A mixed economy is the closest we have come to a free economy, but we have never been totally free. Thus, Objectivism is wrong about its theory of history, which says that people are better off without government regulation. Then, because the theory of history is wrong, Objectivism doesn’t consider history to be important.
If this reflects your thinking, it is total nonsense.
Your reasoning goes as follows: we have never seen a free economy and want to try it.
There is no historical or empirical basis for this. It is a faith, not a conviction. How do you know that it will work? One financial crisis was not enough? Everyone cannot be an Objectivist. Look around yourself. How does Objectivism stand against other philosophies? Or wait, yes, of course, nobody understands Objectivism unless you are an Objectivist. Makes no sense like any circular reasoning. What makes sense is what is going to happen with a minority like Objectivists against the whole world. I know what will happen. To illustrate it bluntly: imagine yourself on an island filled with hungry rats. If you won’t find a way to feed them, you won’t last long.
What are you talking about? I don’t even know where to begin untangling that.
First, Rand and Objectivists stress individualism, individual understanding, individual reasoning. No Objectivist would claim to be the only one who can understand Rand’s ideas. No Objectivist would argue from authority.
The recent financial crisis didn’t disprove a free market. A free market isn’t impossible just because it hasn’t yet existed. There is PLENTY of evidence to support individual freedom and a totally free market. What’s wrong with trying what hasn’t existed yet? Are you kidding with that? How *does* Objectivism stand against other philosophies, you tell me? Etc. etc.
What are you talking about? I don’t even know where to begin untangling that.
First, Rand and Objectivists stress individualism, individual understanding, individual reasoning. No Objectivist would claim to be the only one who can understand Rand’s ideas. No Objectivist would argue from authority.
The recent financial crisis didn’t disprove a free market. A free market isn’t impossible just because it hasn’t yet existed. There is PLENTY of evidence to support individual freedom and a totally free market. What’s wrong with trying what hasn’t existed yet? Are you kidding with that? How *does* Objectivism stand against other philosophies, you tell me? Etc. etc.
Please name me a non-Objectivist who completely and honestly understands Objectivism, and I will with pleasure plunge into studying his or her works.
A free market is possible, yes. What will happen though, once it arrives? I need evidence. No evidence = no predictive power. (However, if it is an acceptable-by-majority philosophy, like Neo-Objectivism strives to be, then there is nothing wrong with trying what hasn’t existed yet.) And even though Rand argued in an interview that she can foresee events (like a prophet would), I suggest not completely trusting everything she said or wrote. After all, she had no complete formal education. She was still a great philosopher, though.
Read Bastiat, Hazlitt, Von Mises, Hayek , Friedman ect see what they say about human interaction and economics.
My pet theory is that capitalism is basically metaphysic, its the recognition of rights and the creation of wealth and we humans operate on it , unless some entity(the state) interferes, actually wealth creation has to exist before it can be curtailed or exploited.
The free market is everywhere the kid’s lemonade stand to the corner merchant. He sells his wares at a profit , not for the sake of you to have the wares you need, you purchase wares a at fair price not for the sake of the merchant, yet both benefit. It’s not so much creating a free market as removing those things that make it unfree.
The free market is everywhere the kid’s lemonade stand to the corner merchant. He sells his wares at a profit , not for the sake of you to have the wares you need, you purchase wares a at fair price not for the sake of the merchant, yet both benefit. It’s not so much creating a free market as removing those things that make it unfree.
That kid would not be selling his lemonade if he had no customers in mind. To sell is to persuade to sell, and persuasion is a social phenomenon. In other words, the kid was aware that he would sell this lemonade to others to benefit them. If he would sell bad lemonade, now, that’s a different question. Then the kid would be selfish and not rational, wouldn’t he? So, there are two things that do not connect in your statement: 1) selling for the benefit of oneself; 2) selling rationally and justly.
Nah he was just using my thirst against me, he didnt care whether or not the ade was good, as long as I assumed it was and would make tht same assumption in the future, if mom let him use the pitcher that is.
Nah he was just using my thirst against me, he didnt care whether or not the ade was good, as long as I assumed it was and would make tht same assumption in the future, if mom let him use the pitcher that is.
I see that that’s the way you like to think. Would you like all sellers to act in the same manner as the little kid, so we have a society full of irresponsible children trying to sell as much as they can?
I see that that’s the way you like to think. Would you like all sellers to act in the same manner as the little kid, so we have a society full of irresponsible children trying to sell as much as they can?
That’s funny. You just managed to capture the essence of how much of government seems to operate with regard to ‘selling’ the citizens more government programs.
That’s funny. You just managed to capture the essence of how much of government seems to operate with regard to ‘selling’ the citizens more government programs.
You are right. I want to be clear: I am against those programs as well. Now, we are dealing with the government, so we have to use rhetorical tools to “trick” (i.e., persuade by any possible means) them to side with us: both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats hate Objectivism, but if we can prove to them that Neo-Objectivism is not the same thing, they could side with us and then we can change their thinking, so they will stop this governmental madness.
You are right. I want to be clear: I am against those programs as well. Now, we are dealing with the government, so we have to use rhetorical tools to “trick” (i.e., persuade by any possible means) them to side with us: both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats hate Objectivism, but if we can prove to them that Neo-Objectivism is not the same thing, they could side with us and then we can change their thinking, so they will stop this governmental madness.
Why doesn’t it surprise me that you would suggest using “trickery” in order to persuade someone that something is not what it is, or is what it is not.
Democrats seem to hate many things that elude their mental grasp. So what? If you want to “trick” yourself along these lines, don’t forget to “treat” yourself come Halloween.
Hm, then I have misunderstood you. I thought that the “theory of history” of Rand was that individuals are better off without strict government regulations.
Please google “theories of history” instead of making up your own meanings for standard term. This type of thing is not a “theory of history”, it is a political philosophy.
Has there ever been a society like so? No, never. And the only example you are going for is America, which is mixed economy. Please correct me, if there had ever been anything close to free-market capitalism historically.
Essentially, what you are saying is that one cannot propose any form of government that has not already existed exactly or close to the proposal.
Also, nobody would say that America is the single historical example to use in support of capitalism. Your problem is that you do not know what capitalism is: it is about individual rights. Examples are abundant… take almost any country in the world, from Japan and China, to India and Argentina and Britain. Also, go back to Venice. Or, further back to the Romans, the Kushans, the muslim traders, etc. Think analytically.
Or the Sumerians one of the earliest cultures to use money.
Yeah, there are so many examples that beg to be analysed.
In fact, for a commie-leaning person, one place would be the Soviet Union: Lenin and Trotsky disagreed about the best way to tackle economic stagnation. Lenin pushed the N.E.P. Ilya could study that episode analytically… i.e. asking “why did this bring improvements?” “how does distributed decision-making work?” “what is the relationship between good decisions and motivation?” “why does a small street vendor approach his customers so differently from a shop-assistant?” etc. etc.
Well the Soviets did figure out how to get the crops to the industrial centers, not sure if it qualifies for a study of economic activity,but that is probably just a cultural bias I can’t seem to shake.
They also had a uncanny way of determining what crops ought be planted where and when. The resultant starvation due to crop failures was simply because their comrades just did not give communism a fair shake.
Of course, if you are Democratic Florida representative Joe Garcia, you can say that “Communism works.” on camera and say, “This is an absurdity, accusing the son of Cuban immigrants of believing in Communism is just ridiculous,” to your local newspaper and hope it doesn’t show up on the Drudge Report as the headline banner: DEM: ‘WE’VE PROVED COMMUNISM WORKS’.
Why doesn’t it surprise me that you would suggest using “trickery” in order to persuade someone that something is not what it is, or is what it is not.
Democrats seem to hate many things that elude their mental grasp. So what? If you want to “trick” yourself along these lines, don’t forget to “treat” yourself come Halloween.
Edited: Added referenced post.
Do you agree that there is a national conflict in America? If so, would you not want to help resolve it? Ignoring conflicts leads to strife. And I am not trying to spread fear here. I see what’s happening in real life. Maybe generating conflicts is what you like doing though. If so, then don’t pretend that Objectivism is a positive philosophy.
Yeah, there are so many examples that beg to be analysed.
In fact, for a commie-leaning person, one place would be the Soviet Union: Lenin and Trotsky disagreed about the best way to tackle economic stagnation. Lenin pushed the N.E.P. Ilya could study that episode analytically… i.e. asking “why did this bring improvements?” “how does distributed decision-making work?” “what is the relationship between good decisions and motivation?” “why does a small street vendor approach his customers so differently from a shop-assistant?” etc. etc.
Do you agree that there is a national conflict in America? If so, would you not want to help resolve it? Ignoring conflicts leads to strife. And I am not trying to spread fear here. I see what’s happening in real life. Maybe generating conflicts is what you like doing though. If so, then don’t pretend that Objectivism is a positive philosophy.
A national conflict? As in one? What is the price of helping resolve it?
A national conflict? As in one? What is the price of helping resolve it?
Yes, believe it or not, a national conflict in the United States of America. The price of helping to resolve it is mutual agreement and collaboration to build a better nation. The result: peace and prosperity. Is it possible, you ask? Yes, it is.
Yes, believe it or not, a national conflict in the United States of America. The price of helping to resolve it is mutual agreement and collaboration to build a better nation.
If indeed there is a national conflict, it does not make sense to say: “Okay, you keep violating my rights, and I will keep violating yours”. Everyone remains unhappy that way. So, the way to go is to say: “if you agree to rollback your violation of my rights, I will roll back the violation of yours”.
So, for instance, the religious wing can say “we will vote to decriminalize most marijuana sale nationwide, if you (green left) will reduce the EPA’s powers” Or, the the left could say “we will vote to reduce welfare by a small percentage, if you will raise the annual limit on legal immigration”
As long as both sides can back away in little coordinated steps like that, giving back rights on either side… the more power to them.
However, if the compromise is going to be the left saying “we will vote to double down on the war on drugs, if you will vote for a nationwide carbon tax”, or if it is the right saying “we will vote to increase welfare slightly, if you will vote to cut immigration further”… then we’re in a death spiral.
So, give and take is probably not the right way to think of it. Rather: “give and give” is a good thing from rights-violators; but, “take and take” is bad.