Before letting this topic die, one final post. I feel we have gotten off on some interesting tangents, including the one I started on the Galt’s Gulch / Utopia angle, but I would like to go basic to my main question. Going back and rereading posts, I found one by 2046 that captures the basic idea I was originally getting at.
I don’t see the OP saying Rand thought moral behavior was a default behavior, I interpreted him as saying something like he takes Rand to believe that if we don’t have governmental regulations of business, then we essentially are blindly trusting or assuming the wealthy and powerful elite will act in a non predatory way, like Rearden; whereas he thinks this naive, and so supports governmental regulations to control this unethical behavior.
In this case, I think he conflates two different meanings of capitalism, and possesses what I would consider a naive view about governmental regulations actually achieving his goal, rather than existing for the exact opposite reason.
Let me spell out my original question is further detail.
My discussion of the “from each … to each” maxim intended to make this point: the simplicity and naivete of that world view necessarily and inevitably leads to results that are contrary to those intended. That is, taking as a premise that altruism is a powerful enough force to lead to productivity and innovation will necessarily lead to stagnation and failure because the premise is false. And, attempting to achieve a system that harnesses human potential through the measurement of abilities and needs will necessarily lead to oppression and disaster because such measurement is impossible and therefore the evil and corrupt will make themselves the arbiters.
So, the question I was trying to posit was whether Objectivism’s premises would necessarily lead to failure if the attempt was made to implement them because the premises are too simplistic and naive. 2046 has hit on both of the aspects I had in mind. First, that the expectation that most “men of the mind” will naturally adhere to Objectivist ethics is naive. Second, that the focus on laissez-faire capitalism with minimal regulations was destined to failure because the level of regulations needed to insure all men of the mind will behave in line with Objectivist ethics is actually quite substantial.
On the first aspect, keeping in mind that it is merely a novel, Atlas Shrugged shows two extreme types of men. On the one hand, there are the men of the mind like Reardon, Francisco and Galt himself who do adhere more or less perfectly to Objectivist ethics. (Indeed, only Reardon is shown to have failings and then only on the personal, relationship front.) In opposition, are the looters and moochers who have neither “mind” nor “ethics”. Even when they spout Collectivist slogans, they clearly don’t believe them. The most obvious example of this type is Jim Taggart. My thesis is that most true “men of the mind,” such as the Robber Barons of the early 1900s, also have questionable ethics. They are more than willing to use influence to achieve bad laws and regulations, and eagerly collude to eliminate competition. That is, the movers and shakers in real life are a combination of Reardon and Jim Taggart, not one or the other.
The second aspect is the one that can give rise to pages and pages, even books and books, of discussion. How much law and regulation is necessary to insure Objectivist ethics prevail? 2046 is quite right that many regulations do the opposite: for instance, the limitation of tax cab medallions in NYC stifles competition rather than fostering it, and serves no good purpose in terms of safety or health. But what about the Anti-Trust division of Justice? What about the EPA and the FDA? The latter two are bloated, but are still necessary - with considerable size and reach - in my opinion. The one area where principled Objectivists and principled Collectivists would be expected to disagree is in “positive” regulation instead of purely “negative” regulation. That is, to quote Wikipedia’s Objectivism entry: “[R]ights are specifically understood to be rights to action, not to specific results or objects, and the obligations created by rights are negative in nature: each individual must refrain from violating the rights of others.” [citing Peikoff 1991 p355]. So, anti-pollution regulations are not necessarily contrary to Objectivism, but regulations requiring insurance companies to cover birth control are.
I think this covers my thoughts much more clearly. I don’t recommend getting into a discussion of Anti-Trust here since that is a huge and complicated topic worthy of its own thread. (For my part, I am not at all sure it is necessary - at least on a large scale - in this day and age when disruptive technologies flourish.)
