In other words, sNerd, the following is true:
- There is no practical way to implement your type of capitalism.
You misread me and put words in my mouth. By the way, nor was I trying to argue that “pure communism” is impractical either. Nothing I said is about the practicality of any perfect form. That is a wholly different argument, for another day. My point is that this argument – about whether we have ever had one perfect form or another perfect form – elevates words above reality, instead of understanding that words are a way to describe reality. To really understand reality, drop the single word “communism” or “capitalism” and understand the host of things they represent and subsume in reality. A whole host of ideas, attitudes, rules, ownership laws, legal systems, are subsumed by two words.
With any freedom we can clearly have an absolute prohibition or an absolute freedom: you can eat pork, or you cannot. Equally clearly, we can have all sorts of mixture: you can eat pork if you were born to a parent who does profess Islam, and as long as you buy it from the few Christian-owned stores that are only allowed in Christian-majority neighborhoods. Or, perhaps you can have an abortion but only if you first speak to a counselor who will show you pictures of fetuses, pointing out how they look like children. Or perhaps you can bring gold into the country as long as it is less than 10 oz. per year. Or, perhaps you can buy liquor, but only from the Toronto-government owned store.
That is reality. Now, would it makes sense to jump up and ask: “Do you mean that complete freedom in the purchase of pork, the having of abortions, the procurement of liquor and the importation of gold and impractical”. Huh? Of course not, who ever claimed they are? And, further, who claimed that the opposite was not possible either: can be have an absolute ban on all those things. Sure. But, it really is besides the point. The point is that, while having all sorts of mixtures, one can still often make a judgement about whether one place has more freedom in some such area, or less. And, one can observe the effects of such freedom, or lack of it. One can study a people who are allowed to practice their greed and achieve all sorts of great values, and one can do this even if those people go to a religious place once a week and apologize for their greed – i.e. for their best virtues that they suspect might contain an element of sin.
The point is that perfection is besides the point, and even if one were to grant that perfection is impossible, the course of real-world action would not change one iota. The point is that one can measure the efficiency of a machine even if you claim that a 100% efficient machine is impossible. Imagine engineers designing a machine, trying to take out elements of friction from some moving part, and add to elements of friction in some other part that is used for braking and traction. They aren’t reduced to an effectively-nihilistic, “anything goes” attitude just because they can never achieve perfect absence of friction or perfect rigidity. Nor do they throw up their hands and say they can never know or measure friction because they can never reduce it to zero. So, if you want to argue that perfect capitalism is like a friction-less world, do so, but it is really besides the point, and impractical; because, even if you are right, it gets you nowhere. Even if you are right, the reality still holds: that freedom works!
- You ignore the existence or the effects of work stress, unhealthy workaholism, and extreme careerism.
Of course not, but you are mistaken if you think that these are elements of Capitalism. The truth is just the opposite. I do not know your background, but you clearly do not understand the reality of living in a third-world mixed economy with its fetters on freedom that hold back the noble greed of its population. Look closer and you will see that everyday life is a struggle to these people, for whom your first-world problems simply do not compute! Most of the angry youth of the middle-east, under their nationalist-socialist leaders want an honest job and an honest living and are willing to work hard for it. They seek a life of purpose, of ambition, and of the ability to give their greed full vent. They seek the freedom to have a job, offered them by businessmen who are given the freedom to provide such jobs. They aspire to do their best in such mythical careers they have heard of, and that they see on T.V. and via the internet. Two decades ago, much of the world’s population was there, but we have seen an era of great opening, great freedom, great greed, great careers, lots of hard work, and lot, and lots of values.
Nobody should be forced to work. Those who think of work as pain, who see it as a rat’s race, and who want to retire in their twenties, should go ahead and do so. Freedom means that nobody stops people from going their own way. In America and every other country that allows people to pursue their ambitions and careers way more than any communist state ever did, there are still people who are not interested. Sometimes, they stay in their backwoods, sometimes they get together with a group of their college friends and found a commune. They can go their merry way, and more power to them, to find their way. If their truth is never my truth, then it is their loss in my mind, and my loss in theirs. Peace unto them. Nobody here would argue that they should be stopped. May they go their way in peace; but, they should go their way, not force the greedy career-seeking ambitious folk to subsidize a philosophy into which they do not buy. They can go their way as long as they do not use the government to impose their philosophy via a welfare state.
Meanwhile, there are many rational folk who think that primitive man did not have it good, but nevertheless do not think it is worth pursuing some material values, but prefer what you would call “the simpler life”. Why would I see any problem with this? Do you think Objectivism recommends the maximization of physically, material values? One fictional Objectivism hero feels so strongly about his art that he is willing to work in a quarry rather than corrupt his aesthetic vision and become rich and famous. That, by the way, is true ambition. Sometimes, people unfairly accuse Rand of being anti motherhood – mostly via a perceived sin of omission; but, in reality I know quite a few Objectivists who have given up typical careers to stay home with their children. For people who chose it, I assume they are making the right choice. In the Fountainhead, Rand shows a pathetic creature who gives up what he loves, for a career that gets him money and fame, and a life as an unhappy, unfulfilled, other-directed specimen, who has never ever given vent to the real greed he felt deeply, but instead bowed to what the world told him to pursue. Like Shakespeare said: ambition should be made of sterner stuff.
The bottom-line: no, mindless, purposeless careers, and accumulation of material values for their own sake are not an Objectivist ideal… just the opposite.
- Simple living is boring to you.
Have you ever been lost on a mountain with dwindling food supplies, which taste like a Ritz meal to your famished stomach, while you pass the water bottle to your friend so he can take his rationed two-sips, while you wonder what you will do at sunrise to make your way out? It was pretty simple, but hardly boring; and a dog had tagged along and adopted us, making us feel a little sliver of hope that human beings must be somewhere within a few miles.
For a more substantial answer, see my previous point.
- You do not believe that there should be managers or any authority.
That’s pretty gratuitous, particularly given that there’ve been times in my life where I have managed teams of people and not only did I think it right, but I thought it was enjoyable. These were all willing people who were in an organization they joined of their own free will. Something you may not know is that being a manager does not mean knowing the best about everything, but knowing what other people want and what they aspire to, and in creating an environment where they can give the fullest reign to their greed for pursuit of purpose and creation of values.
It is also ironic, is it not, that you would tell a forum moderator that he believes that there should be no authority. But, I understand your problem… you make the classic error of being unable to distinguish between authority that comes within a legitimate, consensual system, versus one that flows from the guns of Kim Jung Il. Like some modernists, perhaps you claim that marriage is rape? And, let me stop you before you say “why talk of extremes”, and refer you back to point #1.
- Objectivism is an anti-idealism and an anti-ideology.
Ah! so, the philosophy that seeks perfect capitalism is anti-perfection. It is rather novel for Rand to be accused of being a wishy-washy non-idealist. Usually, she is accused of being rigid and impractical. Usually, Objectivists are accused of being so idealistic that they will not be happy in their life-times (i.e. ever). The accusations even motivated Rand to specifically publish an essay defending Objectivists against the accusation of “extremism”. So, it is novel that you say this, and not boring, but still untrue.
- You are so afraid of death that in order to escape it you will allow the destruction of the world (or society).
Honestly, you seem tired now! You’re veering away from rational conversation. The notion that the destruction of the world will save me from death is pretty wild. How could anyone ever come to such a conclusion? I know have better value to offer, other than gratuitous accusations that come from your consciousness, unsupported by anything else? Do not fall prey to the error of the driven-debater, who sacrifices truth for ephemeral polemic victory. The crowds are not impressed in the long run, and truth wins out instead.
- You think that there should be cancer (the disease).
At this point, rather than an appropriately rude reply, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say “get some sleep” and come back refreshed with an attitude that only the truth matters… even if you lose the argument in the process. The most corrupt thing you can do to your mind is to make winning an argument a primary end. That is the primacy-of-consciousness principle gone wild; it will eat your brain from the inside out.