Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Absolute laissez faire capitalism

Rate this topic


Mr. Wynand

Recommended Posts

I had an argument with a friend about laissez faire capitalism. I argued for it, stating that it is the most logical system to deal with others, limited the evils of government, gave man the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness et cetera. He argued, as most liberals do, that economic rights didn't matter because not everyone has access to the knowledge of the market, so other people can "screw" each other over (ex. the subprime mortgages). Therefore, he stated, the only thing that people can trust is the government. How do I respond?

Edited by Mr. Wynand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since he apparently actually believes that people can trust the government and can't trust anything else -- an absurd belief -- I would focus on that. Why can you "trust" the government and not trust anyone else? What magic thing happens to an individual when he becomes part of the government and therefore must speak truthfully, but before (or after) being in the government, you cannot trust him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comments such as his attack capitalism solely on the fact that it doesn't involve central planning, i.e. a common goal - completely begging the question.

I would ask him to clarify his underlying goals. I come across vague rejections like this all the time, e.g. "capitalism doesn't work", "for it to work requires perfect knowledge", etc. But what do they mean by "work" - this word implies an intent or goal, but are they referring to the goal of all individuals, the goal of some groups, the goal of a government, the goal of capitalism, or their personal goal? This isn't clear at all.

Until you can get him to clarify what he means by these statements, you'll just be talking past eachother. And, of course, as soon as you get him to clarify, it'll be that much easier to dismantle his nonsense. His strength is in his ambiguity.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a general rule I avoid political arguments, but if someone insists to have such an argument with me, I make it clear that the conversation will be limited to them defending the use of force.

Unless there's a satisfactory explanation to why force against me is necessary and just for anyone's survival (which is the basis of the liberals' argument: the weak need government to survive), the conversation will not go very far. Usually, if you start down that line, the next stop is charity, which they reject on account of humans being greedy and selfish (and therefor leaving the weak to die).

At this point, I ask them for the cause, and that often brings up "original sin". At that point my position is strong enough to end the conversation, by asking them to prove that the Bible is right: few liberals are happy to have their views traced back to this particular aspect of religion. They are more than happy to stand by altruism (love thy neighbor), but not original sin.

Of course none of this need even comes close to justifying force against those who produce, irrespective of whether charity would take care of those truly helpless or not. It is annoying when someone claims that charity wouldn't be enough, because all evidence says it would, but that's not really the point: the real point is right and wrong, and that's not something I would want to discuss with most intellectuals: it seems like a pretty useless exercise, hence my decision to try and avoid the subject of politics when around liberals.

In conclusion, this approach only works to avoid lengthy arguments. If your intention is to turn someone on to Objectivism, you should probably just tell them about Atlas Shrugged (without sounding like a Bible salesman), rather than trying to sell them on Capitalism. Atlas Shrugged is by far the best form of argument I've ever seen for Capitalism and Objectivism, nothing else even comes close to it (not even Rand or Peikoff's non-fiction). That novel will not only present Objectivist philosophy to the readers, but it will also inspire them. Many people (I'd venture to guess most people) used to love romantic literature growing up, but were later turned on to more modern works and pressured into thinking those are more evolved, they are what an intellectual is supposed to like. Reading a romantic masterpiece for the first time in many years will have a huge effect on those types of people, on a level no amount of utilitarian arguing can.

P.S. If you're a good man, you don't really need to convince people who know you to read a book. All you need to mention tis "hey, there's this book which had a huge influence on my life", and their respect for you will cause them to respect your recommendation, and maybe read it.

However, you really don't need to have anyone read it, or be convinced by your arguments, the way a Christian needs to go out and convert people. You may simply present your position, when appropriate, and let them do as they wish. You should always keep that in mind, when arguing for Objectivism: you don't need anyone's approval.

I had a better quote (Galt said the same thing to Dagny, in the same chapter, but he used a much more elegant wording), but this is all I found by quickly browsing the book, on the subject:

"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart," said Hugh Akston. "That is the moral crime peculiar to our

enemies. We do not tell—we show.

We do not claim—we prove. It is not your obedience that we seek to win, but your rational conviction.

You have seen all the elements of our secret. The conclusion is now yours to draw—we can help you to

name it, but not to accept it—the sight, the knowledge and the acceptance must be yours."

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People in government also do not have perfect knowledge. In fact, no-one has it - it's an impossible thing to have.

I think it is better to approach the issue by stating that "government" as a concept is not evil in and of itself. The purpose of government is actually to protect the rights of all from criminals at home and from attack by foreigners. When properly defined, the government's role is essential to securing peace and providing an environment in which people can trade freely with one another. In fact, in such a society (with properly defined government), its main role would be to handle passports, be a repository for wills and handle estate matters and settle disputes among men. Actual crime as we know it today would all but disappear. The current high level of crime is in my view due to the weakened morality of our age, which is due to the government being an initiator of force.

What has caused our current mess of a situation is in my view totally due to government intervention, especially the tax system, but legislative interventions do their part as well. When the government is given the right to initiate force by taxing people to pay for itself, then by trying to manipulate the market through decrees stipulating how much to produce, when, where and how to produce it, the result is chaos and a destruction of peace. Prosperity that was created, is lost. This is where we are today. The government no longer protects rights but is the biggest criminal of them all, because it acts with the illusion of "right" - the cloak of assumed correctness. "If it is a law, it must be right," is how most people figure it.

Now we have no justice, and our civilization is on the brink of collapse. All the ills we face right now are due to government intervention and government transgressing the basic law of human interaction: that no one can have the right to initiate force.

Edited by AllMenAreIslands
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
I had an argument with a friend about laissez faire capitalism. I argued for it, stating that it is the most logical system to deal with others, limited the evils of government, gave man the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness et cetera. He argued, as most liberals do, that economic rights didn't matter because not everyone has access to the knowledge of the market, so other people can "screw" each other over (ex. the subprime mortgages). Therefore, he stated, the only thing that people can trust is the government. How do I respond?

Ask him if he thinks the government is made of unbending robots, and since this is false, how you can trust people who have the power to "screw you over" with force instead of money.

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...