note on principle: I will look into this. I think that when I was 'into' the Objectivist ideas this principle thing is what turned me off without me realing knowing it. It was quite a step for me to consciously accept the pragmatic point of view. I finally decided to hell with principle as I found it too rigid and too easy to contradict. I'd spend so much time trying to find that perfect principle and I just couldn't make it work. At the end of the day I just don't like the reprecussions of objectivism :\ If have to to embrace the all-too-dangerous "the ends justify the means" to avoid a gilded age (and liking it) then I will. When I think of this, I don't neccessarily like it but I truly don't know how else to react. Objectivism may indeed be the perfect philosophy; a pure diamond of thought. Yet it is far too sharp, I feel, to be a philosophy over the vicissitudes of life. I am not for a total rejection of principle. I just think that it must be dilluted by the pragmatic. Maybe pragmatism can be a principle itself?(hmm...thinking cap time) I guess you could say I pragmatically mix pragmatism and principle as needed. In what proportions do I mix them? Well that's arbitrary depending on the situation.;)

I recommend you read Objectivism Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Pikoff. I don't think you know enough about objectivism, priciples, or contradictions. That book is the best material I know for understanding objectivism from begining to end, from metaphysics to aesthetics. Once you have read that book, and you still believe that objectivism contradicts its self, or don't understand something, or disagree with something. Then you can come back here, or any other resource of your choising and ask specific questions. Right now I see this discusion going on to many tangents, we might as well as start with this. Do you agree exsistence exsists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to the "inventive age": We could argue that forever...I don't think it would be an edifying experience for either of us. The likelyhood of you convincing me that labor safety laws (as opposed to letting the free market decide) were / are a bad idea isn't worth the time it would take to explore this avenue; mine or yours.

It is that power of an employer to keep a person in fear and rule them. If an employer can fire me because of any irrational reason, do I REALLY have freedom of speech? Threat of losing a job is no small matter. I simply cannot tolerate a society that would allow someone the power to tell me "If you put an Obama sticker on your car, I will fire you; you will lose your house, car, insurance, and quality of life". I don't want an employer to be able to do that. You may say too bad to me...I say too bad for them. If I have to choose between principle and allowing the elite minds of the world to bully the average then so much the worse for principle. My main concern is not to have an unassailable philosophy of rationality. That is a secondary concern to having a balanced world that most can live with; maximum contentedness without destruction of progress. I desire the unassailable philosophy, sure, and will come as close as I can without abandoning my main goal. I would assume that is what makes me a pragmatist? At the very least I know the importance of that aspect of my philosophy and its cons. I knew this would be educational and challenging ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read what I just said John? Assuming you are a valuable employee, why would your employer fire you for something he disagrees with? Yes, he has the freedom to do so, but the point is, that if he does, it's not in his interest at all. Not only is hiring a new person risky and expensive - i.e. something you don't want to do without a good idea - it is riskier and even more expensive if you pay no attention to quality and instead say, 'Well, is he a Mets or a Yankee fan?'

As to the Inventive Age, the point is not about safety laws, but instead that the money that the 'Robber Barons' made was made completely square. In fact, the people who made shadey money were the ones who made it on the back of government sanction and regulation. If you want to talk about 'safety laws', well, I'm sure there was no danger of falling into a huge piece of machinery in the 1600s, but then there wasn't any danger of being employed then either.

Also, may I add that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of your actions. You're free to say what you like, but you can't act like you live in a bubble, where your actions have no effect on anyone else. 'Freedom' isn't freedom from reality.

Also, may I ask if you've ever worked in an office? It's just that, I can attest that frankly, one does not get fired for this sort of stuff. Bosses just... aren't like I always hear in this fantastical scenarios of 'What if's.

Edited by Tenure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is that power of an employer to keep a person in fear and rule them. If an employer can fire me because of any irrational reason, do I REALLY have freedom of speech? Threat of losing a job is no small matter. I simply cannot tolerate a society that would allow someone the power to tell me "If you put an Obama sticker on your car, I will fire you; you will lose your house, car, insurance, and quality of life". I don't want an employer to be able to do that.

They won't be able to do that if you are an employee who provides value to their organization. If they fired all their employees for putting Obama stickers on their cars, but it happens that those with the Obama stickers were the best employees, then the employer will quickly go out of business because the firm next door will hire all the layed off workers.

That is a secondary concern to having a balanced world that most can live with; maximum contentedness without destruction of progress. I desire the unassailable philosophy, sure, and will come as close as I can without abandoning my main goal. I would assume that is what makes me a pragmatist?

Or a Utilitarian...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I give credit to those industrialists for a lot; I think they could have done what they did while being regulated. I appreciate and fear the Vanderbilts and Rockefellers.

I also did read what you said. I think others picked up on what I feared specifically, arbitrary firing on silly notions. I would respond by saying I'm not comfortable with my only safety being the fact that it hurts the boss to fire me. It hurts me more. He may have 10000 employees, I have one employer. Obviously the amount we have invested in each other is slightly off balance. He can get by with 9999 employees most likely. Secondly, I don't want to be fired and replaced by someone who is just as able simply because of my atheism or any other non-related reason. Also, things aren't so irrational.

Think back to the south in the 1960's. Who would hire a black man in a "real" job. Even if a black man were able to be, say, a manager, noone would hire him to manage white people. This would not only offend the southernor, but would also offend OTHER southernors who would make this betrayer-of-custom pay in either reduced business or open hostility. To me, it is very simple. For w/e reason in the South, blacks were getting screwed. What fixed this? The Federales.

I really can't help but feel you really care and fawn over the Atlases of the world and think that the average should be lucky to have said Atlases and be glad to get what progress they do get from them. Even the idea: The elites as Atlas, the god who holds the world up; as if all are dependant on the elites. I honestly get the impression that you feel about the proletariat the same way the Marxist feels about J.D. Rockefeller. Please tell me I'm wrong or missing something :\

EDIT: I might be a utilitarian. Sounds very...utility like. Part of the reason I decided to come here was the sheer level of knowledge demonstrated (a lot of you seem to know a good amount on economics as well). I'm all for personal edification ;) I hope you benefit from this as I do.

EDIT 2: Utilitarianism seems interesting. It might go a bit too far away from the individual. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you guys hate the ever living heck out of utilitarianism.

Edited by JohnS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bosses just... aren't like I always hear in this fantastical scenarios of 'What if's.

Agreed. I live in Utah - in the Conservative Land of Mormons, Milk, and Honey - Not only am I gay AND an atheist, my (VERY Mormon) "boss" is now my "business partner" because the (VERY Mormon) owners of my company actually valued me so much and wanted me as a part of the company so much - that they made me the offer to become a business partner with them and granted me part ownership in the company. THAT'S an example of a proper way to EARN your employment, and rational business owners recognizing the value of a very good and able worker.

I really can't help but feel you really care and fawn over the Atlases of the world and think that the average should be lucky to have said Atlases

Well, would the average have jobs without the Atlases? Perhaps "Grateful" would be a better and more accurate word. Secondly, if a worker is that expendable, they haven't earned their job in the first place. Again, people are not entitled to a job. It has to be earned. If your livlihood depends that much on your job, isn't that reason to be motivated to become the best damn employee in the place so that you aren't expendable anymore? Do you think that exceptional workers just get ignored by their superiors? That's what "promotion" is all about.

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think back to the south in the 1960's. Who would hire a black man in a "real" job. Even if a black man were able to be, say, a manager, noone would hire him to manage white people. This would not only offend the southernor, but would also offend OTHER southernors who would make this betrayer-of-custom pay in either reduced business or open hostility. To me, it is very simple. For w/e reason in the South, blacks were getting screwed. What fixed this? The Federales.

And the economy was just positively booming, wasn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for personal edification ;)

I don't think many of us here and you will come to an agreement at a political level until other fundamentals are discussed. Political philosophy is one of the higher levels of philosophy, after most of the rest has been answered. I am inclined to say that you and I have radically different conceptions of man and his relationship to existence. Perhaps one of us is a Hobbesian and the other a Lockean in that regard. What kind of art do you like? By art, I mean, most particulary: what are your favorite books (non-fiction) and what painters/paintings do you admire?

Edited by adrock3215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think many of us here and you will come to an agreement at a political level until other fundamentals are discussed. Political philosophy is one of the higher levels of philosophy, after most of the rest has been answered.

John's very belief is antithetical to that. He rejects the premise that political decisions have anything to do with priniciples and philosophy; he believes such an approach ignores the fact the world is a place where you have to make case-by-case decision based on what will work for a certain group of people are a certain time. What will be the best, according to any standard, so long as that standard is not 'the protection of man's naturally guaranteed right to his life'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is that power of an employer to keep a person in fear and rule them. If an employer can fire me because of any irrational reason, do I REALLY have freedom of speech?

I don't want to be an asshole (although since I pretty much am anyways ;) ), but this is an idiotic statement. Free speech applies to political or public speech, not speech between two adults. If we were engaged in a conversation and you started spouting a bunch of Leftist BS and wouldn't listen to reason any more then I would simply walk away and ignore your "right to free speech" if not use my own by telling you where you can go before I did. It is ONLY the government that can coercively restrict speech and it is from government censororship that we must be vigilant, NOT private conversations. If your boss is in a bad mood and doesn't like the color of your socks then he should still have the right to fire you (even though this would be pretty irrational), otherwise his rights are being violated not the employee's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT FOR IRONY: I just found out that the novelist who invented the term "utilitarianism" was named John Galt. Spooky

EDIT FOR EC: Well I disagree. If I go out in public and say "vote Obama" and my boss fires me, I think that is wrong. Call it a principle ;) By your argument couldn't a boss tell his employees to not vote for Obama or they would be fired? Also, compulsory lie detector tests are part of employment? Again, I want freedom from tyranny from government and private interests.

Well I assure you people are fired for stupid reasons all the time and I simply cannot imagine a system that was ok with it. Not everyone is going to be exceptional; 49% of people are below average and they shouldn't be kicked around. I also think they should be just as grateful for the Atlases as the Atlases are to them for existing to actually create what their minds dream up. A King with no subjects is a sad sight indeed. As Goodkind wrote himself: The iron needs the magic, and the magic needs the iron. (though he DOES tend to have the "iron" people die in lieu of the magic guys quite often...hmm...)

Adrock: I have no illusions that we will come to a consensus. That wasn't my point, and I likewise find that to be shooting a bit too high. I just came to learn about where you guys come from and to open a dialogue. I'm willing to be here as long as you'll have me and I'm learning. Now Hobbes vs. Locke...I actually had a snake named Locke once. Hobbes is seductive isn't he...I fear the Leviathan goes a bit far.

S what are my interest: Art: I've never liked stuff that was hard to "get". Splashes of paint do not intrigue me. Picasso, for example, doesn't pique my soul. I'd say Nighthawk is my favorite painting.

The great Greek and Roman sculptures impress me. The architecture does too on a skill level, but not accounting for time period I like gothic architecture, art deco, and modernism. I love the Chrysler building, old intimidating and massive castles, and the old Twin Towers; huge impersonal blocks of money and power....specifically American power (I have a nationalistic strain too; I'm quite the amalgamation eh?).

I love music and even though I'm not trained in music the way I should be, I still appreciate the technicality of classical music. Beethoven specifically. Mozart and Bach are close behind...though again, I'm by no means an expert. Beethoven's music specifically can pour through me.

In literature, well...I hate 90% of poetry and I love prose. I've tried and tried but most poetry I can't stand. I liked the Raven and apparently that's the cardinal sin of poetry. Ok Ok, it gets tedious. I also like Andrew Marvell. "To His Coy Mistress" is another piece of art that can pour through me. Also I hate Faulkner. I cannot stand stream-of-conscousness. I graduated from Ole Miss, and will go to Ole Miss Rebel hell for rejecting Faulkner but I must. I would say my favorite classic author would be Alexandre Dumas. I loved the Count of Monte Cristo. Oscar Wilde's Picture of Dorian Gray is also excellant. 1984 by Orwell and Fahrenheit 451 are also extremely high. I LOVE Bradbury's da coda in F451. I just realized you said non-fiction. Guns Germs and Steel was an excellent book by Jared Diamond. I enjoyed The God Delusion and The End of Faith very much. I'm currently reading Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennet. I plan next to read the Pulitzer prize winning biography of LBJ. I think he's an extremely interesting figure.

Have fun with that :)

Edited by JohnS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think they should be just as grateful for the Atlases as the Atlases are to them for existing to actually create what their minds dream up.

Which is exactly why your argument doesn't hold water. What you just said is EXACTLY why a rational employer WOULDN'T fire his employees for stupid reasons. A rational employer will value the employees of his which make his business run effeciently.

I'm willing to be here as long as you'll have me and I'm learning.

That's great to hear. But I will throw my name is as well to the ever growing number of people suggesting you read Atlas Shrugged because I think it would allow you to answer your own questions since the arguments are there and spelled out perfectly clearly.

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I go out in public and say "vote Obama" and my boss fires me, I think that is wrong. ... ... Again, I want freedom from tyranny from government and private interests.
It is wrong, but it is not tyranny. Tyranny is the use of force (i.e. threat of violence), and you would be guilty of tyranny if you forced someone to hire you despite his (wrong) judgment. Since you have no right to employment, the government must not be a judge of rationality/irrationality in that area. Analogously, if nobody wants to come over to your house for a drink, because you're an atheist, then it would tyranny to force them to do so. It hinges on whether one has a right to a job or to governmentally-reckoned fair consideration, and Objectivism says that there is not such political right.

Practically, it is a non-issue in a relatively free modern and economy like the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I assure you people are fired for stupid reasons all the time and I simply cannot imagine a system that was ok with it.

Show me a successful company that randomly fires employees.

Also, I asked you earlier, and I'm curious to know if you've had a job? I've managed to do stupid things at work which would earn me far more wrath than who I vote for, and I was not fired for them. I've said inappropriate things and *gasp* even said things that my boss personally disagrees with. In light of mistakes I may have made and personal disagreements between me and the various bosses I've had, have I ever been fired? Let me check my pay slips...

The only time I was effectively 'fired' was when *gasp* an employer needed my job to morph into something I was unable to provide him with, which meant I was *gasp* not of value to the company. I didn't lose that job because I support Chelsea and he supports Manchester City - there was simply no profitable trade for one side of the party, and so the contract was ended.

Not everyone is going to be exceptional; 49% of people are below average and they shouldn't be kicked around. I also think they should be just as grateful for the Atlases as the Atlases are to them for existing to actually create what their minds dream up. A King with no subjects is a sad sight indeed.

You want to understand where we're coming from, so you should understand this: Objectivism isn't about crapping on the little guy. We don't think the average guy isn't worth aknowledging - he has rights just as anyone else. Hell, I'd say everyone on this forum is 'average', if you were to put Ayn Rand on one end and Jesus Christ on the other end of the scale.

The point of Objectivism is that no one has any reason to be 'grateful' for anyone. Employers don't hire employees out of a sense of altruism, and employees don't work their job because they love their boss. They both do it for their values - most concretely, in the form of money. It is a matter of trade, not a sacrfice made by one party to another.

Edited by Tenure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you were to put Ayn Rand on one end and Jesus Christ on the other end of the scale.

Jesus is usually put at the end of wooden beams, but I guess scales work too :)

The point of Objectivism is that no one has any reason to be 'grateful' for anyone...not a sacrfice made by one party to another.

I agree, however, I think one can be "grateful" without sacrifice being involved. I am "grateful" Ayn Rand created Objectivism ;)

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me it is a semantic difference. I don't want to be jailed for saying something, and I don't want to lose my job because I exercised free speech. Can anyone address my example of the lie-detector test situation and controlling who people voted for? Is that also the employer's right?

Also, I'll read Atlas Shrugged. It's the least I could do to be discussing the subject. If you would like to reference We the Living, however, I can meet up with you there as I did read that.

Edited by JohnS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone address my example of the lie-detector test situation and controlling who people voted for? Is that also the employer's right?

Yes. An employer would have the right to make you take a lie detector, cluck like a chicken, or drop your drawers. However - YOU have the right to tell him to piss off and walk off his property.

Now there would be a caveat - if you signed an employee agreement when you were hired that specifically stated that you would NOT have to cluck like a chicken and your boss still fired you for not doing so - then you would have a legal basis to sue him for monetary damages and breaking a contract.

Also, I'll read Atlas Shrugged.
Based on what you were saying you enjoyed about art and music, I think you will really enjoy reading the story right from the first page. Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...