RoR: Forum

Rick,

The infinite food that can be grown next quarter will be of no benefit to the finite need for nutrition today. At some point, the philosophical stance has to be translated into concrete practice. Economists in the past didn't know about quarter year analyses. They never envisioned a world without diversity.

Corporations need to be brought to heel. They are out of control; the "robber barons" had something of a sense of privilege imposed by a need to fit in with "old money". Libraries, universities and hospitals were built to impress their new best friends.

Today's corporations can find their own niches; they need to be told that the world is watching and taking notes. The middle classes are the only ones who can make them listen. We cannnot wait until our voice is rendered impotent; and we become the working/retired poor.

Do you have statistics on human resources being finite? I think that the "one-child" policy in China belies that.

Post 21

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 5:30pm

The role of the corporation in a capitalist economy is an interesting subject for discussion. Is a (limited liability) corporation a fascistic construction? I always wondered about the corporation that supplied the Nazis with the poison gas used to murder Jews. Zyklon B.

--Brant

Post 22

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 5:45pm

From what I heard they bought it under the pretense of "Pest Extermination." It was designed to kill insects and rodents but it worked on a much larger scale.

---Landon

Post 23

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 5:47pm

The globalization of the modern economy and of the internet is based on the five pillars of the criminal economic

a)Financial transactions, which is the recycling of all the others forms of criminality;

b)the marketing of weapons and toxic material

c)the marketing of live organs and sectioned for transplants

d) the marketing of drugs

e) pollution

f) internet criminality

The rest of our economy the one directed to satisfy the real needs of the real economies

It’s only the under product of these sectors, a residual phenomenon now, often kept to the margins of the illegality.

What can be done about this.

Post 24

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 6:06pm

Ciro,

Where did you find that data? Are you teasing me because I'm not a dyed in the wool Objectivist? If these notions are true; it's seems too late already.
There is truly no limit to human depravity.

Sharon

Post 25

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 6:08pm

Sharon -- here are the basic answers to your questions.

"In a finite world; if I take more freedom; you must accept less. If I clean out the cupboard before you get there; you are faced with less. "

Freedom, first of all is not something you can "take" from me by taking free actions yourself. The only way you can take my freedom away is to initiate the use of physical force or deception (fraud) against me.   All other actions you take that don't fall into that catagory are not limiting my freedom.

"Capitalism is based on an infinite world. As scarce resources are monopolized by an ever diminishing small number of entrepreneurs; we will be given fewer and fewer choices; until we find ourselves (as already some poor do) between a rock and a hard place. The natural inequality of capitalism will become intolerable to those who are not afraid to look into the eyes of poverty."

Capitalism is in fact NOT based upon a finite world with scarce resources. Natural resources are in fact unlimited.  Consider all of the "stuff" available in this Earth and in the universe. Also consider the fact that matter itself never actually disapears, it simply changes form.

What is limited is human labor and something called wealth. Ultimately, wealth consists of converting natural resources into usable goods. This is done via the fruits of human labor. Both physical labor and mental labor. Lets take the example of oil.   500 years ago oil and its products were not forms of wealth.   It was only when man created technology that converted this resource into energy that oil became wealth. When this happened, the amount of wealth (the pie) expanded thus improving human life. These advances led to even further advances, and then further advances on top of that. All of these advances lead to more wealth and newer types of wealth which means that for every living person (or unit of labor) there is in fact an ever increasing amount of wealth available.

This is true with every new discovery and new technology. Every time we come up with a new way to generate energy, or a more efficient manufacturing process or a more efficient way to use farm land the effect is to increase the TOTAL AMOUNT OF TANGIBLE WEALTH in circulation. The pot is in fact increasing with every new advance. The advent of capitalism sped up this process because it created a DIVISION OF LABOR. Instead of having to concern ourselves with growing food as our ancestors did we can now focus on whatever our specific specialty is and we can trade the fruits of our labor for the things we need to survive. This is of course because now it only takes the work of one man on a farm to do the work of say 100, as it may have in the past. Most of us living in devloped countries, like the United States which have advanced division of labor societies are able to trade our labor for FAR MORE then simply what we need to survive. We can now buy goods that simply make us more comfortable or more healthy.   Almost everyone in the U.S. can now buy luxeries that 100 years ago were only available to the most wealthy people.   With increased specialty, there are experts in all types of fields who's main goal is to produce new types of wealth through new technology or to find better ways of doing things that have been previously discovered.

So as you can see -- as the rest of the world develops and if free markets prevail the net result will be MORE WEALTH and an increased quality of life.   If you would like more clarification about why FREEDOM is absolutely essential to this whole process I can explain that to you as well. Just understand that capitalism and the division of labor society I just described cannot function properly without freedom (the right to be free from the initiation of physical force and fraud) and the recognition and protection of all individual rights and property rights that stem from  freedom.

- Jason

(Ayn Rand sufficiently destroyed the arguements for altruism and made sturdy arguments in favor of selfishness -- or acting for our own rational self interest so I direct you back to her writings if you still have questions about these subjects. The laws of economics -- which are in fact natural laws just like the laws of physics heavily reward humans acting in their own rational self interest.)

(Kevin Haggerty -- are you from Phoenix?? Your name sounds familiar. This post is directed at you as well.)

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 7/27, 6:46pm)

Post 26

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 6:34pm

Sharon, of course you can't eat today food that will not be available until next year. What are you trying to say?

There never will be a world without diversity. Didn't you, in another post, point out that everyone was superior to someone else in some respect (well, actually you said "inferior" but I think it's better to emphasize the positive). Since the time of Ricardo (about 200 years) economists have understood comparative advantage and the consequent fact that mutually profitable trade is possible between any two people.

The fact that there are only 24 hours in a day is all you need to know to realize that human labor is in limited supply.

Post 27

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 6:36pm

Even if Sharon could be convinced that the potential for wealth creation is infinite (which it is), it wouldn't matter. John Rawls has his hooks in her, so the only system that would satisfy her is one where laziness, incompetence, and just plain lack of ability are taken as moral claims on the strength and productiveness (read: the lives) of others. This is most certainly not capitalism.

Post 28

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 5:50pm

Hey Rick! Thanks for the reply. You say "markets can 'expand' by evolving." I'm sure they can, but what's to say they will? What I see is something of a scorched earth mentality so far. Your example of whale oil is tragically apt. Sperm whales were hunted nearly to extinction before that market "evolved." Pure utopian capitalism would have wiped them out completely. In the light of Objectivism, am I being sentimental in my concerns? At the moment our economy runs on petroleum, certainly when the world's oil supplies are depleted we'll find something else. Is this the "evolution" you speak of? To me that's just survival.

Earlier you said:

Under capitalism there is no single "cupboard" with a fixed supply. There are multiple cupboards that are constantly being replenished. What was not a cupboard yesterday is a cupboard today.

This puts me in mind of war profiteers. What was not a cupboard yesterday is a cupboard today after the bombs have destroyed the existing infrastructure.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that capitalism is the root cause of all this (c.f: my analogy of the handgun), only that capitalism gets along quite nicely while a lot of people, other species and the Earth itself, suffer terribly in its wake. There is nothing within capitalism to restrain this destructive aspect. I have a hard time seeing a moral basis, therefore, to capitalism.

Post 29

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 7:42pm

Rick ,

I was referring to the finite attribute of those resources that are both needed and available simultaneously. I have need of 100'000 dollars today; but they won't materialize for several months in the future. This means that the infinite availability is moot. Practicality is interested in what is able to be implemented, Rick, not just what can be designed. People are here now. Needs are now. Solutions are needed now, and continually.

Capitalism came before Henry Ford conceived of the assembly line, and the 24hr. 2 shift work day. Did Rand say anything about the Great Depression of the 20th century?

But my lament is not about capitalism; it is the abuse of capitalism by corporatism that is destructive. Corporations have the ability to cast humans aside like offal; and some have the will to do it. Hopefully, Objectivism operates on a more enlightened level than the caste system of India.

I agree with you, Rick, about stating things positively; but Adler's main premise centred around the fear of inferiority as the reason for humankind's discouragement. If you can find the positive notes in my laments; I'll stay up all night writing the score.

Post 30

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 8:05pm

Jason,

Thank you for the generous explanation. When individuals (sociopaths) act brutally; and create mayhem in my neighbourhood; my freedom is diminished; Yes force is implicit; but it is nevertheless real. If I don't help to rehabilitate those brutes; then my freedom is forever lost.

Time to move into a walled garden with broken pop bottles on the ledge.

Does America not see the threat from those lazy incompetent etc. etc. brutes that Andrew thinks I am supporting. Rehabilitate them or face the consequences. There's no place to hide; unless you are the wealthy elite.

Michael Marotta has some statistics on another thread about some 700 individuals per 100'000 population in US jails. Most of them are not white collar criminals. In South Africa; the greatest number of employees are working in the security business.

Please, it is CORPORATISM that is my big concern, not capitalism.

Sharon

Post 31

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 8:11pm

Sharon -- you are going in several directions. Can you please define what it is specifically that you dislike about corporations??

- Jason

Post 32

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 8:18pm

Sharon, before we progress, let me make clear that I am not trying to be confrontational but understand where you are coming from. Having said that, I am not sure that you answered my questions...But to be fair, I will look at the greed site, though no promises that I will agree with it.

I think what we are seeing here is a different perspective on the same thing...you say that people bond through inferiorities, Objectivism says people should bond through their shared values. I wouldn't doubt that the first exists, and I don't think it's a bad thing in itself, but I personally would rather see people bond through something more positive, which is what I think that Objectivism and free market trade provides (capitalism as Rand wrote about is not the same as the capitalism of Dickens, it is more an "unknown ideal," so I refer to lassaiz-faire free trade.)

But if you have not read Atlas, as you have not read Fountainhead, you would be missing the Objectivist distinctions of capitalism, so keep that in mind.

Post 33

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 8:25pm

Sharon, I saw the Greed site...if that is what you believe, I sincerely believe you are in the wrong forum, and I say this as someone who grew up poor and heard these arguments growing up, and believed many of them for a long time. Personal experience has taught me that many of the people in my childhood who accepted these arguments earned what they were worth, and I say that unfortunately about family as well. I have grown up poor and find the greed site insulting to myself and others who struggled to pull themselves up.

(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 7/27, 8:32pm)

Post 34

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 8:49pm

Andrew,

I don't know John Rawls; but I quickly looked him up and I don't think we are kindred spirit. I don't agree that there's value in distribution without merit. I DO believe in social contracts, on mutual terms. How else can we avoid chaos if we can't agree on the rules of social interaction.

Sharon

Andrew, In haste I misread your observations of my comments and chastised you inappropriately. I'm very much regretting that I acted too impulsively. I hope you didn't even see what I wrote. Sorry Sharon
(Edited by Sharon Romagnoli Macdonald on 7/27, 8:55pm)

Post 35

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 9:06pm

Sharon, your posts are an example of the crab bucket mentality in action. Please, spare me your compassion.

Sharon, I really think you need to reconsider. I think you are attributing something to Solo or Objectivism that simply does not exist. No one here is advocating a genocide, for sure, and all that's being asked is the same from your so called untouchables.
As for finding the good in the so-called untouchables, why should that be anyone's concern? Let the individual prove his worth. Why are you so ready to fight the potential good of the so called untouchable, but so ready to dismiss the actual good brought on by those who have achieved? Again, I've been in the same mindset, I've lived through that type of welfare compassion, and I've done better at the hands of greedy capitalists.

I've been in the crab bucket, and was fortunate enough to crawl out. As a capitalist, I hope others will follow me out, and will lend a hand, but I'll be damned if they try to pull me back in. And whatever my differences with Objectivism and even Solo, I thank both as well as the many individuals who have helped me out of the crab bucket, friends, family, and Objectivists.

(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 7/27, 9:08pm)

Post 36

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 9:18pm

Joe,

I DO NOT agree with any articles holus bolus. My focus in mentioning the site was to hear what Objectivists would say about:

1) the accuracy of the author's understanding of the history of economics

2) the dangers of corporatism

3) greed

Sharon

Post 37

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 9:30pm

Sharon, you wrote: "I DO NOT agree with any articles holus bolus. My focus in mentioning the site was to hear what Objectivists would say about:

1) the accuracy of the author's understanding of the history of economics

2) the dangers of corporatism

3) greed

Sharon"

Sharon, you also posted the following, which is basis to believe that you do agree with the article:

Humankind's need for immediate gratification will be the downfall of North American life as we know it. Was this assumed at the onset? A quote from the above wesite:

Inside the coop where he'll stay 'til he's killed
The rooster sings anthems of Liberty
Because he was given two roosts. Fernando Pessoa

In a finite world; if I take more freedom; you must accept less. If I clean out the cupboard before you get there; you are faced with less.

The www.g-r-e-e-d.com article was more than statistics Barbara; it was also a history of economics. Is this a history that Objectivists must ignore in order to retain a detached air of superiority? My freedom is determined by the sense of freedom of those with whom I share life. sigh

It does not mean that I shouldn't follow the lead of Socrates and be the gadfly when I read articles such as that written by James. I have lived a privileged life having been fortunate to have been given a strong gene pool and a pair of strong willed parents. I appreciate those accidents of birth; and feel some obligation to show gratitude by sharing my talents with those who weren't as privileged; while simultaneously pricking the consciousness of the otherwise complacent privileged.

If Corporatism carries on at will; we will be living as Dickens wrote. Is that okay with Objectivism? Do some have plans for workhouses and poorhouses? Couldn't Objectivism become the conscience of the corporate ideal? Isn't there some opportunity for positive action?

We cannnot wait until our voice is rendered impotent; and we become the working/retired poor.

Post 38

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 9:34pm

Sharon, you wrote: "I appreciate those accidents of birth; and feel some obligation to show gratitude by sharing my talents with those who weren't as privileged; while simultaneously pricking the consciousness of the otherwise complacent privileged."

Objectivism does not hold that you are required by duty to share those talents, they are yours to do with as you wish, provided you do not hurt others with them. No one has a right to your life or talents.

The fact that you would prick the consciousness of the otherwise complacent privileged shows that you do agree with the article. Sharing is great, coercion is not.

Post 39

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:09pm