Some debate questions?

Debates
1

First off the debate started out with me talking about how the idea of some of Obama’s ideas leaned towards the side of socialism. Then it got into these questions below. I haven’t responded as of yet but I wouldn’t mind reading some of your opinions. On one side there is a person genuinely curious who I think might be open to a well presented response to their questions. His questions are in italics.

Why are government regulations such a bad thing? What about food safety regulations? Workplace safety regulations? Public health codes? Building code regulations? Etc…

How are those bad things? How are they dangerous? I’d say its dangerous not to have such regulations in place.

The regulations we have here in Canada have helped protect our banks from the sort of financial turmoil thats happening in the states. Thanks to government regulation, our banking system is in better shape than those of any other G8 nation.

This is from a completely different person than that of the questions above. My initial statements are in bold and his response is in italics.

Quote:

(Originally Posted by no name 1)

First off I think government regulation of an economy and business is bad all the way around, it may not be the same as socialism to you but it is just as dangerous in many ways…

Mostly what EM said. How are safety regulations, health regulations, wage regulations, etc… bad things? Many countries don’t have these, and they aren’t in some prosperous Ayn Rand-esque Utopia… but rather people die of easily preventable illnesses, children forgo school to work for pennies a day just to survive, etc… You can argue against environmental protection all you want, but the fact remains that people die when the land and water are contaminated by some industry not having to abide by rules. Etc… And how is having regulations to prevent these things not under the umbrella of the government being “servant or agent of its citizens”?

It seems like you’re saying “the government should be the servant or agent of its citizens who run a big company, but fuck everyone else”. Which becomes a grim and deadly form of Feudalism, which is very un-American, no?

Basically, how is preventing people from needlessly dying, or not allowing them the means to live, etc… “protecting man’s rights”? Likewise, how is funding a military in ventures which most Americans don’t even support “protecting man’s rights”?

Quote:

Now, as far as Obama and Socialism? You asked me to stick to the definition of socialism, so let’s do that…

-definition has been edited out.

…

Quote:

The Socialist Party USA calls for a “steeply graduated” tax policy to redistribute wealth. Obama has promised to increase the tax burden on the rich to redistribute wealth to the poor.

This does not fit the above definitions, at least not more than ANY tax does.

Quote:

Obama’s conversation with “Joe the Plumber” is huge and I don’t see how it can be ignored…

Any tax is a redistribution of wealth. How do you think the military is funded? Police? Etc… Money is taken from the populace and put into services that benefit all. A graduated tax (which is already the case to a degree under Bush, btw) won’t make the rich poor and the poor rich, nor will it put them on par. The rich will still be rich and the poor will still be poor. The poor just doesn’t have to worry about starving or dying from some easily treatable illness. And that’s the goal of social services… “protecting man’s rights”.

Quote:

So with Obama’s plan, the government can and will take from a man who has built up a considerable profit through his own hard work and intelligence and, by force of tax, give it to another man who has not provided a service for him in any way…

Bullshit. Again… it will not be evening things, only providing the necessary means, through tax. In a truly socialist system, the government OWNS the means of production (including industries now run by wealthy individuals, thus no one to heavily tax, now is there?). Obama’s plan is to promote private industry, with regulations, to make sure those industries profit and everyone else benefits.

It’s also kinda ignorant to say talk about those who offer “nothing”. Without those peons, then those who have built considerable wealth would have no one do the necessary work, nor would they have anyone to buy their product. This is why regulations are needed. And using those to provide the poor with necessary things will actually allow them to then spend what they have on other things, which helps industry grow (and those wealthy people get wealthier).

Again, the rich will still be rich and the poor will still be poor. No one plans to change that.

Quote:

“The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights. Under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in “society as a whole,” in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, (the government.) Basically “Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good. -Ayn Rand”

Except that, you know, individuals do own property, it’s considered their personal asset, and they, as an individual, profit off it.

Quote:

Remember Obama’s own words were “spread the wealth around” redistribution, the redistribution of another man’s wealth, with literally no service in return.

lol x 100000

I have not responded to either person as of yet. Obviously there are many many points to bring up to the guy above. He somehow thinks that all these “social services” are a man’s right and another man’s responsibility to provide. Does anyone care to present your responses to this person?

2

How are safety regulations, health regulations, wage regulations, etc… bad things? Many countries don’t have these, and they aren’t in some prosperous Ayn Rand-esque Utopia… but rather people die of easily preventable illnesses, children forgo school to work for pennies a day just to survive, etc… You can argue against environmental protection all you want, but the fact remains that people die when the land and water are contaminated by some industry not having to abide by rules.

So what happens when you outlaw child labor? I’ll tell you. The children, now unable to produce for themselves, starve to death. Sounds like a wonderful regulation. And remember when debating with this guy not to concede the point that child labor is brought about under a free market. The free market inherited child labor. Children worked (and died) on every family’s farm before the industrial revolution. It was the free market that allowed parents to become productive enough to provide for their children. Also, the pollution he is referring to comes about from a lack of properly defined property rights.

This does not fit the above definitions, at least not more than ANY tax does.

I don’t know what your definition of socialism is, but all taxes violate individual rights.

Any tax is a redistribution of wealth. How do you think the military is funded? Police? Etc… Money is taken from the populace and put into services that benefit all.

First of all, the services don’t benefit all (I don’t receive welfare checks). Even if they did, it still requires stealing money (taxation). Second of all, since the “populace” is made up of individuals, his statement should read: ‘Money is taken from certain individuals and put into services that benefit other individuals’.

A graduated tax (which is already the case to a degree under Bush, btw) won’t make the rich poor and the poor rich, nor will it put them on par. The rich will still be rich and the poor will still be poor.

I’m not really sure what the purpose of that statement is, but if the rich are taxed 99.9% and the money given to the poor, his statement is wrong.

The poor just doesn’t have to worry about starving or dying from some easily treatable illness. And that’s the goal of social services… “protecting man’s rights”.

He’s corrupted the concept of rights. Rights are guarantees to freedom of action. The right to life is the right to seek nourishment, not be given it. The right to property is the right to create and thus own what you create, not to have someone give you property. The right to the pursuit of happiness is not a right to be happy, but a guarantee that no one can stop you from trying to achieve it. He’s trying to create the right to health care, by which he does not mean the right to acquire health care but rather the right to be given health care. This violates the right to property and thus is invalid.

Also, make sure you show him where the right to property comes from. Man has the right to his life. In order for the right to life to exist, freedom is necessary. Only under a system of freedom can a man take the actions necessary to sustain his life. Thus you have liberty. Since the items necessary for human survival are not laying around waiting to be picked up, the only way for man to survive is by producing. What he produces must be his property. If man does not have control over his property, he doesn’t have control over the product of his labor, and thus does not have control over his life.

Ehh, thats a shitty description of where rights come from, but I’m sure you can state it more eloquently :slight_smile: . Just make sure he knows that by violating property rights, he’s violating the right to life. Also, challenge him to tell you the difference between a mob of people stealing your wallet, and taxation.

3

Thank you for your response. I agree with you entirely :wink:

4

Why regulations are a bad thing. For the thorough answer

http://cockpit.spacepatrol.us/09mar.html

5

First off the debate started out with me talking about how the idea of some of Obama’s ideas leaned towards the side of socialism. Then it got into these questions below. I haven’t responded as of yet but I wouldn’t mind reading some of your opinions. On one side there is a person genuinely curious who I think might be open to a well presented response to their questions. His questions are in italics.

Why are government regulations such a bad thing? What about food safety regulations? Workplace safety regulations? Public health codes? Building code regulations? Etc…

How are those bad things? How are they dangerous? I’d say its dangerous not to have such regulations in place.

The regulations we have here in Canada have helped protect our banks from the sort of financial turmoil thats happening in the states. Thanks to government regulation, our banking system is in better shape than those of any other G8 nation.

This is from a completely different person than that of the questions above. My initial statements are in bold and his response is in italics.

Quote:

(Originally Posted by no name 1)

First off I think government regulation of an economy and business is bad all the way around, it may not be the same as socialism to you but it is just as dangerous in many ways…

Mostly what EM said. How are safety regulations, health regulations, wage regulations, etc… bad things? Many countries don’t have these, and they aren’t in some prosperous Ayn Rand-esque Utopia… but rather people die of easily preventable illnesses, children forgo school to work for pennies a day just to survive, etc… You can argue against environmental protection all you want, but the fact remains that people die when the land and water are contaminated by some industry not having to abide by rules. Etc… And how is having regulations to prevent these things not under the umbrella of the government being “servant or agent of its citizens”?

It seems like you’re saying “the government should be the servant or agent of its citizens who run a big company, but fuck everyone else”. Which becomes a grim and deadly form of Feudalism, which is very un-American, no?

Basically, how is preventing people from needlessly dying, or not allowing them the means to live, etc… “protecting man’s rights”? Likewise, how is funding a military in ventures which most Americans don’t even support “protecting man’s rights”?

Quote:

Now, as far as Obama and Socialism? You asked me to stick to the definition of socialism, so let’s do that…

-definition has been edited out.

…

Quote:

The Socialist Party USA calls for a “steeply graduated” tax policy to redistribute wealth. Obama has promised to increase the tax burden on the rich to redistribute wealth to the poor.

This does not fit the above definitions, at least not more than ANY tax does.

Quote:

Obama’s conversation with “Joe the Plumber” is huge and I don’t see how it can be ignored…

Any tax is a redistribution of wealth. How do you think the military is funded? Police? Etc… Money is taken from the populace and put into services that benefit all. A graduated tax (which is already the case to a degree under Bush, btw) won’t make the rich poor and the poor rich, nor will it put them on par. The rich will still be rich and the poor will still be poor. The poor just doesn’t have to worry about starving or dying from some easily treatable illness. And that’s the goal of social services… “protecting man’s rights”.

Quote:

So with Obama’s plan, the government can and will take from a man who has built up a considerable profit through his own hard work and intelligence and, by force of tax, give it to another man who has not provided a service for him in any way…

Bullshit. Again… it will not be evening things, only providing the necessary means, through tax. In a truly socialist system, the government OWNS the means of production (including industries now run by wealthy individuals, thus no one to heavily tax, now is there?). Obama’s plan is to promote private industry, with regulations, to make sure those industries profit and everyone else benefits.

It’s also kinda ignorant to say talk about those who offer “nothing”. Without those peons, then those who have built considerable wealth would have no one do the necessary work, nor would they have anyone to buy their product. This is why regulations are needed. And using those to provide the poor with necessary things will actually allow them to then spend what they have on other things, which helps industry grow (and those wealthy people get wealthier).

Again, the rich will still be rich and the poor will still be poor. No one plans to change that.

Quote:

“The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights. Under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in “society as a whole,” in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, (the government.) Basically “Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good. -Ayn Rand”

Except that, you know, individuals do own property, it’s considered their personal asset, and they, as an individual, profit off it.

Quote:

Remember Obama’s own words were “spread the wealth around” redistribution, the redistribution of another man’s wealth, with literally no service in return.

lol x 100000

I have not responded to either person as of yet. Obviously there are many many points to bring up to the guy above. He somehow thinks that all these “social services” are a man’s right and another man’s responsibility to provide. Does anyone care to present your responses to this person?

6

Rand’s objectivist theory underlies a call for a highly vigilant society – a society whose antenna are tuned in to opportunities, risks, rights and freedoms. It is an aware society and a motivated one. It believes man is fundamentally a moral being, and given an opportunity his deepest self interest which lies in desiring to achieve the highest moral order of functioning, will eventually lead him there.

If this is understood for its deep meaning, then the queries raised by you relating to governmental regulations can be presented in context. Assume in a non regulated environment, a building collapses. The building could have collapsed either due to lack of sufficient understanding of the engineering design, materials etc. or through fraudulent motives of deliberately using poor quality materials. If it is the former, the engineer’s reputation takes a toss and if he is an honest engineer and he can survive this nightmare which has affected his life, he will immediately go to work on trying to figure out what is wrong. For all you know, his career may be over and no one will give him a contract again. Or he will start again with a small project and try to rebuild. Or if the engineering community believes in him still, they will get together to work out a solution.

The victims themselves will also do soul searching on what went wrong. They will sue the engineer for breach of contract and will proceed to work out a mechanism to figure out how to avoid such situations in future. If possible, they will try to spread the good word and deed to as many as they can with the resources they have. In fact, many famous associations in America have started with just a single person turning around a personal tragedy to create a movement.

Objectivism does not say that you will constantly and forever be in great shape, free from all troubles and will never be cheated. It says the environment will always be free for you to do your best, to access resources within your reach – without anyone providing things on dole or restricting you legally with their concept of what is right and what is wrong.

Contrast this with building regulations imposed by the government. a) the regulators hardly can keep up with the number of buildings coming up. B) they have no primary interest in the building advancements being made c) the imposition of regulations becomes their bread winning job - so now their own self interest is involved against the interests of those for whom this office was created in the first place, i.e. there is a conflict of interest between the implementer and the person for whom the service was originally created.

Gradually, the regulator becomes more and more divorced from the activity it is regulating. In many countries, governmental regulations are broken at will by sections of society having ‘connections’, so the entire regulatory environment becomes a farce. Food regulations are a bigger joke and so are environmental regulations. In India, sandalwood is a product under government’s list of products in which individuals are prohibited from dealing freely. The purported rationale is the protection of the sandalwood forests in Karnataka - south India. The joke is, the sandalwood forests have disappeared with smugglers and poaching under the eyes of the very same governmental officials designated to protect the forests. There are thousands of individuals whose hearts are weeping at this loss, wondering what they can do to save this precious, incredibly beautiful tree from perishing. But when the government’s guns are protecting the forests and are pointed at anyone willing otherwise – thinking, willing, highly motivated and sincere individuals are helpless about pursuing this goal. If only it were a free society, those forests would have become the tourist attraction of the world.

The current banking crisis is just such a tragic, tragic farce. The European Union came out with Basle II – and US with Sarbanes Oxley. Suddenly the thoroughly brilliant and smartest people in finance developed this theory: If the government has appointed regulators to check whether we are doing wrong, then why should I bother about doing right or wrong. I will do as I please, and if I am wrong - let the regulator find out. After all, why should I do the regulator’s job for him? My job is to make money. This is the philosophy that pervaded the entire financial sector. The finance sector will focus on making money, the regulator will focus on ethics – and whatever portion of the money derived unethically is undetected, that becomes legal money.

Today’s joint stock company concept is primarily responsible for the market crisis. The public holds the equity, but the responsibility of the directors is limited.

How can that be? It effectively means noone owns the company, hence noone is responsible. Had the public believed that a businessman can earn limitless profits, no self confident and responsible businessman would hand over his company to the public – in fact, one of the reasons some of the European companies have been cushioned from the crisis is because they continue to remain partnerships who are dedicated to the job of running their organisation prudently. For them governmental regulations are a legal solace, not a foundation without which they will cease to function ethically. Their foundations are within themselves, and for societies teeming with such individuals governmental regulations become irrelevant.

7

gauri,

A well put argument for self-regulation .

I learned something

Thanks, Tony.

8

Unfortunately, as with most of Rand’s philosophy, the idea of a ‘self-regulating’ business world is every bit as much of a fantasy as the fantasy communist society envisioned by Marx in which all men worked hard for the state as a matter of pride. Rand’s phiolosophy conveniently leaves out many truths about men (both as individuals and in groups) simply because they don’t fit her model. Such as:

  1. Power corrupts. That means all kinds of power, whether military, economic, political or even personal power in a relationship.

  2. When power is handed down from generation to generation, there is no guarantee that it will be used wisely by the heirs. Again, that applies to economic power as well as political. One of the things that makes the model of government here in the US so good is that power changes hands very rapidly. Capital, which is the power of capitalism, changes hands more slowly, and Rand wants to slow that transfer down even further building a model of economic feudalism.

  3. Rand claims that all men must act in their own self-interest, and then claims that ‘self-interest’ doen’t mean whatever ‘whim or desire’ they may have, yet when you talk to current objectivists, they claim that people can do ‘whatever they want’ with their money. (of course they ‘can’, but that doesn’t follow Rand’s model…)

  4. Rand constantly states throughout her works that she understands that the current world is not ‘rational’ and not ready for all aspects of her system…but again, the followers one finds in these forums think that ALL of Rand’s philosophy should be applied today.

  5. and to me the big one…Whenever you ascribe to a philosophy that, coincidentally, gives a huge advantage to you and others in similar situations to yourself, you should be doubly skeptical of the reasoning used in the philosophy…double-check and triple-check the logic behind the philosophy, because it is so easy to slide into acceptance of a flawed system when the benefits to you and your kind are so readily apparent…

9

Unfortunately, as with most of Rand’s philosophy, the idea of a ‘self-regulating’ business world is every bit as much of a fantasy as the fantasy communist society envisioned by Marx in which all men worked hard for the state as a matter of pride. Rand’s phiolosophy conveniently leaves out many truths about men (both as individuals and in groups) simply because they don’t fit her model. Such as:

  1. Power corrupts. That means all kinds of power, whether military, economic, political or even personal power in a relationship.

  2. When power is handed down from generation to generation, there is no guarantee that it will be used wisely by the heirs. Again, that applies to economic power as well as political. One of the things that makes the model of government here in the US so good is that power changes hands very rapidly. Capital, which is the power of capitalism, changes hands more slowly, and Rand wants to slow that transfer down even further building a model of economic feudalism.

  3. Rand claims that all men must act in their own self-interest, and then claims that ‘self-interest’ doen’t mean whatever ‘whim or desire’ they may have, yet when you talk to current objectivists, they claim that people can do ‘whatever they want’ with their money. (of course they ‘can’, but that doesn’t follow Rand’s model…)

  4. Rand constantly states throughout her works that she understands that the current world is not ‘rational’ and not ready for all aspects of her system…but again, the followers one finds in these forums think that ALL of Rand’s philosophy should be applied today.

  5. and to me the big one…Whenever you ascribe to a philosophy that, coincidentally, gives a huge advantage to you and others in similar situations to yourself, you should be doubly skeptical of the reasoning used in the philosophy…double-check and triple-check the logic behind the philosophy, because it is so easy to slide into acceptance of a flawed system when the benefits to you and your kind are so readily apparent…

First off, maybe you should read the rules before posting on a forum:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?act=boardrules

Participation Terms

Each participant agrees, through use of this forum, to the following participation terms:

Consistency with the purpose of this site

Participants agree not use the website to spread ideas contrary to Objectivism. Examples include religion, communism, “moral tolerationism,” and libertarianism. Honest questions about such subjects are permitted.

Respect for Ayn Rand and Objectivism

Participants agree to avoid making rude or insulting comments about Ayn Rand, her philosophy of Objectivism, the Ayn Rand Institute, the representatives and supporters of the Institute, or the adherents of the philosophy.

Secondly:

Rand’s phiolosophy conveniently leaves out many truths about men (both as individuals and in groups) simply because they don’t fit her model. Such as:

  1. Power corrupts. That means all kinds of power, whether military, economic, political or even personal power in a relationship.

Half of her writing underscores this idea. It is most certainly not left out of the equation. This proves that you have not read anything past a sparknotes rundown of her works at most or if you have actually read some of them that you did not bother to criticize her positions sincerely and honestly.

  1. When power is handed down from generation to generation, there is no guarantee that it will be used wisely by the heirs. Again, that applies to economic power as well as political. One of the things that makes the model of government here in the US so good is that power changes hands very rapidly. Capital, which is the power of capitalism, changes hands more slowly, and Rand wants to slow that transfer down even further building a model of economic feudalism.

This again proves you have read absolutely nothing of her non-fiction works or have some serious issues with reading comprehension. I suggest you read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal because she directly points out people like you that state this very such thing of her positions and derides this argument completely. Capital changes hands more slowly yes, but it is completely voluntary, and further, what is the alternative? To forceably take this capital from the individual? Who decides that? God? The State? The Majority? For someone that is attacking economic feudalism you seem to be a large proponent of it. In regards to economic and political matters, this is something she emphasizes strongly, that there must be separation of the political ability to affect the economy. This causes the large majority of the problems that “Capitalism” i.e. the Modern mixed economy which has no resemblance to any sort of essentials necessary for a proper Capitalistic society (sound money, free markets, etc.) required.

  1. Rand claims that all men must act in their own self-interest, and then claims that ‘self-interest’ doen’t mean whatever ‘whim or desire’ they may have, yet when you talk to current objectivists, they claim that people can do ‘whatever they want’ with their money. (of course they ‘can’, but that doesn’t follow Rand’s model…)

Rand does not claim that men act in their own self-interest. This is not an automatic function of man. She says that people *should* act in their own RATIONAL self-interest. Also, you are confusing whim worshiping and personal interest. Whim worshiping is wishing to fake reality or otherwise try to use irrational methods to achieve various goals. Who are you or anyone else to tell a person that has earned their money in what way to spend it? You act as if this is some hedonistic act when it is not. Also I like that you are stereotyping all Objectivists.

  1. Rand constantly states throughout her works that she understands that the current world is not ‘rational’ and not ready for all aspects of her system…but again, the followers one finds in these forums think that ALL of Rand’s philosophy should be applied today.

This is complete and utter bull. Especially evident if you ever enter the chat room. There is constant debate as to more specific and contextual elements of her philosophy and I have rarely found a person that has said that her system in its entirety should be put into place.

  1. and to me the big one…Whenever you ascribe to a philosophy that, coincidentally, gives a huge advantage to you and others in similar situations to yourself, you should be doubly skeptical of the reasoning used in the philosophy…double-check and triple-check the logic behind the philosophy, because it is so easy to slide into acceptance of a flawed system when the benefits to you and your kind are so readily apparent…

This gives no advantage to anyone. True capitalism is true and proper equality. If you deserve it you get it. If you don’t you don’t. Further over 80% of the rich today are 1st generation rich, and that is under our current corrupt system.

I think you better go back home to http://www.marxists.org/ because you are obviously lacking not only economical and social history, but are severely at fault for Intellectual dishonesty breaking another forum rule:

Intellectual honesty

Participants agree to be intellectually honest and to avoid, for example, claiming to speak for Objectivism; claiming as an Objectivist position a view contradicted in Objectivist literature; or misrepresenting either the source of a message or one’s own identity.

The fact that I am fairly new to Objectivism and have only read a few of Ayn Rand’s works and that I can so easily tell that you either have not read them, have read other peoples (innacurrate) critiques, or are knowingly being dishonest does not bode well for the rest of your “career” here on this forum. If you have issues with Objectivism that is perfectly fine, but at least make good and, more importantly, accurate arguments against it. To use your own words I think your “leaving out many truths simply because they don’t fit your model”

10

First off, maybe you should read the rules before posting on a forum:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?act=boardrules

Participation Terms

Each participant agrees, through use of this forum, to the following participation terms:

Consistency with the purpose of this site

Participants agree not use the website to spread ideas contrary to Objectivism. Examples include religion, communism, “moral tolerationism,” and libertarianism. Honest questions about such subjects are permitted.

Respect for Ayn Rand and Objectivism

Participants agree to avoid making rude or insulting comments about Ayn Rand, her philosophy of Objectivism, the Ayn Rand Institute, the representatives and supporters of the Institute, or the adherents of the philosophy.

Secondly:

Rand’s phiolosophy conveniently leaves out many truths about men (both as individuals and in groups) simply because they don’t fit her model. Such as:

Half of her writing underscores this idea. It is most certainly not left out of the equation. This proves that you have not read anything past a sparknotes rundown of her works at most or if you have actually read some of them that you did not bother to criticize her positions sincerely and honestly.

This again proves you have read absolutely nothing of her non-fiction works or have some serious issues with reading comprehension. I suggest you read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal because she directly points out people like you that state this very such thing of her positions and derides this argument completely. Capital changes hands more slowly yes, but it is completely voluntary, and further, what is the alternative? To forceably take this capital from the individual? Who decides that? God? The State? The Majority? For someone that is attacking economic feudalism you seem to be a large proponent of it. In regards to economic and political matters, this is something she emphasizes strongly, that there must be separation of the political ability to affect the economy. This causes the large majority of the problems that “Capitalism” i.e. the Modern mixed economy which has no resemblance to any sort of essentials necessary for a proper Capitalistic society (sound money, free markets, etc.) required.

Rand does not claim that men act in their own self-interest. This is not an automatic function of man. She says that people *should* act in their own RATIONAL self-interest. Also, you are confusing whim worshiping and personal interest. Whim worshiping is wishing to fake reality or otherwise try to use irrational methods to achieve various goals. Who are you or anyone else to tell a person that has earned their money in what way to spend it? You act as if this is some hedonistic act when it is not. Also I like that you are stereotyping all Objectivists.

This is complete and utter bull. Especially evident if you ever enter the chat room. There is constant debate as to more specific and contextual elements of her philosophy and I have rarely found a person that has said that her system in its entirety should be put into place.

This gives no advantage to anyone. True capitalism is true and proper equality. If you deserve it you get it. If you don’t you don’t. Further over 80% of the rich today are 1st generation rich, and that is under our current corrupt system.

I think you better go back home to http://www.marxists.org/ because you are obviously lacking not only economical and social history, but are severely at fault for Intellectual dishonesty breaking another forum rule:

The fact that I am fairly new to Objectivism and have only read a few of Ayn Rand’s works and that I can so easily tell that you either have not read them, have read other peoples (innacurrate) critiques, or are knowingly being dishonest does not bode well for the rest of your “career” here on this forum. If you have issues with Objectivism that is perfectly fine, but at least make good and, more importantly, accurate arguments against it. To use your own words I think your “leaving out many truths simply because they don’t fit your model”

Good defense, Jennifer.

Unfortunate to have it wasted on a troll instead of someone earnestly seeking clarification.

11

The building could have collapsed either due to lack of sufficient understanding of the engineering design, materials etc. or through fraudulent motives of deliberately using poor quality materials.

If there were regulations in place, none of these would happen, especially not the latter. Sure, a regulatory committee will make mistakes and things will collapse, but the committee would generally catch any use of poor quality materials, where in a Randian utopia there would be nobody to catch it.

I know I certainly can’t tell poor quality materials from sturdy materials with a cursory overview. This is why government regulation works in this regard.

Gradually, the regulator becomes more and more divorced from the activity it is regulating.

You never demonstrated how this is so, how would a person be divorced from the safety of buildings by regulating the safety of buildings?

:smiley:

In many countries, governmental regulations are broken at will by sections of society having ‘connections’, so the entire regulatory environment becomes a farce. Food regulations are a bigger joke and so are environmental regulations. In India, sandalwood is a product under government’s list of products in which individuals are prohibited from dealing freely. The purported rationale is the protection of the sandalwood forests in Karnataka - south India. The joke is, the sandalwood forests have disappeared with smugglers and poaching under the eyes of the very same governmental officials designated to protect the forests. There are thousands of individuals whose hearts are weeping at this loss, wondering what they can do to save this precious, incredibly beautiful tree from perishing. But when the government’s guns are protecting the forests and are pointed at anyone willing otherwise – thinking, willing, highly motivated and sincere individuals are helpless about pursuing this goal. If only it were a free society, those forests would have become the tourist attraction of the world.

A system is not at fault for the corruption of it’s own mechanics. This has nothing to do with the evils of regulation, but everything to do with the lazy, corrupt people that operate the system.

The current banking crisis is just such a tragic, tragic farce. The European Union came out with Basle II – and US with Sarbanes Oxley. Suddenly the thoroughly brilliant and smartest people in finance developed this theory: If the government has appointed regulators to check whether we are doing wrong, then why should I bother about doing right or wrong. I will do as I please, and if I am wrong - let the regulator find out. After all, why should I do the regulator’s job for him? My job is to make money. This is the philosophy that pervaded the entire financial sector. The finance sector will focus on making money, the regulator will focus on ethics – and whatever portion of the money derived unethically is undetected, that becomes legal money.

This is just a terrible misrepresentation of what happened in the “banking crisis”. It seems to me that you are blaming regulation for the shady practices that are behind this whole mess. What you conveniently failed to mention, is how that countries who have stronger regulations in place (i.e. Canada) are not in the same mess that we are because of their regulations.

How can that be? It effectively means noone owns the company, hence noone is responsible. Had the public believed that a businessman can earn limitless profits, no self confident and responsible businessman would hand over his company to the public – in fact, one of the reasons some of the European companies have been cushioned from the crisis is because they continue to remain partnerships who are dedicated to the job of running their organisation prudently. For them governmental regulations are a legal solace, not a foundation without which they will cease to function ethically. Their foundations are within themselves, and for societies teeming with such individuals governmental regulations become irrelevant.

Isn’t it weird how the companies with heavier regulations seem to be avoiding the brunt of this mess? Yet somehow… regulations are evil. Interesting.

12

  1. You can determine poor workmanship and materials from inspections. The only regulation necessary is enforcement of fraud and theft by deception law against businesses that sell inferior products and hide it. Also, please present evidence that government regulation works in this regard.

  2. Because their job is not to innovate or improve, its to enforce compliance to a standard that may or may not be current. His job is to make sure the product looks like the snapshot he’s given, nothing more. If that means prohibiting nonstandard, but superior, materials he will. If it means greenlighting a product that barely makes code, giving it a false veneer of acceptability when a commercial inspector would warn the paying consumer, he will.

  3. True, when your system does away with rights in favor of regulation the corrupt will always rise to the top. In a properly free system there are no arbitrary rules or regulations to bend, break with a wink, or loophole out of. Just laws against rights violations rigidly enforced.

  4. For one thing, Canada is not a utopia. As a personal anecdote, I’ve known bank executives that consider working with canadian banks to be pure hell. The system is stagnant and no one even cares to fix problems. Believe that or not, but it is a true assessment I received from a VP of a regional bank. Regulations provide a smokescreen for crap like the massive fraud in the financial sector to take place. The layman assumes that “its all being watched”. It isn’t. Madoff got away with his crime for so long partly because he had held high level positions and was trusted. People didn’t think a guy connected like he was could be doing what the analysis they were looking at said, and the money kept flowing. And yes, mandatory housing finance regulations, winking assurances from congress that losses would be covered, and oversight that can be bought did have a role in this.

  5. Isn’t it weird how politicians in countries with heavier regulations always seem to be peddling influence and favor to let someone avoid the regulations and messes? Yet somehow…businesses are evil. Interesting.

Extensive regulations serve as a smokescreen for malfeasance, stagnate the market, protect some businesses at the expense of others, and assign corrupt power to government officials who arbitrarily abuse it.

13

Good defense, Jennifer.

Unfortunate to have it wasted on a troll instead of someone earnestly seeking clarification.

Do not be frustrated. It is not a wasted effort at all. Remember that this forum is read by people seeking answers (like me many moons ago). A friend of mine put it this way: The purpose of a public debate is the presentation of an opposing view using evidence to a unbiased third party. It is NOT to persuade your opponent of anything.

14

This is just a terrible misrepresentation of what happened in the “banking crisis”. It seems to me that you are blaming regulation for the shady practices that are behind this whole mess. What you conveniently failed to mention, is how that countries who have stronger regulations in place (i.e. Canada) are not in the same mess that we are because of their regulations.

Regulations such as those governing financial institutions in America become necessary only when there exists some possibility that companies can retain profits while socializing losses. The existence of both private institutions and government-sponsored enterprises with implicit government (i.e. taxpayer) guarantees creates the need for regulation of these companies. Regulations were required for entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac only because they were allowed to play with other people’s money. In a truly private financial system, one in which private property rights are enforced, everyone is responsible for investing and lending their own money responsibly, and any failure to do so hurts primarily themselves. Under this situation, regulations are not required.

Also, whenever a structure exists that does make regulations necessary, these regulations inevitably lag behind the times and are unable to perform their function. For instance, the Basil accords referenced above originally classified mortgages as a very safe asset, and their risk classification did not change until 2006 despite a constant slackening of lending standards and increase in actual risk associated with mortgages. The lag of these capital regulations behind developments in the economy led financial institutions to invest much more in mortgages than they otherwise would have in order to exploit the loophole, and this greatly increased the severity of the housing boom and bust, and subsequent recession. Regulations inevitably fail and produce unintended consequences.

I don’t know anything about the situation in Canada, either in terms of the socialization of loan losses or the strength and kind of regulations, but simply saying “stronger regulations, less bad recession!” isn’t exactly an argument. Precisely what incentives are created by the regulatory system affects what people will do; this is what needs to be looked at. I’m sure no one here claims that it is impossible to structure one set of regulations better than another.

In response to your comments about regulatory agencies above (how they become increasingly more divorced from their purpose), one needs to look at the incentives regulatory bodies have to do what they’re supposed to. Inevitably regulatory bodies are made up of appointees and other non-elected personnel, and thus retaliation for poor performance is even farther removed from them than it is for regular politicians. The longer they are in existence, the less attention is paid to what they are doing. For example, the three rating agencies for financial instruments in America, while private, enjoy government oligopoly protection. They are thus partially dependent for their profits on government power, and less so on the quality of their ratings. This was one major reason for their gross mistakes in rating mortgages leading up to the crisis, and they aren’t even full-fledged government agencies. Their long history in America and good performance in the past is one reason that they were able to slack for so long. Entities like the EPA and the FDA do characteristically poor jobs and are often motivated by political considerations rather than those which they are supposed to respond to.