I suppose in a state with no taxes there would be no way to illegally reside in the country, unless you didn’t own where you lived. Point taken, no need for illegal immigration.
Okay, to play devil’s advocate I have a few scenarios. I am curious to how they would be handled in an Objectivist society.
SCENARIO ONE
The Objectivist society is invaded by a neighboring militant collectivist country whose state-funded army is five times the size of the Objectivists’. Large sums of money–billions of dollars–are required in extremely short notice to combat the invading force. Meanwhile, because of the sudden warfare, the economy suffers a major downturn as a result of lost production, changes in the desirability of many goods, eliminating billions of dollars of wealth because of the market drop. In short order, the cost of many raw materials such as fuel and steel, are going to skyrocket because of the increased demand on the market needed for a massive military buildup.
What would be the proper Objectivist course of action for this scenario? Would you really believe that, having lost untold amounts of wealth, that a sufficient amount of money, labor and raw materials could be raised on a solely voluntary basis?
SCENARIO TWO
Three major corporations build automobiles in the Objectivist country. In order to maximize profitability, they decide to streamline their business models. First off, they all agree to reduce their advertising budgets to roughly half their previous spending–all three companies pledge to spend the same amount; less advertising for each company results in less expenses and therefore more profit for all. Secondly, they agree to price their vehicles identically–but they roughly double the price to what the market can afford, resulting in more profitability. Third, they agree to equally lower the quality of their automobiles, making them less expensive to manufacture and also increasing their profitability.
Now, the owners of these three automotive companies have relationships with all the major banking and financial institutions, as they not only handle their banking and investment portfolios for the corporation, but also make great business by providing loans to prospective automobile owners for purchasing these vehicles. Through these mutually beneficial business dealings the bank profits hundreds of millions of dollars a year or more.
Since the automotive companies are now producing less advertised, poorer quality vehicles that are more expensive, they are open to competition. In an Objectivist society how would one open a competing business in this scenario?
Here are some of the problems: the cost to start an automotive company is measured in billions of dollars of start up capital. The banks are probably not going to finance your business because they would potentially (very likely) lose their lucrative loan/investment business with the automotive companies (to do so would be anti-Objectivist–not acting on their own self-interest) on an unproven business. If your new auto company is unable to secure a business relationship with a financing company they may not be able to offer credit, potentially making it impossible for a consumer to purchase your vehicles. What’s to stop the three major corporations from temporarily lowering their prices so low that, while they take a loss, they drive you out of business because their massive reserves of money made from when they were monopolizing the market, while you have only a small reserve as a new business?
SCENARIO THREE
A man is tired of his job as a janitor, because the market value for his skills are very low and he is paid very little. He decides to start a new business performing abortions out of his home. His price is half that of his competition so he quickly finds trade among young women with poor incomes. However, because he lacks any experience, education or training in the medical field a number of patients become sick and one dies as a result of an infection. If taken to court, the janitor claims that the women were not forced to seek out his services and they were duly counseled about the dangers of the procedure. In fact, he had a contract form that all patients were required to sign indicating they were aware of the dangers of the operation.
How would this scenario be handled in an Objectivist society? Would an Objectivist society find the need to regulate professions such as medicine, architecture, engineering and so forth? If so, how is this in accordance with a purely “laissez faire” government?
Okay, to play devil’s advocate I have a few scenarios. I am curious to how they would be handled in an Objectivist society.
SCENARIO ONE
The economy has been severely crippled, we are outnumbered and outgunned and have no way to fight back. How exactly would slavery help things? Also, why were we not aware of this growing state beforehand and why didn’t we take preventative measures (such as the much touted ‘Bomb Iran’ route?)
SCENARIO TWO
- This is just inherently impossible, so I’ll leave it to someone with more patience to explain why in theory this is wrong, and why in practice, it has proven wrong every time.
SCENARIO THREE
- If he adequetly represented the risks of the procedure (which I think a man standing with a clothes-hanger in his basement would make quite obvious) then those who he does business with have no right to complain that they were the victim of any crime. It’s as simple as that. You answered the question yourself.
As for a regulatory board, it is very easy to set up a private, third-party which performs studies on all companies within its juristiction - similar to the way that car manufacturers and electronics manufacturers enter their products into ‘Best of…’ studies by third parties. It is in their interest as it proves that they are reliable and their products are good, as assured by an unbiased third party.
The problem with all three of these scenarios is akin to this scenario;
A gunman has just pulled the trigger and a bullet is speeding towards your skull. How would an Objectivist respond?
The questions DO NOT take into account what an Objectivist society would do in recognizing these issues before they got to a flash point.
Okay, to play devil’s advocate I have a few scenarios. I am curious to how they would be handled in an Objectivist society.
No, what you are playing is the fool in three acts…
SCENARIO ONE
The Objectivist society is invaded by a neighboring militant collectivist country whose state-funded army is five times the size of the Objectivists’. Large sums of money–billions of dollars–are required in extremely short notice to combat the invading force. Meanwhile, because of the sudden warfare, the economy suffers a major downturn as a result of lost production, changes in the desirability of many goods, eliminating billions of dollars of wealth because of the market drop. In short order, the cost of many raw materials such as fuel and steel, are going to skyrocket because of the increased demand on the market needed for a massive military buildup.
What would be the proper Objectivist course of action for this scenario? Would you really believe that, having lost untold amounts of wealth, that a sufficient amount of money, labor and raw materials could be raised on a solely voluntary basis?
ACT ONE: The Objectivist Nation as the stupidest nation on the face of the planet…
The O’ist nation did not spring fully formed at the instant of this crisis, therefore every person living in it and benefiting from the freedom gained by living in it would know that they are living beside a Statist Thugogracy hell bent on the eventual extinction of the freedom and reason it offers. So just as Israel prepared to fight off all comers in the Middle East (and eventually did) the O’ist Nation would prepare.
It would be in the self interest of every man woman and child to fight kill and die for the freedom such a nation offers and rational action would dictate that they would prepare to do just that should the need arise.
Oh, by the way… two more points.
-
Do you think that an O’ist nation would be alone in the world without any allies? Really, I mean even nut-bar banana republics and terrorist states have allies.
-
History shows that war is good for the economy. The downturn in need for some items that you bemoan is replaced by the increased need for others
SCENARIO TWO
Three major corporations build automobiles in the Objectivist country. In order to maximize profitability, they decide to streamline their business models. First off, they all agree to reduce their advertising budgets to roughly half their previous spending–all three companies pledge to spend the same amount; less advertising for each company results in less expenses and therefore more profit for all. Secondly, they agree to price their vehicles identically–but they roughly double the price to what the market can afford, resulting in more profitability. Third, they agree to equally lower the quality of their automobiles, making them less expensive to manufacture and also increasing their profitability.
Now, the owners of these three automotive companies have relationships with all the major banking and financial institutions, as they not only handle their banking and investment portfolios for the corporation, but also make great business by providing loans to prospective automobile owners for purchasing these vehicles. Through these mutually beneficial business dealings the bank profits hundreds of millions of dollars a year or more.
Since the automotive companies are now producing less advertised, poorer quality vehicles that are more expensive, they are open to competition. In an Objectivist society how would one open a competing business in this scenario?
Here are some of the problems: the cost to start an automotive company is measured in billions of dollars of start up capital. The banks are probably not going to finance your business because they would potentially (very likely) lose their lucrative loan/investment business with the automotive companies (to do so would be anti-Objectivist–not acting on their own self-interest) on an unproven business. If your new auto company is unable to secure a business relationship with a financing company they may not be able to offer credit, potentially making it impossible for a consumer to purchase your vehicles. What’s to stop the three major corporations from temporarily lowering their prices so low that, while they take a loss, they drive you out of business because their massive reserves of money made from when they were monopolizing the market, while you have only a small reserve as a new business?
ACT TWO: The Objectivist nation inside a bubble…
The Automobile companies scheme their irrational self defeating scheme. Ok, yeah it could happen if the heads of those companies were as clueless about the way a free market works as you appear to be.
So three dumb companies collude to rip people off, so the people… wait for it… Buy from other companies. Wow… didn’t see that one coming. Maybe <now this is just a hunch> the people of O’ist Country would see that these morons were trying to rip them off and would buy their cars from Japan or Korea or Germany or Sweden.
So much for the car companies involvement with the banks, and just in case you want to expand the level of stupidity by saying the banks wouldn’t lend the people money (which in reality would just lead to their collapse and the rise of new banks… but we’re you’re not dealing with reality anyway) Banking is also global and though it might take longer I’m sure that I could apply for a loan to the first Bank of Rangoon and get it…
SCENARIO THREE
A man is tired of his job as a janitor, because the market value for his skills are very low and he is paid very little. He decides to start a new business performing abortions out of his home. His price is half that of his competition so he quickly finds trade among young women with poor incomes. However, because he lacks any experience, education or training in the medical field a number of patients become sick and one dies as a result of an infection. If taken to court, the janitor claims that the women were not forced to seek out his services and they were duly counseled about the dangers of the procedure. In fact, he had a contract form that all patients were required to sign indicating they were aware of the dangers of the operation.
How would this scenario be handled in an Objectivist society? Would an Objectivist society find the need to regulate professions such as medicine, architecture, engineering and so forth? If so, how is this in accordance with a purely “laissez faire” government?
ACT THREE: Objectivists are so stupid… Alternately titled “But if the Government doesn’t do it!!!”
I don’t know if I need to add anything to the title. It pretty much sums the idiocy of this “scenario” up.
Any transaction like this is contractual. A woman stupid enough to want to save a few thousand bucks by forgoing a hospital abortion in favour of one performed on a kitchen table with a coat hanger would still be entitled to legal protection. The janitor would still be liable for killing her should she die because death is not a side effect of abortion. Any woman who suffered an infection would have the recourse of civil law against the janitor as well, because again, infection was not what they were paying for.
Industries would regulate. There are plenty of examples of professional associations that voluntarily ensure industry standards. Things like in Canada we have the UCDA, the Used Cars Dealers Association that insures the purchaser that the cars are liens free, are not stolen, and have not been in an accident where the vehicle should have been written off. The Better Business Bureau is another example.
The Objectivist “Society” would not regulate, the individuals living in it would regulate who gets their money based on who delivers a good product. And business’s eager to grow their share of the market would regulate in order to provide the customer with what they want.
THE END
What is so difficult about applying the principles and philosophy of Objectivism to these scenarios?
Why the evasion?
Why the blank out?
Why the refusal to answer?
Why the ad hominen attacks?
Although situations like these may seem as if they are arbitrary constructs, I can guarantee you that situations like these (and worse) would occur. You’d have to naive to assume that individuals wouldn’t “game” the market–it happens *all* the time, often if just by default to compete in the same price range within the market. You assume that there would not be conflicts in values among the different players of the society, where the one thing that is guaranteed in reality are going to be many.
Ayn Rand spoke about the ‘ethics of emergencies’ and how those situations are divorced from everyday reality and one cannot base or judge a philosophy upon those ideas. However, emergencies happen every day. Sorry to rain on the parade about how “hunky dory” an Objectivist society would be, but it would be a gross act of self-deception and evasion to not consider scenarios such as this. For further example:
What would be the legal system’s stance or repeat felony offenders?
Would there be an age of legal consent for sexual relations, and if so–what would be that age?
If all property within the Objectivist nation was private, what would happen if I decided to let a foreign military set up an intelligence gathering facility on my property? (For which I charge them money of course.)
Would the Objectivist nation have its own intelligence gathering apparatus–would that fall under the role of military? Would they have a foreign intelligence unit similar to the CIA, and if so, what would be their charter of operation and use?
Ayn Rand stated that “rogue” states that didn’t value the rights of its citizens were freely open to attack. Who would be the determining body in a legal sense for this type of action?
Could you apply the same philosophical justification that Rand does towards rogue states to individuals within the society? Thus, if an individual fails to respect the individual rights of other citizens are they open to violent physical attack by any citizen? What would be the legal framework for these types of actions?
In an Objectivist society who takes the responsibility for building and maintaining the roads, bridges and freeways? If not the government, how would a private enterprise be able to charge for roadway usage in a manner that doesn’t involve a toll booth every other block? Are the sewer systems also to be privatized?
These are just some of the issues off the top of my head. These aren’t “emergency” situations, these are serious legal and administrative issues that need to be talked about and discussed for solutions within an Objectivist society. Some of them are not easily waved away by saying “…by the free market” like the oft-quoted answer-response Rand applied to her enemies: “somehow… no answer is given.”
Some of you have said that Objectivism is a philosophy, NOT a political party. However, when you start talking about nation building politics and the legal framework of such a society becomes extremely important. The other aspect is that if a philosophy cannot be applied to real life–what good is it? Objectivism claims to be the only philosophy that can be rationally applied to real life–so where is the application? The people on this website seem unwilling or unable to apply their own principles to simple questions posed on the Internet through the tactics of evasion and intellectual blank out.
I mean, shouldn’t you INVITE questions to how Objectivism would make the world a better place? Every socialist I ever met practically does back flips if you ask them how their philosophy would work in reality (or how they think it would work). What’s the hang up here?
What I’m saying, and a problem I’ve always had with Objectivism as a “movement”, is they talk tough and end up taking no action in any arena except the occasional student hall debate or coffee house rant.
No, what you are playing is the fool in three acts…
Ask yourself this–how rational are you really if you have to resort to name calling?
Just answer the questions. Be civil.
What is so difficult about applying the principles and philosophy of Objectivism to these scenarios?
Objectivism is meant to be applied to the facts of reality, not fantastic senarios. Testing them on fantastic senarios does not test the philosophy.
No one has said that someone might not try to game the system but what everyone has said is that your senarios advance the gaming to a point that anyone acting according to Objectivist principles would have already been acting against.
It is as if you create a senario, and drop and Objectivist into it and then fault that Objectivist for creating the senario.
Ask yourself this–how rational are you really if you have to resort to name calling?
Just answer the questions. Be civil.
Read what I wrote. I did not call you a fool, I said you were playing the fool. There is a difference.
I don’t have time to respond to the more rational questions and situations you posted at this time but I will get back to it.
By the way, you are the one that came here saying in effect What you all believe is wrong, your philosophy is addled with contradictions (though you have yet to show any) and can never work with your mind already shut up and blanked out, only then to proceeded to act astonished and take offence at the reaction to the offence you had caused.
So, how about we start over. I’ll reign in my sarcasm you can the attitude.
I just wanted people to know my experiences with Objectivism, that I am familiar with Ayn Rand’s works (all of them–novels, philosophies and more) as well as most of the work of her leading or former advocates (Binswanger, Peikoff, Branden). I myself personally found a number of faults with her system–as is my right as a free thinking individual expected to make up their own mind, and allegedly not to be attacked for it. After all, I haven’t attacked anyone on this thread for accepting elements of her philosophy that I reject. Anyways, I did not want to detour this thread with their discussion because I had another topic in mind, one that is more important than my quibbles with the full application of her philosophy.
I’ll put this one on the table though, and please don’t confuse this with “attitude”; I like the ideas and principles of Objectivism (although not all the application or misapplication)–I don’t really care for most Objectivists. I see *most* if not all of the evils of collectivism at work within the Objectivist organizations, and by extension, through many of its followers. I have a big problem with this.
Does that make any sense?
Also related to this–some of the situations I have posited that would face an Objectivist government have been somewhat laughed at, however consider some of the difficulties within Objectivism itself:
1.) The disastrous Nathaniel Branden affair and his resulting ostracism which continues to this day. In some circles you don’t even want to mention his name.
2.) The (debatable) cronyism of Leonard Peikoff–never a central figure to Objectivism–as the “intellectual heir” of Objectivism because he was the last man standing at Ayn’s death.
3.) The huge Libertarian versus Objectivist war that has raged 30 years or so.
4.) The litigation among noted Objectivists (Binswanger/Peikoff).
5.) The ARI fighting with pretty much every other group/institute purporting to explore Objectivism.
That is a *LOT* on infighting by people that are supposed to be the fountainheads of achievement and reason! It stands to reason that an Objectivist society would be like *ALL* other society’s and have many, many competing interests… now extend that into the business world worth trillions of dollars of market value.
Thought should be put on this.
In my opinion Objectivism’s message is positive, but the tone negative. Objectivists tend to follow the example of their ‘leader’, Ayn Rand, and resort to argumentative polemics, spend all their energy attacking their enemies and so-called enemies, rather than BUILDING SOMETHING. Objectivism does have a bit of a nihilist streak permeating the whole of the philosophy–it’s fascination with the decay of society, the virulent hatred of its enemies as “destroyers of the world”, denunciations of every politician, philosophical idea or movement that is not its own (because it has none), the insistence that when one makes a factual error they are actually “immoral”… all of this together yields a very negative philosophy which I believe is at the root of the entire movement’s sterility.
My opinion is if you want to win “hearts and minds” you don’t denounce someone as an immoral idiot for endorsing Marxism–you show them how much better things would be in an Objectivist society. Instead of spending time infuriating our intellectual enemies, spend time achieving to a degree that the root and cause cannot be ignored. When someone poses a question to how your philosophy would deal with a particular situation you respect the person for giving you the opportunity to speak in an open forum about your ideas–you don’t ridicule their question and take on superior airs, or cast moral judgements.
However, much of these things seem to be ingrained into most Objectivists–and you wonder why people run the other way when you start talking about ideas! You wonder why Objectivism doesn’t spread or why the philosophy isn’t taken seriously?
If you truly valued the ideas and wanted to see them implemented in reality I think you’d be asking these same questions. Or not.
In my opinion Objectivism’s message is positive, but the tone negative.
Much like the tone of your posts so far. Again I say, if you want an intelligent exchange, engage people, don’t approach them with a condescending and demeaning tone of your own.
Why the ad hominen attacks?
I think you are confused about what an “ad hominem” attack is, because nobody on this forum has come anywhere close to doing so. People here are confronting your ideas, and therefore by definition, NOT making ad hominem attacks. If I were to say you have a big butt and your momma was a Jew - THAT would be an ad hominem attack - so I will not do so.
I actually found out who “B is B” is in real life: Alan Greenspan.
Much like the tone of your posts so far. Again I say, if you want an intelligent exchange, engage people, don’t approach them with a condescending and demeaning tone of your own.
I’m only stating my opinion on Objectivism’s mixed message, which I find to be self-defeating.
However, I’m willing to be disproved. Maybe I just imagined hundreds and thousands of pages of Rand railing about the degeneracy of hippies, communists, Kennedy, educators, Russia, musicians, Democrats, Republicans, authors, philosophers, students, Reagan, Libertarians, Kant, and virtually every other facet of the world.
What I’m saying is for a philosophy espousing “the achievement of man” there is an awful lot of time being spent on the negative topics, identify enemies, denouncing everything but a lot less on the great achievement of man. Take for example the essay “Apollo and Dionysus” where Rand compares and contrasts the moon landings to Woodstock in 1969–a few scant pages are devoted to this amazing achievement of mankind’s reason, and pages upon pages are spent ‘wallowing in the mud’ hurling invectives at the hippies at Woodstock.
Are you telling me you never noticed this? Is this the first time you ever considered how often Rand spent writing on negative subject versus positive ones? She seemed obsessed with the “dark” side of existence, which is certainly contradictory considering what her stated ideals were.
So, can anyone account for this?
I’m only stating my opinion on Objectivism’s mixed message, which I find to be self-defeating.
Now who’s blanking out. RB didn’t talk about your opinion he talked about your “tone”. The fact that you have an opinion doesn’t change nor does it justify the fact that it carries a tone, and the same tone you accus of others.
I’m only stating my opinion on Objectivism’s mixed message, which I find to be self-defeating.
However, I’m willing to be disproved. Maybe I just imagined hundreds and thousands of pages of Rand railing about the degeneracy of hippies, communists, Kennedy, educators, Russia, musicians, Democrats, Republicans, authors, philosophers, students, Reagan, Libertarians, Kant, and virtually every other facet of the world.
What I’m saying is for a philosophy espousing “the achievement of man” there is an awful lot of time being spent on the negative topics, identify enemies, denouncing everything but a lot less on the great achievement of man. Take for example the essay “Apollo and Dionysus” where Rand compares and contrasts the moon landings to Woodstock in 1969–a few scant pages are devoted to this amazing achievement of mankind’s reason, and pages upon pages are spent ‘wallowing in the mud’ hurling invectives at the hippies at Woodstock.
Are you telling me you never noticed this? Is this the first time you ever considered how often Rand spent writing on negative subject versus positive ones? She seemed obsessed with the “dark” side of existence, which is certainly contradictory considering what her stated ideals were.
So, can anyone account for this?
Why would anyone need to “account for” any of that? If you think that Rand’s basic premises are right but that some of her specific arguments are wrong, why don’t you try focusing on one specific argument, explain how you come to a different conclusion than Rand using the same Objective premises, and ask whether anyone can find any flaws in your argument? In fact you don’t even appear to be arguing her conclusions, but only the fact that she wrote a lot about the things she thought were wrong. So what? If you’re convinced that hippies are bad for society after 10 pages, then don’t bother reading the other thousand, I guess. What exactly are you looking for an explanation of?
Is this the first time you ever considered how often Rand spent writing on negative subject versus positive ones? She seemed obsessed with the “dark” side of existence, which is certainly contradictory considering what her stated ideals were.
So, can anyone account for this?
Do you disagree with her identifications, about the hippies or communists, for example? Which one is wrong according to you?
Any person taking a principled (as in contrast to pragmatic) and honest (never evading) approach to ideas and life will notice instances of destruction of their values around. I would not call it an obsession. It is sad. We want to change things so the opposite would be true.
Do you think it is better to ignore those things? Not talk about them? Or are you advocating more pragmatic approach? Again I fail to understand what it is that you are proposing instead.
I apologize for my “tone” but I can think of no other way to express my thoughts and criticisms of Objectivism. I’m sorry if this is being perceived as threatening, and it makes me question the intellectual honesty of anyone that views a dissenting opinion as dangerous. That’s a very dangerous path, not keeping in accordance with reason and self-interest.
So, can anyone answer the question?
I apologize for my “tone” but I can think of no other way to express my thoughts and criticisms of Objectivism. I’m sorry if this is being perceived as threatening, and it makes me question the intellectual honesty of anyone that views a dissenting opinion as dangerous. That’s a very dangerous path, not keeping in accordance with reason and self-interest.
You’re psychologizing me. I don’t perceive you as threatening. I percieve you as particularly annoying.
You see, before we get to the actual ideas, I need some reason to think that spending time with you is going to be interesting, enjoyable, rewarding. There are a hundred yahoos a day I might be able to engage from my mailman, to my colleagues, to my fellow Objectivists, to you.
The fact that you have an idea is insufficient. Why on earth would I want spend my time with someone who condescends to me with every other sentence?
All the Objectivist I know are very warm engaging people, and yes they’re all from the “orthodoxy”. It always stuns me when people come to a forum like this, “loaded for bear,” and wonder why they’re not greeted with open arms and offered Socratic togas and figs afther they blow buckshot all over the room.
You see, this is a voluntary trade, between you and the people you’re engaging. What do you have to offer that we might value? Think of it that way. Offering a perspective does not then allow you to act like a … well you fill in the pejorative.
I apologize for my “tone” but I can think of no other way to express my thoughts and criticisms of Objectivism. I’m sorry if this is being perceived as threatening, and it makes me question the intellectual honesty of anyone that views a dissenting opinion as dangerous. That’s a very dangerous path, not keeping in accordance with reason and self-interest.
So, can anyone answer the question?
Even in your apology your assumptions are insulting. Advocates of radical philosophy are no strangers to people disagreeing with them and having to defend their point of view. If anyone knows explicitly what why they believe what they do - it is Objectivists.
People perceive that you came here with your mind made up about the character (and psychology) of those who follow Objectivism. If you make unjust projections you can’t expect people who don’t believe in self sacrifice to engage you. They don’t feel such a duty even in the name of spreading Objectivism. The exchange must be personally rewarding in some way and you are making it very difficult.
Even in your apology your assumptions are insulting. Advocates of radical philosophy are no strangers to people disagreeing with them and having to defend their point of view. If anyone knows explicitly what why they believe what they do - it is Objectivists.
People perceive that you came here with your mind made up about the character (and psychology) of those who follow Objectivism. If you make unjust projections you can’t expect people who don’t believe in self sacrifice to engage you. They don’t feel such a duty even in the name of spreading Objectivism. The exchange must be personally rewarding in some way and you are making it very difficult.
And this prevents you from answering my questions for what reason?