Extreme poverty contradicts premise of Objectivism

[Saurabh]

Yes, absolutely, because it is capitalism that can restore the "proper distribution of wealth." In a capitalist society, where wealthy but unproductive people cannot rely on political pull to keep them afloat, but the best producers are free to rise from poverty, the former will quickly be out-competed by the latter.

Here's a relevant quote from OPAR:

Thanks.

How would you rank the two options below?

1) Apply laissez-faire capitalism to the current state of the world

2) Apply laissez-faire capitalism, but only after ensuring that wealth mal-distribution issue has been ironed out

Please ignore for now the concerns around how one would fix the mal-distribution. Thx!

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

1) Apply laissez-faire capitalism to the current state of the world

2) Apply laissez-faire capitalism, but only after ensuring that wealth mal-distribution issue has been ironed out

Applying capitalism sooner than later, with a focus on preserving individual rights, would eliminate the second option in the long run. The only claim to mal-distribution of wealth would be those who got wealthy due to special favors from the government or forced monopolies,which would not be available under capitalism. In short, those relying on special favors and forced compliances would got out of business in a free market. As to whether or not that ill-gained wealth out to be taken from them when capitalism enforced, it all depends on the justice involved. If they took it by force, then there might be grounds for retribution; though I think you are too focused on the mal-distribution of wealth. Under capitalism, each man who is productive would benefit, and the sooner this is enacted, the better. So long as individual rights are upheld -- including property rights -- then the details of any retribution can be worked out in that framework. And on what grounds would you retrieve the ill-gained wealth if capitalism is not upheld? In Atlas Shrugged some of the ill-gained loot was returned to the producers, by a strict code of justice, so something like that could be worked out, but I think you would need capitalism and property rights before that could occur.

[Lucio]

There isn't anything inevitable about the rise of socialism / Marxism either in the United States or elsewhere. The world works via ideas that are accepted, and so long as people accept the idea that it is OK to soak the rich via taxation and redistribution, then yes, socialism will advance. It's not that capitalism is some sort of unobtainable utopia, but rather it is an unknown ideal, one that has been covered over with a lot of misrepresentation. If government didn't have the power to redistribute wealth, then socialism wouldn't advance, and the idea of individual rights can take hold and stop that insanity. So, don't think it is inevitable, because it isn't. Communism collapsed as an ideal due to it not being able to get the most impoverished people out of poverty. Once capitalism is better understood then it can rise again, but it is going to take some time and a lot of campaigning for the right ideas. If you give up on ideas, then yes, what happens to the world is inevitable, but in such cases you are exempting yourself from any influence on history. The moral stance is to be for individual rights, and not to say that socialism is inevitable.

Imaginary country, lets call it "southland":

You have 1 millon people, 100.000 are higly productive, rich. 800.000 are middle class, 100.000 are poor.

Everybody votes.

900.000 will agree to take from "the rich" to give to the "poor".

That's democracy+human nature.

Socialism is NOT inevitable, but democracy+universal vote+population -sadly- tends towards "taxing the rich", d u agree?

I guess that in order to have laissez fare capitalism, you need a "small" country leaded by an enlightened minority and some restriction in who can vote. I believe it was the case in the foundation of the US.

But today, with "democracy" as the magic word... you'll see populism and taxing the rich everywhere.

[Jake_Ellison]

I guess that in order to have laissez fare capitalism, you need a "small" country leaded by an enlightened minority and some restriction in who can vote. I believe it was the case in the foundation of the US.

Yes, that was the case in the beginning, in the US. Women and blacks did not vote, only white males did. Prior to the 1820's, white men who owned land, afterward, up until roughly 1920, all white men.

The restrictions are mostly race and gender based. In Europe, on the other hand, the restrictions were based on social standing, namely a small clique of aristocrats was allowed to participate in government, no one else.

Are those the restrictions you mean? If not, what should the restrictions be?

Thanks.

How would you rank the two options below?

1) Apply laissez-faire capitalism to the current state of the world

2) Apply laissez-faire capitalism, but only after ensuring that wealth mal-distribution issue has been ironed out

Please ignore for now the concerns around how one would fix the mal-distribution. Thx!

Since I'm not allowed to ask for clarifications on how mal-distribution is going to get fixed, I would call 1) a great idea, and 2) the meaningless psycho-babble of fascists and tyrant wannabes, who are decrepit, talentless idiots wishing to use "social injustice" as an excuse to steal from and crush their betters.

If, on the other hand, fixing mal-distribution were to be defined as providing objective justice, the righting of the objectively proven crimes of individuals, then I would say 1) and 2) are exactly the same.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I guess that in order to have laissez fare capitalism, you need a "small" country leaded by an enlightened minority and some restriction in who can vote. I believe it was the case in the foundation of the US.

But today, with "democracy" as the magic word... you'll see populism and taxing the rich everywhere.

Yeah, well, democracy is a bad political principle, if that is all there is to it -- it is the tyranny of the majority. America is not and never was a democracy, it is a constitutional republic using democratic means to elect government officials (and this wasn't the case for Senators at the beginning). A constitutional republic has a constitution limiting the powers of the government, and to have that one needs an informed electorate. It wasn't that the US was small at the beginning and therefore it worked, but rather it had principled men who understood their rights and elected to put a government in place that would protect their rights. This idea of individual rights got corrupted over the years and centuries due to bad philosophy, and in the end, it is philosophy that matters -- the philosophy of the individuals in a country (or a significant and influential group of men). It is not the current size of America that brings us democracy in the bad meaning of the word (majority rule) but rather bad philosophy behind those who are elected to office, who don't know anything about individual rights. It is only an educational campaign that can turn this country around, and that is what needs to be worked on. Uphold and promote individual rights and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which was the foundation for this country. Speak out against government encroachments on those rights, and the tide can be turned. Leaving it as it is only guarantees that socialism will occur, not so much because the majority wants it (which I don't think they do at this time) but rather because capitalism will be drowned out with a non-hearing.In other words, don't give up your rights as an individual, regardless of who you might think is against you in a semi-free country. We are not yet politically condemned for our ideas or rounded up into prisons for speaking the word "Freedom!" so don't give up to those who don't understand the issues involved.

[Saurabh]

Since I'm not allowed to ask for clarifications on how mal-distribution is going to get fixed, I would call 1) a great idea, and 2) the meaningless psycho-babble of fascists and tyrant wannabes, who are decrepit, talentless idiots wishing to use "social injustice" as an excuse to steal from and crush their betters.

If, on the other hand, fixing mal-distribution were to be defined as providing objective justice, the righting of the objectively proven crimes of individuals, then I would say 1) and 2) are exactly the same.

Jake,

The process for fixing the mal-distribution will have two design elements:

- Guiding principles for the process

- Operational details of the process

I wanted us to ignore only the operational details for now. And, I am in full agreement with you on the guiding principle that the process should be objectively just.

Now, I still want to understand better how are 1 and 2 the same.

If someone has an unfair start over me (due to previous mal-distribution), then he will progress faster than me in a l-f capitalist society - e.g if he is rich, then he can buy better training than me from the free market, and get ahead.

What are your thoughts?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

If someone has an unfair start over me (due to previous mal-distribution), then he will progress faster than me in a l-f capitalist society - e.g if he is rich, then he can buy better training than me from the free market, and get ahead.

I think you are too focused on this issue. Do the wealthy have an advantage over you, yes, does it matter under capitalism, no. Under capitalism, you have your freedom to prosper and that is a tremendous advantage. Remember, the wealthy would not have political pull because that would effectively be illegal, only individual rights would be upheld by the government -- that would be your advantage.

To answer the other question about how justice would operate towards those who got their wealth unjustly, there could be trials regarding that, or just let the market operate. If they got their wealth through political pull and can't do that any longer, then only the most ardent producers would win out in the long run and they ill-gotten gains would vanish. Under capitalism, someone having money is not a threat to you; under any variant of socialism everyone is a threat to you and your success.

In other words, stop worrying so much that someone might have an economic advantage over you and fight for capitalism where you will be free to succeed.

[Saurabh]

I think you are too focused on this issue. Do the wealthy have an advantage over you, yes, does it matter under capitalism, no. Under capitalism, you have your freedom to prosper and that is a tremendous advantage. Remember, the wealthy would not have political pull because that would effectively be illegal, only individual rights would be upheld by the government -- that would be your advantage.

To answer the other question about how justice would operate towards those who got their wealth unjustly, there could be trials regarding that, or just let the market operate. If they got their wealth through political pull and can't do that any longer, then only the most ardent producers would win out in the long run and they ill-gotten gains would vanish. Under capitalism, someone having money is not a threat to you; under any variant of socialism everyone is a threat to you and your success.

In other words, stop worrying so much that someone might have an economic advantage over you and fight for capitalism where you will be free to succeed.

Your argument makes lot of sense to me.

I am wondering what makes most people around us not see this logic. Do you have any hypothesis here?

Coz if we can understand this, then it will become easier to establish Capitalism...

P.S. Not sure if I am digressing from the original debate here..

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Your argument makes lot of sense to me.

I am wondering what makes most people around us not see this logic. Do you have any hypothesis here?

The nature and benefits of capitalism has been distorted by its enemies and it doesn't have a strong voice right now aside from Objectivists. American conservatives try to support it, but without a morality of egoism, it won't have moral support, and even the conservatives tend to be altruists. We need to continue to speak up for egoism against collectivism and spread the word about the advantages of capitalism. That's why Objectivists say a philosophical revolution needs to occur before we have capitalism, people have to come to understand the benefits of reason and egoism before a cause for capitalism will take effect. But it is ideas that are important in this case, as ideas lead people to follow certain ideals. So spread the word.

[Lucio]

Yes, that was the case in the beginning, in the US. Women and blacks did not vote, only white males did. Prior to the 1820's, white men who owned land, afterward, up until roughly 1920, all white men.

The restrictions are mostly race and gender based. In Europe, on the other hand, the restrictions were based on social standing, namely a small clique of aristocrats was allowed to participate in government, no one else.

Are those the restrictions you mean? If not, what should the restrictions be?

On a side note, most women were not interested in politics by the S.IXX (by education?), and blacks were slaves.

I guess the intended filter was just property ownership, race and gender were means of selection at the time, not the reason for the filter.

Ok, let's dream... how about "one tax dollar one vote", for tax increases ?

How about that, in order to increase deficit or taxes, people should vote specific proposals in the general election,

counting "one tax dollar, one vote"?

Just dreaming....

[freestyle]

Ok, let's dream... how about "one tax dollar one vote", for tax increases ?

How about that, in order to increase deficit or taxes, people should vote specific proposals in the general election,

counting "one tax dollar, one vote"?

Just dreaming....

That's what real Capitalism would be, but without the need for democratic votes on deficit spending on this or that. If there were a proper government, which only was concerned with protecting and defending individual rights, how one's own money gets spent really would be totally up to them.

A separation of economy and state would necessarily lead to thriving PRIVATE organizations for any services and needs in demand (as long as these organizations do not initiate force or fraud against individuals, they would be legal.)

[dollardoctrinaire]

So basically, I'm saying that if the government doesn't assure education, health, and all the basic services (even highways, etc), people won't get them through capitalists' eagerness to earn profit or there intelligence to see a business.

Here, you just inventing a fictional entity called the "people". There is no such thing. We're all individuals. The motive for profit is what makes the West civilized. We do not want to go back to the dark ages (aka socialism) by going against profit.

If all needs were satisfied through that than there wouldn't be so much poverty.

Nonsense. As long as there continue to be lazy, stupid people who refuse to work, there will be poverty. Read the Austrian school economists.

It looks more like most capitalist tend towards monopolies if they can.

This is only because of government intervention.

By abolishing governments intervention in the economy, the world will become a just place?

We're not concerned with "a just place" or anything of that sort. We're just concerned with individual rights and freedoms and as long as individuals don't tread on others' freedoms, that will be as just a society as we can have. The government has a monopoly on the use of force. This monster called the government should be curbed as much as possible. It should be made available only for protecting property rights of all citizens. The government causes all the problems, and can never give solutions.

[Jake_Ellison]

Jake,

The process for fixing the mal-distribution will have two design elements:

- Guiding principles for the process

- Operational details of the process

I wanted us to ignore only the operational details for now. And, I am in full agreement with you on the guiding principle that the process should be objectively just.

Now, I still want to understand better how are 1 and 2 the same.

If someone has an unfair start over me (due to previous mal-distribution), then he will progress faster than me in a l-f capitalist society - e.g if he is rich, then he can buy better training than me from the free market, and get ahead.

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are that you're talking about some type of a competition. I'm not, I'm talking about freedom. If someone has better training than you, that is not something that harms you in any way. You do not have the right to have the same training everyone else has. All you have the right to is the freedom to act, as long as you're not hindering other people's actions.

Your problem isn't that you want to fix mal-distribution the wrong way, your problem is that mal-distribution is left undefined, as is justice, as is morality, as are rights. It's pointless, thoughtless rhetoric, and whatever conclusions you reach are the same. You're just using mal-distribution as an excuse for whatever ideology you want to believe in. If it happens to be Capitalism, it's not gonna stay that way for long.

You need to learn how to think, first. I don't know you, and I don't know anything about you, so I have no idea if you're willing to do that or not, and how you should go about it. If you're in school, I suggest paying more attention, especially at math and science, where you can practice identifying and applying concepts properly.

On a side note, most women were not interested in politics by the S.IXX (by education?), and blacks were slaves.

I guess the intended filter was just property ownership, race and gender were means of selection at the time, not the reason for the filter.

The reason for the filter was that blacks were not considered human, and women were not considered smart enough.

Ok, let's dream... how about "one tax dollar one vote", for tax increases ?

How about that, in order to increase deficit or taxes, people should vote specific proposals in the general election,

counting "one tax dollar, one vote"?

Just dreaming....

That's a complicated way of saying that you want taxes replaced by voluntary donations. (though I'm confused about the deficit, who gets to vote for that again?)

But you have not mentioned who gets to vote for President, and Congress.

Edited November 11, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[freestyle]

The reason for the filter was that blacks were not considered human...

That is not correct.

There was a distinction in the US Constitution made between slaves and free men. This was a compromise between the anti-slavery northern states and the southern states that wanted to retain slavery. There were free blacks in the north that exercised the right to vote (including the vote to ratify the constitution itself). Great Britain prohibited abolishing slavery in the colonies before the revolution, after which it was abolished in the constitutions of the northern states.

The 3/5 compromise, where slaves were considered to count as 3/5 of a person, was actually inserted by ANTI-slavery northern politicians in an attempt to block the southern states from using the number count of non-voting, non-freed slaves to give the slave owners more seats in congress.

You can read Federalist 54 to see that they were well aware of the obvious contradiction and the appearance to history of having to ratify a constitution that allowed for slaves and slave owners. Somehow they ended up with a document strong enough that would sustain a civil war that ended the contradiction about 50 years later.

[Lucio]

That's a complicated way of saying that you want taxes replaced by voluntary donations. (though I'm confused about the deficit, who gets to vote for that again?)

Mmmm... no. I'm saying exactly what I've said,

the key phrase being "one tax dollar, one vote" (instead of "one man, one vote")

To clarify: if you paid 50.000 on taxes, your vote weigths 50.000

You paid no taxes and live on welfare, your vote weigths 1.

The more you contribute to the state expenses, the more you influence budget decisions.

[Maarten]

Mmmm... no. I'm saying exactly what I've said,

the key phrase being "one tax dollar, one vote" (instead of "one man, one vote")

To clarify: if you paid 50.000 on taxes, your vote weigths 50.000

You paid no taxes and live on welfare, your vote weigths 1.

The more you contribute to the state expenses, the more you influence budget decisions.

Is the idea here that wealthy people are more rational, so by tying voting to donations (or taxation) the more productive members of society would have more say? I think that's a reasonable way of implementing voting, but it wouldn't work in a mixed economy like ours where many rich people only got there by government lobbying and so forth.

I really think the issue of who votes is a very minor problem; far more important is what the function of government is and what legislators can do once they're elected.

[Saurabh]

My thoughts are that you're talking about some type of a competition. I'm not, I'm talking about freedom. If someone has better training than you, that is not something that harms you in any way. You do not have the right to have the same training everyone else has. All you have the right to is the freedom to act, as long as you're not hindering other people's actions.

Dear Jake,

Your basic assumption here is that life is not a zero-sum game. That, in a capitalistic society, we all have more freedom, and so we can expand the size of the pie.

I also belive that.

My question is: What is the best way to convince other people of this? Lot of people are afraid of capitalism as they believe that life is zero-sum game - and if someone has unfair start over them, he will be able to get a part of their share of the pie too.

Also, you don't have to know me to argue with me. Just focus on my arguments, and not on me.

[Jake_Ellison]

Dear Jake,

Your basic assumption here is that life is not a zero-sum game. That, in a capitalistic society, we all have more freedom, and so we can expand the size of the pie.

I also belive that.

You didn't sound like you believed that, when you suggested the exact opposite, in your previous post.

My question is: What is the best way to convince other people of this? Lot of people are afraid of capitalism as they believe that life is zero-sum game - and if someone has unfair start over them, he will be able to get a part of their share of the pie too.

Not reinforcing that belief will help, so will offering evidence to the contrary.

Also, you don't have to know me to argue with me. Just focus on my arguments, and not on me.

You are the source of your arguments, and your arguments are full of contradictions. For instance, the post I asnwered assumed that life is a competition, and it is unfair that some people are ahead at the start. Now, you are claiming to agree with the exact opposite.

But it's not really any of my business why, you're right.

[Saurabh]

You didn't sound like you believed that, when you suggested the exact opposite, in your previous post.

Not reinforcing that belief will help, so will offering evidence to the contrary.

You are the source of your arguments, and your arguments are full of contradictions. For instance, the post I asnwered assumed that life is a competition, and it is unfair that some people are ahead at the start. Now, you are claiming to agree with the exact opposite.

But it's not really any of my business why, you're right.

Dear Jake,

I understand your reaction now. Actually, I was trying to play devil's advocate.

My belief is that if one stands for something, one must rely on his independent judgement. And one must develop that by arguing from both sides equaly fervently - and then reaching a conclusion. I admire AR so much that I don't want her to become my crutch.

[Jake_Ellison]

Dear Jake,

I understand your reaction now. Actually, I was trying to play devil's advocate.

My belief is that if one stands for something, one must rely on his independent judgement. And one must develop that by arguing from both sides equaly fervently - and then reaching a conclusion. I admire AR so much that I don't want her to become my crutch.

Ayn Rand was one of a kind. You're not going to find the same answers on your own, without using the knowledge she put down on paper. Refusing to use that knowledge, at any point, is going to handicap you. You can very well rely on your own judgement, without developing your knowledge on your own.

I also disagree that if you want to come up with something on your own, the way to do it is to argue from "both" (why just two?) sides. That's not how 'thinking' works. Thinking involves integrating new information into an already integrated whole, which is your view of the World.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Lucio]

Ayn Rand was one of a kind. You're not going to find the same answers on your own, without using the knowledge she put down on paper. Refusing to use that knowledge, at any point, is going to handicap you. You can very well rely on your own judgement, without developing your knowledge on your own.

hold on... this borders personality cult and blind faith. Blind faith in objectivism is an oxymoron.

The first thing you do once you understand the core of objectivism is to use your own mind to contrast everything against reality, including objectivism itself. AR work is exceptional, but I -guess- she was wrong some times (not in the core of objectivism) and also she did not write about every subject.

I also disagree that if you want to come up with something on your own, the way to do it is to argue from "both" (why just two?) sides. That's not how 'thinking' works. Thinking involves integrating new information into an already integrated whole, which is your view of the World.

You're wrong. Playing devil's advocate helps you to find out if your're reasoning from reality, or your're following a "whim" or "desire" or "need" to reach certain conclusions. That's an honest and reasonable way to check "what" you're integrating in the whole.

IMHO Saurabh seems to be using his mind and thinking for himself.

Your last answer sounded... let's say not objectivist.

I'm not attacking you, nor doubting your knowledge. Just stating that your last answer was more personal than rational.

Put "Karl Marx" where you write "Ayn Rand" and ityou can copy and paste it to a collectivistic forum.

"XX was one of a kind. You're not going to find the same answers on your own, without using the knowledge he/she put down on paper."

See?

Just MHO.

[Jake_Ellison]

I'm not attacking you, nor doubting your knowledge. Just stating that your last answer was more personal than rational.

In one post you called me an idol worshiper, you accused me of not being an Objectivist, you're suggesting I'm a collectivist, and now you're claiming I'm irrational. You're fucking attacking me. You just can't seem to not be wishy washy about it, since then even you would feel compelled to consider the need for at least a tiny bit of reason why I would be any of those things.

I suggest you start being specific about what I said that's idolatry, irrational or collectivist, or shut up about what my posts "seem like" to you. I don't care what I seem like, I care if you can name a specific thing I'm wrong about.

Put "Karl Marx" where you write "Ayn Rand" and ityou can copy and paste it to a collectivistic forum.

"XX was one of a kind. You're not going to find the same answers on your own, without using the knowledge he/she put down on paper."

See?

Just MHO.

I can put anything on any forum that's open to the public, including what I wrote, with Marx's name instead of Rand. I agree completely. What's your point? If you're trying to accuse me of being a collectivist, I suggest you name what I said that's collectivism.

What I said, and what you seem to be disputing, is that Ayn Rand was a genius, and that I've seen no evidence that Saurabh is one. I'll stick by my opinion, if you wish, I can back it up. (the part about Ayn Rand being a genius)

If you have evidence of the contrary, post it, but stop with the name calling.

[Lucio]

I said what I said, and not what you think i've said.

I was talking about the post, not about you.

If my comment is not usefulf to you... ok, nevermind. It was not intended as an insult.

bye.

[Saurabh]

Ayn Rand was one of a kind. You're not going to find the same answers on your own, without using the knowledge she put down on paper. Refusing to use that knowledge, at any point, is going to handicap you. You can very well rely on your own judgement, without developing your knowledge on your own.

hold on... this borders personality cult and blind faith. Blind faith in objectivism is an oxymoron.

The first thing you do once you understand the core of objectivism is to use your own mind to contrast everything against reality, including objectivism itself. AR work is exceptional, but I -guess- she was wrong some times (not in the core of objectivism) and also she did not write about every subject.

Guys,

I think the best position to take on this would be:

AR was a genuis indeed. Now, it would make sense to stand (not sit) on her shoulders and take 'Objectivism' forward.

Do you guys agree?

[freestyle]

From Ayn Rand Answers

The Best of Her Q & A

Is there any validity to the technique of the devil’s advocate?

AR: Yes, it’s very valuable. Playing devil's advocate means assuming a role opposite to your own conviction; advocating ideas the "devil" would throw at you. This technique trains you to answer every objection to your position. It's a good way to test your ideas, because if you encounter an objection you can't answer, you better find the answer or correct your thinking. (pgs. 178-179)