Thoughts on my view of producers vs. looters?

[Sturmgeschutz]

Background of reading: Atlas Shrugged, Anthem, First 294 pages of The Fountainhead (small Paperback with 694 total pages)

Books I have on hand : The Fountainhead, Philosophy Who Needs It, The Virtue of Selfishness, For The New Intellectual, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal.

If there are any references to books, I'd appreciate it if you could point me to one of the ones I have read or have on hand. I understand if the topic is discussed outside my immediate resources.

I believe that I have a misunderstanding of the relationship between producing, looting, and morality, as discussed by Ayn Rand, and I was hoping someone could point out where I have gone wrong.

I understand that:

Producers trade some service, idea, or other "goods" (as in consumable, not moral) in exchange for money (or another service, idea, good, etc.)

Looters trade nothing on their end, for a service, good, idea, or money, on the other end.

(I'm sure that is where the problem lies)

People (often producers) use their reasoning ability to make life easier. It is moral, and smart, to create/invent something that is more efficient than what we have (i.e. Rearden Steel, Galt's engine, the computer, etc.).

It is moral and smart to maximize your money, by getting the highest amount of returns on your money. I.e., it is smart and moral to buy a burger for $.40 when there are two competing stores selling burgers for $.40 and $3.00 (and its the same quality).

The best possible returns you could get on your money (and therefore your time, effort, thought, sweat, etc.) is to get something, for no money at all.

In following this I came to: Looters are both moral, and the smartest, by getting the maximum utility for their time.

I know that doesn't jive with Objectivism, so I was wondering where I screwed up. I know its probably something elementary.

[colin]

Assuming that yours is an honest attempt to work out a problem that is bothering you, I would say to you that you have framed your question in a manner that begs the question.

Producers trade some service, idea, or other "goods" (as in consumable, not moral) in exchange for money (or another service, idea, good, etc.)

No. Producers produce items of value. It is moral to do that. Traders also produce something of value and then trade that.

Looters trade nothing on their end, for a service, good, idea, or money, on the other end.

(I'm sure that is where the problem lies)

No. Looters take values produced by others by the initiation of force. This is not moral, nor is it trading.

The best possible returns you could get on your money (and therefore your time, effort, thought, sweat, etc.) is to get something, for no money at all

I doubt that a person could accomplish this without looting. Are you aware that this is possible. Where do I sign?

[softwareNerd]

Sturmgeschutz,

For starters, consider what would happen if everyone decided that the "looter's morality" was right. You can see that it would be impractical. In the "looter's morality", looting is one "good", but another (indeed higher good) is the existence of someone following a "producer's morality".

Do you see that problem there? The "looter's morality" is impractical a a moral principle.

The only context in which the "looter's morality" has plausibility is if he (and a few like him) are the only ones who are not producing, but living off the producers.

Do you agree with that?

[Sturmgeschutz]

Oh, I certainly see where the problem is with the "looter's morality." I guess I left that as an unstated assumption that that was the contradiction I was facing. Oops.

I think colin answered most of my question. (I did forget about how force initiation got factored into this).

I was curious. Are all traders producers? (not vice versa) I know (now) that I described traders above.

Also, in reference to the money for nothing example, I was thinking of people on welfare (whether they "need" it or not). True, it takes some time to go and register for it, so it is not the perfect example.

What category do people fall under that do nothing, and get paid? I.e. rich daddy pays for everything, or people that accept gifts. They are getting money just for "being".

[Inspector]

Sturmgeschutz,

Let me say first of all that you did phrase your question in a good way. Although the flaws have already been pointed out, it was still phrased in the form of an "honest question" rather than a presumptuous argument, which is what we often get here.

But, yes, as has been already said: The keys are twofold:

1) The important action is not so much the trading, but the production which must precede the trade.

2) The looters are not trading at all, but initiating force.

[JMeganSnow]

The problem here is incredibly simple: Producers don't trade goods for money. They trade them for other goods. Money qua money has no intrinsic value, unless you can trade it for some actual goods.

Say you manage to cheat a wheat farmer out of his profits and get money out of it. What will happen? The farmer will go out of business and there won't be any wheat for you to buy. What good is your money if you can't buy what you need with it?

It doesn't matter whether you project these consequences to one farmer or ten million businessmen, whether you take everything that they own or only "some" of their "excess" profits: the effects are the same. Obtaining money by looting does not benefit you; it reduces the goods and services that are available for you to buy.

[Styles2112]

What category do people fall under that do nothing, and get paid? I.e. rich daddy pays for everything, or people that accept gifts. They are getting money just for "being".

Assuming that I understand things correctly, Ms. Rand had three catagories for people-

Producers- Those using reason and intelligence to produce valuable goods for trading or personal satisfaction

Looters- Those who use the initiation of force to take valuable goods, generally from the producers

Moochers- Those who accept charity, yet do nothing to take steps to becoming a producer (i.e. your example). While no real initiation of force is used, Moochers will often play upon guilt (see: Rearden's brother Philip) or ignorance.

Hope this helps some, and if anyone else sees any corrections that need to be made, I appreciate the help.

Edited December 29, 2005 by Styles2112