Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Svanberg takes a que from Binswanger, gets it wrong

Rate this topic


JamesShrugged
 Share

Recommended Posts

@SNerd

You say it flows through every sentence, but that is not a specific example of Marxist theory and/or conflation of economic and political power. What is a specific example of that in Kevin Carson? It does not match my reading of him.

 

The author thinks that many businessmen owe their position to direct and indirect interventions of the state on their behalf. But how it necessarily follows that this is an example of Marxist theory and/or conflation of economic and political power has not been established.

 

In fact, Kevin Carson is not a Marxist, but rather a left-libertarian of the mutualist variety who takes his inspiration from 19th century individualist anarchists such as Pierre-Joseph Prudhon, Benjamin Tucker, and Lysander Spooner, as well as Austrians such as Mises and Rothbard.

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gramlich

Really? That's the only reason? Because they are "large and successful"? That's the only reason ever? Where is a specific example of that in the above? What if big business were criticized for a different reason, namely because of the relationship between the government and big business being in mutual support?

 

Is that not then objectivists being guilty of conflation, specifically Binswanger and Svanberg in their praise of Goldman Sachs are conflating the results of crony corporatism with free markets, treating the success of the former as though it constituted a reason for supporting the latter. I take that as JamesShrugged's point in this thread.

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Is that not then objectivists being guilty of conflation, specifically Binswanger and Svanberg in their praise of Goldman Sachs are conflating the results of crony corporatism with free markets, treating the success of the former as though it constituted a reason for supporting the latter. I take that as JamesShrugged's point in this thread.

Yeah, I take that as the point, too. The argument in the article isn't horrible, but it's not really a new or radical argument here. Some of it is fine, but it's important to distinguish companies that deserve praise and those that don't. In other words, this article is too short - minimum wage is not so simple in a whole context. Long-form articles, not super short. Just because there isn't deeper analysis means he supports anything unprincipled So a lot is lost in oversimplification. Binswanger's article defies logic, though, because he actually said things I find questionable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"That's because big businesses are always targeted as evil simply because of their success."

 

[Citation needed.] This one of those Randian assumptions that doesn't fit the facts.

 

"It's a point that almost no one makes other than Objectivists."

 

Except every conservative ever.

 

"There's nothing wrong with being large or successful."

 

What if you are at successful at graft and political pull? Still virtuous?

 

"To think Objectivists never point out that the poor are hurt the most due to government intervention is fallacious."

 

Do you have a link to an article explaining as much?

 

"Rand, herself, pointed it out."

 

Yes, She did. But objectivists today don't. That's why I think there is a disconnect between objectivist philosophy and the modern orthodox objectivist movement.

 

 

It's commonly assumed that all large businesses are large due to nefarious purposes. Even companies from the industrial age that had little collusion with government are assumed to be evil and exploitative for seeking profits and succeeding in the attainment of them. What the vast majority of people attack these days is the profit motive as such, that it's bad to want to make wealth. Even conservatives have a lot of trouble being comfortable with large businesses making large profits (You seem to, as well).

But the profit motive is the cornerstone to the entire free-market. Professional Objectivists, and Rand, rightly focus on the profit motive as the main subject of defense and upholding, because it is the most fundamental point that is attacked most rigidly these days.

The other many, many benefits of the free-market come after that principle's defense, particularly when addressing the mainstream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gramlich

Really? That's the only reason? Because they are "large and successful"? That's the only reason ever? Where is a specific example of that in the above? What if big business were criticized for a different reason, namely because of the relationship between the government and big business being in mutual support?

 

Is that not then objectivists being guilty of conflation, specifically Binswanger and Svanberg in their praise of Goldman Sachs are conflating the results of crony corporatism with free markets, treating the success of the former as though it constituted a reason for supporting the latter. I take that as JamesShrugged's point in this thread.

 

I never said it was "the only reason." It is a main reason for people targeting them, however. Most people who criticize business' collusion with the government do so on the grounds that you have the dirty profit seekers corrupting the otherwise pure egalitarians. And it's particularly the very successful companies collusion with the government that brings their ire the most, but this is a mixed economy, which makes success within it more dubious than a free-market.

Judging the merits of a company on the grounds of "Did you have any dealings or manipulations with the government? Then you're bad." is the same as judging the merits of a person on the grounds of "Have you used any government aid or services? Then you're bad."

Snap judgments aren't more acceptable because your target is a company instead of a single person or family.

A company can still be fundamentally good and/or its owners a boon to a society while taking advantage of or being in collusion with the government. I think that's where Svanberg and Binswanger are coming from. I don't think they're conflating anything, just not making a distinction in their short articles.

Of course, I don't know when one assumes a company is fundamentally evil or good.

When I read Binswanger's piece, my first assumption was that he included Goldman Sachs for shock value. I don't know the man, though, and I don't know why he chooses to say everything he does. But I have enough respect for him not to assume he's an ingrate or a stray turd floating in the toilet bowl. So I find a lot of the hostility towards him unjustified.

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...