The question is not whether someone “deserves” something, but if two or more people voluntary agree to trade. If so they both get what they want. Trade is about trading value for value and each of us has to determine whether or not we want the other value enough to trade the value we do have. Whether we should depends on the context of the situation and our own personal goals.
The term “deserve” implies an ethical standard outside of the two traders that they should be forced to adhere to. Who gets to decide that? Why should they be forced to adhere to someone else’s standard if they have agreed to their own?
The standard here is objectivism, which is outside the subjective perceptions of the two traders involved and this is exactly a case of who deserves what. Just because two people agree on a trade doesn’t mean that it is fair (and unfair trade happens all the time). More often than not, it is the sellers that set the “minimum” price for a commodity and the consumer is off to seek this minimum. Other than that they don’t have much of a choice. Suppose there are limited number of rooms available for being rent to customers and suppose the owners of the place shoot up the price. Of course consumers have to pay this price and if they did, it was because they “agreed” to the price [as they had no other choice], but that doesn’t make it a fair trade. The owner could even set different prices for different people or even unreasonably for different sex and customers have to pay what is asked of them [and if they pay, we’ll assume that they agreed on the price]. There needs to be an objective regulator outside the traders.
Who gets to decide that? What is this ignoble number or point that working becomes immoral because you have earned more than what is acceptable? Acceptable to whom? According to the question it is not the two people trading with each other. I’d challenge you to consider this since the proponents of this idea keep the exact dollar amount that is “to much” vague since A)You can’t define it rationally, only emotionally, and B) The point is emotional and allows people to be envious of anyone who makes more than them.
This is actually a case of considering one single trade as part of a whole and that is both rational and non-emotional. I’m not talking about acceptability here. I don’t care if a product is pricier than the moon [not to be taken seriously]. Consider the case of Rearden here. The only money he deserves is for his work on the metal. The workers deserve the money for producing the product. The market price of the metal is roughly the sum of these two. Now once an adequate no. of the product is bought so that Readen receives the money he deserves, all subsequent collections should go the workers as now Rearden is out of the equation. Any money made is that deserved by the workers and if Rearden presumes to claim it as his, he becomes a looter to the workers [basically the boss who does nothing and makes profit]. The only profit which Rearden deserved was for his own work which has been fulfilled. His work was finite and he can’t get away with more than his work allowed. On the other hand, the workers work regularly and all money should therefore flow to them. It is not “working” that becomes “immoral”, but making money out of work you didn’t do.If Readen kept making money we would have the simple scenario of “rich getting richer” (unfairly, that is). I guess Rand just missed this detail.
“In such a case, where competition is effectively eliminated, how is money regulated? “
I honestly don’t understand the question. Could you clarify?
I was talking about patents not allowing others to produce. So the seller can set whatever high price they want and buyers have no choice but to “agree” to the trade.
I answered this above. Once you realize that trade is value for value the answer is “however much agreed by the participants”. Although I would be curious if you mean this to be the inverse of your other question and now your worried people “will make too little”?
My basic question is this : how do we make sure people get exactly what they deserve for their work? Patents nearly always make sure that the “inventor” [think Rearden] gets too much money while its absence does not ensure the inventor enough money [in comparison to the exact amount he deserves].
If you consider the context of Rand’s statements about need, and the context of your statement, you will note that the two contexts are very different, and with that in mind, the two statements don’t contradict each other.
I’m not saying there is a contradiction. I think there are problems with wordings, that’s all. For eg., when Rand goes on about selfishness, she does not use the word like most people do [who think it means it is an achievement of that which they are jealous of, mostly status-related] but rather, she is mostly referring to self-respect and self-loving. I feel there may be a fundamental difference in what Rand actually meant by need [as you can see here it applies in different ways for different contexts], leading to superficial contradictions.
Nonsense. I can work for someone else and earn just enough to cover my needs, without contributing one whit more to the society which wishes to enslave me than I must. I could work as a janitor, or day laborer, or any number of things to keep myself going WITHOUT providing a hotel for them to sleep in - without creating any values for them that requirs the productive efforts of my mind. I think you do not understand what self-destruction means.
I think I understand quite a bit of what self destruction means, thank you. The only reason the strike worked [did it? I have yet to read the last part] is because every producer took part it. Mass bunks can’t work with a single person. Now if you took the plunge, you would be destroying yourselves [Even worse, there could be people to replace you]. You would just grow old and die and that’s the end of the story : it would not effect the change you wished to make. Even Dagny had great trouble allowing any producer to destroy themselves by not working. But she finally agreed to it [did she?] when she realised that they had a fighting chance [which you don’t have] to effect a change [as every producer agreed to do it, collectively] and then refusal to work becomes more productive in the long run than working presently. You [Greebo] also have the added disadvantage of being in a world where the looters are not as dumb as in the books and constantly evolving as well. They may even replace you and it’s “nonsense” to believe that something like that may actually work.
Sorry, what?
I was talking about around the time when Rearden and Dagny reached the ‘Twentieth Century Motor Company’, when they say a couple of guys making off with loots. I can’t seem to find it ; may be I just imagined it?
So it is your position that the gay couple has the right to force their trade upon the hotel owner?
Why not? It is fair trade. They could just lock the owner in the basement [if he isn’t willing] until their holiday ends and just remember to pay him afterward. You can use force for what is rightfully yours [as property or by fair payment]. The owner had no right to keep away a fair customer [he should be fined if you as me]. Sure he could close his doors to villains but not a fair trader. Sure he has rights to close his motel if there are only bad customers ; he can even close the motel to keep off all customers, good or bad, out of his own; but there is one thing he has no right to do : keep the door open for people who are “acceptable” to him [God knows, good or bad], while keeping away fair traders : this is unjust. It doesn’t matter if force is used to ratify this so long as it is reasonable.
