Objectivism/capitalism... something is wrong here.

Ed,

Corporations do "pay for it" because they exist to serve their self interests, and lying politicians benefit on our behalf, because they serve our interests. However, what I am suggesting is that politicans do not independently control, or exert a minimal influence, over the economy. Instead, polticians should act in accordance with a constitutional ideal or amendment. The problem as of now is that poltics is run, indiscreetly, by corporations and corporate issues and incentives. Politicians should operate by the discretion of some embedded, indelible "rule" of sorts. Now, politicians may still have the capacity to "cheat" in such an environment, that means lying and benefiting on our (the peoples') expense, but they could be held accountable and based for trial upon a articfact of complete certainty. Such accusations fall nowadays for polticians in the capitalist society because they are influenced by corporate ideals, but it is a "clandestine" interest, one that is not legitamate and not easily proved, debunked, or trialed. The same goes for corporations: accusations fall short because they too hold no public accountability and responsibility. Certainly, they will lose financially, but not significantly. Why? If a corporation commits a misdemeanor of sorts the only ones who will have a cognitive recognition are the intellects of society. As I have said, it is too difficult to publicize this information. When it appears, it appears in the forms of documentaries, books, articles, maybe newsposts. What these are competing with are advertising and mass media.

An example: McDonalds is still thriving after the documentary "Supersize me."

Michael Moore's "George and Me" has still left GM strong.

And all books of anti corporatism (No Logo, Naomi Klein, to name one) fails to demean Nike and Pepse and other major corporations.

Furthermore, Ed, you talked about economic growth in the last 2 centuries. Well, according to what I've read, true, predatory corporatism, using mass media, brand names, and "propaganda" has only emerged in the early to late 80's.

Ayn Rand's book that you mention was written before a such time.

Robert and Sam:

No, I have not read this book, but I am eager to. I still do not see any excuse that you fail in absolute exasperation to submit further evidence to your "arch-nemesis in socio-political justice". If you are so adamant in bolstering the capitalist ideal then you should be effusive in disproving me. As of yet, you've simply mocked my attempts in exasperation. Its having no effect on me, I should add. Small quips should be better replaced by longer testaments and arguments.

John, you wrote:

Therefore, a capitalist corporation�s main goal would not be only profit. It would be through customer satisfaction that they gained any profit.

Wrongo! Profit, in the corporate sense, must be gained by whatever means possible. And proft, realistically, is not gained by customer satisfaction, but by customer consumerism. The two are visibly separated. Customer satisfaction is an ideal of small business. Corporations are gaint.

Lets apply this idea with yourself: are you satisfied, to an extent that it would be noticeable, with any corporate items that you have purchased?(because I'm sure you have) Do you really feel satisfied as a consumer when you drink Pepsi?!

Furthermore, John, we do not live in an ideal objectivist/capitalist economy. And as trends are indicating, we probably never will. Now, I would support such an economy, but I don't think it is economically plausible, and thus not possible.

You also wrote:

These corporate people don�t exist in a world in which they are not customers

You're right. Corporate people (those who participate, to any extent, in a corporation), can be nice people. You can have a whole truckload of great people running an "evil" corporation. But a corporation downsizes these people. They become, in the corporate sense, slaves to the institutional value: make profit. A corporation, by definition, is a partnership, a cohesive collective body. THe body is therefore the "evil" one, and the individuals, powerless beneath the institutional policies, are not.

Also:

products would run out of money if it were maintaining a reputation with fakery

Its not fakery, John. Its concealing. You don't fake a reputation, you build one. You create an image for yourself, and you do not use it to hide what you are, but to distract from it. Corporate imagery is not logistical, John, its psychological.

It was also said:

ideally the customer would be smart enough to not fall for misleading advertising, the customer using their own rational logic to decide what is the best for him or her

(Note the world "ideally) John, I'm quite sorry to concede that consumers are not smart enough. Those that are do not "consume" to such rapid extents. That's why corporations succeed; more people consume then not consume. And you've probably figured it out from there: there are less rational people than there are rational people. More people succumb to the corporate onslaught then there are who recognize it, and in any way, deny such consumerism.

Sam (just one more thing)-

You said-

I see by you profile that you consider yourself an Objectivist but have you actually read anything by Rand? Nothing you have written would make me believe me that you have.

In this "debate" of sorts occurring now, it would seem the same applies to you.

My last comment:
Rand wrote her capitalist manifestos before the rise of true corporatism, and so I hope (correct, or contest, me if I'm believed to be wrong) that objectivists don't cling to such beliefs almost out of conservative dogma. The times are changing, as is capitalism. I hope old ideas are revisted and reexamined.

Post 21

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 6:50am

This is a waste of time. I'm outa this thread.

Sam

Post 22

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 6:54am

Rand wrote her capitalist manifestos before the rise of true corporatism.

Wrong.

Rand criticised corrupt corporatism as a symptom of mixed economies. Just one example, in Atlas Shrugged Hank Rearden has a "man in Washington" called Wesley Mooch. Mooch is a lobbyist lick-spittle toad that ultimately gives his services to the highest bidder by influencing politicians. Mooch eventually turns against Hank, and that contributes towards Hanks companies downfall.

Yes, Rand did criticize corrupt business practices in her books. They ultimately have devastating consequences on the company and the economy in general, but flourish as a consequence of unnecessary over-reaching powers of the Government to regulate businesses in the first place!

Post 23

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 7:06am

A.B.A.H.:

As I see it, your main difficulty is that you can�t seem to separate they way you perceive corporations and businesses to be now and the way they would be under true capitalism.

Let's take just one example. Now consumers don�t have to be smart, because the government has assured them, through all of their agencies, that any product they buy is safe, nutritious, and non-habit-forming. Imagine how it would be if consumers actually had to determine for themselves whether a product was good or not. Consumer intelligence would increase rapidly. And this is where reputation would come in, as Ed pointed out. Who�s going to buy from someone or some company that you don�t know anything about? It would take a while for companies to earn the trust of the consumer.

This is the value of Robert�s suggestion of doing more reading in Economics in general or Objectivism in particular, if you haven�t already. Here�s one example from Chapter 11 of OPAR:

�The truth is that no private individual or group, criminals aside, can affect the independence of any other individual or group. � Under capitalism, as reputable economists have demonstrated repeatedly, a private monopoly can be gained and kept only through merit; without government favors, it is impossible for anyone to monopolize even a single commodity and then, enjoying a life of stagnant ease, use his property to �exploit� others.�

It gives arguments for how things might be, not how they are. And the economic system we have right now is man-made, not the metaphysically given.

Thanks,

Glenn

Post 24

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 10:28am

A.B.A.H., you argue that 'corporatism' is a relatively new (c. 1980's) phenomenon. But this is what philosophers call a "distinction without a difference." You see, in both cases (early cut-throat capitalists vs. 'corporatists') the origination and propagation rests with the self-same, unearned, arbitrary power -- ie. the federal government.

Now I had said earlier that, if Rand's book wasn't enough of an example, then I would have more recent examples to share (if you'd just ask for them). Interestingly, you somehow admit that Rand's book is insufficient (citing its publication date) -- but then you fail to show concern for looking at the new evidence which I claim is in my disposal.

This makes me curious A.B.A.H., how come you're not interested in new evidence showing that our new 'corporatism' is just as government originated and government propagated as in earlier times? It's as if you have a conclusion you wish to cherish -- in spite of evidence.
Your conclusion, if I may be so bold as to presume to speak for you, is (not a real quote):

----------------
More government power is needed (and the 'angels' in government will then fix this corruption problem).
----------------

But this runs contrary to the undeniable dynamics here. There is a saying: If you can get them to ask the wrong questions, then you need not care about their answers. This is what you are doing (asking the wrong questions). Your answers to this problem will only compound it. The solution is not more government power -- it never has been, and never will be. You are asking the wrong questions.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 6/30, 10:30am)

Post 25

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 5:19am

Just joined, haven't lurked around enough to know the style, and admitted, i have still to read some Rand to know what I am talking about, but from what i gather she would have respected my rights to speak my mind, and own my fact-based beliefs even if they should differ from hers... so beat me if I am breaking the forum norms here...

I think the key is the very first line; "absolute separation of state and economy". The Bush Administration was carried to the White House on $50 Million dollars from oil, gas, coal and nuclear companies, so the power might be said to be absolute, but not separated. The role of government should be to serve the people, among other means by protecting businesses, but NOT to protect business at the cost of people, as we see now. America holding 4.6% of the World population while causing 24% of the CO2 emissions, would maybe have given the Kyoto agreement a chance if the guy in charge wasn't bought ?

On the topic of corporate brainwash i don't agree, advertising is used by all interest groups, so you have an equal amount of propaganda for and against any given product or idea, and i don't think its more brainwash than you influencing people with your opinion here.

I think you make a good point, but i would base it on the fact that you don't have free Laissez-faire capitalism - you have forced capitalism - and no one seems the least bit interested in hiding this fact - PNAC-members (the Project for the New American Century) was given most high ranking positions in the Bush Administration (Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul D. Wolfowitz etc etc) and as they write: "The Project for the New American Century is dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.", they openly declare that any government not submitting to the American corporate needs and values should be defeated by use of pre-emptive warfare and other available means of pressure.

Post 26

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 1:50pm

Soren, can you show where Cheney and Rove are affiliated with PNAC? I'm aware of the Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz connection, but not the others.

Post 27

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 3:03pm

Soren (sorry, not sure how to make my computer slash-mark the "o"),

---------------
The role of government should be to serve the people, among other means by protecting businesses ...
---------------
I disagree. Government protection of business interferes with free market mechanics -- and free market mechanics, not government meddling, are the wellspring of value production. Read Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal for more info.

---------------
America holding 4.6% of the World population while causing 24% of the CO2 emissions, would maybe have given the Kyoto agreement a chance if the guy in charge wasn't bought
---------------
I disagree. Kyoto is not a paradigm of rational policy for maximizing expected utility, it's actually far off the mark. Read Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist for more info.

Ed

Post 28

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 7:12pm

More CO2 is made by cows in India than by whatever in the US...

Post 29

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 11:05pm

Ed,

(if you'd just ask for them

Ed, If you do have any selected readings to bolster your economic case, please suggest them.

Soren, you wrote:

but i would base it on the fact that you don't have free Laissez-faire capitalism - you have forced capitalism

Well, then, I ask this of you, Ed, Robert, Marcus,, Glenn, and Sam, if he's still with us:

a. What is true laissez-faire capitalism, and how are we missing it in modern capitalism
b. How do we acheive this capitalism
c. How would it better replace the existing system
d. Can it be acheived by an inevitable economic "ebbing"

Marcus wrote:

They ultimately have devastating consequences on the company and the economy in general, but flourish as a consequence of unnecessary over-reaching powers of the Government to regulate businesses in the first place!

So basically you're saying is that corporate evil "flourishes" because of government support? Well, Marcus, I think we should ask ourselves why governments would want to support a corrupt corporation in the first place instead of an "admirable" and just corporation? The answer, as I see it, is that governments would have no reason to support a corrupt business and secure its longevity instead of an admirable one because, before support is pledged for either, the corrupt corporation is already thriving. Why would the government choose not to help an uncorrupt corporation if it would reap the same profit and garner a better reputation? Corrupt corporations flourish from bad practices before government intervention (which, in that context, I disagree with; again, I vouch for "constitutional intervention) occurs. Its only because bad practices and corruption have allowed for economic growth that governments then pledge support to, not to "pull them back up" but to sustain them. Corporations succeed without government help, and with ethical disregard. It is this success that retrospectively allures government intervention.

I will again hope to make myself clear: I am against government intervention in a system of laissez-faire capitalism because such intervention, besides being illegal and clandestine, bolsters corruption in corporations by providing them with a bonus incentive. In my eyes, success in capitalism usually tends to involve ethical disregard. And if governments, not having any legitimate "warrants" to intervene with economy but wish to do so anyway (because the sociological shift has become entirely financial, and everybody wants "in"), they will support successful corporations; corporations who make money; and corporations make money through ethical and social disregard and absolute financial orientation.

Glenn, you wrote:

Now consumers don�t have to be smart, because the government has assured them, through all of their agencies, that any product they buy is safe, nutritious, and non-habit-forming

And why do governments do this? Because they want to gain from the corporate rise as much as possible. But because capitalism denies them such endeavors, governments will operate through clandestine means to acheive their end: financial gain. Governments must act in such a way because they have no authenticitation to act through contrived, legal manners.

Now, what I would like to ask you is this:

If true, absolute laissez-faire capitalism is established, will the economy flourish more then it is doing in the present time (i.e make greater profit)? If so, then financial gain will become of even greater importance. IF the government does not take part in the financial expansionist trend, then they will become second banana to the economic instiutions. And the government, like any person or body, also has strong motives for self preservation. In such an economic wonderland, the sociological orientation will be fnancial gain, and the government will want to "gain financially" as best they can. And, as laissez-faire capitalism promises, they can't.

But here's the scary thing:

They still will.

Post 30

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 1:30am

A.B.A.H.,

------------
... bad practices and corruption have allowed for economic growth ...
------------
A.B.A.H., in stating the above, it is obvious that you still miss out on the necessary dynamics of economic growth.

Please answer my questions in post 14, A.B.A.H. -- this is not a lot to ask of you (I itemized my list of them).

It is imperative that you answer these questions, so that I can come to respect you as a rational thinker. Otherwise, I will have no respect for you as a thinker (ie. I will dismiss your commentary, as if it were mere outbursts from a sub-human animal).

A.B.A.H., to be sure, I'm not saying that you ARE a sub-human animal -- I'm only saying that, upon certain pending conditions of evasion on your part, rational self-interest would require you to be treated like one.

---------------
a. What is true laissez-faire capitalism, and how are we missing it in modern capitalism
---------------
Complete and total separation of economy and state --regulations, tariffs, etc.

---------------
b. How do we acheive this capitalism
---------------
By accepting the rational morality of long-term self-interest (ie. ethical individualism) -- as applied to groups of individuals.

---------------
c. How would it better replace the existing system
---------------
By improving justice (forcing each to be responsible for HIS OWN success, failure, corruption, etc).

---------------
d. Can it be acheived by an inevitable economic "ebbing"
---------------
Please explain.

---------------
Well, Marcus, I think we should ask ourselves why governments would want to support a corrupt corporation in the first place instead of an "admirable" and just corporation? The answer, as I see it, is that governments would have no reason to support a corrupt business ...
---------------

A.B.A.H., look into the food company, Monsanto. They had a revolving-door lawyer jumping from Monsanto to government, and back again, at least 4 times! Why would this 'employee' keep changing positions (from Monsanto to the federal government, and back again, and again)? Answer: In order to change federal regulations, so that they benefit Monsanto. He help re-write the law so that Monsanto can make bigger profits.

$64,000 question: Where does the injustice of this lie? Would it be possible for this corruption to proceed if the lawyer had not taken a job with the federal government? Answer: no. The federal government is the one necessary component in perpetuating corruption. And your illusion of 'angels' in government fixing the 'corrupt corporations' fail to explain the reality of this situation (ie. the dynamics of corruption) -- as well as all the other situations of perpetuated corruption.

Ed

Post 31

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 9:19am

O.K. A.B.A.H. I'll take another stab at it. These are responses that you would expect from any Objectivist or Libertarian, if you had bothered to read about them.

a. What is true laissez-faire capitalism, and how are we missing it in modern capitalism

Laissez faire capitalism is the complete freedom of economic activity from government regulation. The only legitimate purview of government is in defense and a system of justice. Politicians are not protectors of the populace. They exist because they love power.

b. How do we achieve this capitalism

By dismantling all the social programs and regulations of business.

c. How would it better replace the existing system

Because free enterprise will create the protection of consumers by creating competitive watchdog and evaluative corporations whereby their only asset is their credibility and reputation. An example is Consumers Union. Many other similar entities would spring up monitoring and evaluating drug companies (replacing the FDA), and all other consumer concerns. Consumers would subscribe to their services. Productivity and innovation would skyrocket when freed of the regulations.

d. Can it be achieved by an inevitable economic "ebbing"

I can only assume that you mean a decrease in economic activity. No. It will be achieved by the government getting the fuck out of the way.

Please answer Ed's questions and my question of whether you have actually read anything of Rand.

Sam

Post 32

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 9:38am

A.B.A.H

Are you thinking, perhaps, of the injustice of a "corporation", that is founded by citizens who are not held, according to an "evil" law, personally responsible for the deeds of that corporation; but, from which they may reap benefits?

Sharon

Post 33

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 12:37pm

A.B.A.H., Sam requests that you answer my questions (as do I). Here is a numbered list of the questions which you have not addressed in intellectual interaction with me:

1) from post 13:

... a voter sued a political candidate for reneging on all his campaign promises (after getting elected). What do you think the verdict was, A.B.A.H.?

2) from post13:

Tell me what you think of THESE quotes ... [an excess of something good -- is what gives birth to evil]-Menander ... [democratic socialists want an excessively-imposed order]-Orwell ... [democratic socialists want an excessively-imposed order]-Maslow ... [democratic socialists want an excessively-imposed order]-Lippmann ... [democratic socialists want an excessively-imposed order]-Molnar

3) from post 14:

A.B.A.H., in the last 2 centuries, we have increased per capita production of goods 36-fold.

Tell me, where did all that extra wealth come from?

Was it created (or did it already exist -- to be "looted")?

4) from post 14:

Was it created by the rivalrous, entrepreneurial discovery and innovation which is only possible in a free market economy?

5) from post 14:

Is it ethical to produce so much value (making our lives now, so much more comfortable -- than life was then)?

6) from post 30:

---------------
d. Can it be acheived by an inevitable economic "ebbing"
---------------
Please explain.

6) from post 30:

Why would this 'employee' keep changing positions (from Monsanto to the federal government, and back again, and again)? Answer: In order to change federal regulations, so that they benefit Monsanto. He help re-write the law so that Monsanto can make bigger profits.

$64,000 question: Where does the injustice of this lie? Would it be possible for this corruption to proceed if the lawyer had not taken a job with the federal government?

6 questions A.B.A.H. -- answering them would help me to determine if there is a possibility of a mutual benefit from personal interaction with you.

p.s. I (like Sam) would also like to know what, if anything, you've read by Rand.

Ed

Post 34

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 4:34am

You guys give better, and more qualified, feedback than so many other venues i have guested - cheers - note to self: make topic deeper not wider these ferocious sharks are hungry (can't believe we are only 5% eNTp's here).

I will reply to the questions, but rather than being independent topics in their own right PNAC and Kyoto were mentioned in support of my claim that governments, and the Bush Administration in particular, had crossed the line between serving the people and serving the businesses - or even being a business.

So in order of appearance, Pete wrote:

can you show where Cheney and Rove are affiliated with PNAC?� I'm aware of the Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz connection, but not the others.�

Cheney was actually, together with Jeb Bush and others, one of the founders of PNAC, and as such one of the signatories on the Statement of Principles posted on the PNAC website. It's always a choice what you will see as reliable sources, PNACs own site of course reveals all the signatories - of whom some of the more prominent are listed on the undisputed Wikipedia entry on Project for the New American Century. For the time i was prepared to invest in the search i didnt find a reliable link to Rove, you can get a clearly biased claim at the Old American Century site or search further from ie Google: +"karl rove" +pnac. But if you check the signatories from each of PNACs own documents, or the list provided by Wikipedia it still proves a powerful point that the top dogs are committed to make trade anything but free.

Ed Thompson wrote:

Soren (sorry, not sure how to make my computer slash-mark the "o"),
I disagree. Government protection of business interferes with free market mechanics -- and free market mechanics, not government meddling, are the wellspring of value production.

Soren without o-slash is perfectly fine. The bad effects of too much government interference was what i tried to prove, hence i agree, but as money is power in the World today, the ones with the most money will be the ones with the greatest opportunity to get more money and yet more power - and basically i think it's fair to let the ones that are doing good do just that, but at the same time we could end up in a situation where one corporation will hold a level of power that will remove the concept of free trade. So my claim, and a claim it is, is that you cant have free trade without some level of government regulation. As a minimum, businesses will influence almost all aspects of our lives, the only way government wouldn't to some extend impose regulations on certain aspects of buisness would be if there was no government at all. How could you regulate health care, military, transportation, education etc without somehow influencing the many corporations dealing in these areas ? I don't see an all or nothing solution, so the discussion would be on the level of interference - as that would be an all encompassing discussion i guess its would be futile, except that i agree that government control should be kept at a minimum.

Ed Thompson and Robert Malcom wrote:

(on Kyoto) I disagree. Kyoto is not a paradigm of rational policy for maximizing expected utility, it's actually far off the mark. Read Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist for more info.
--- and ----
More CO2 is made by cows in India than by whatever in the US...

My fellow countryman Bjorn Lomborg does have some interesting, though not always scientific, conclusions. I too like him for disregarding soft emotions in favour of cold calculations on where we with the least money can create the biggest effect. And though more scientists seem to be against his methods than for, then i think he makes a worthwhile point, whatever the conclusions. Robert, though i haven't seen any reports indicating that the cows in India could be help responsible for more than 24% of the world CO2 emissions then i wouldn't be surprised if they had a great impact, maybe more on methane levels than CO2 but still, but if we can agree that installing CO2 filters in the butts of Indian cows would be a somewhat difficult task, shouldn't we forget the cows ? The countries that have committed themselves to reducing CO2 emission, have shown that they can, the US have shown that they won't - and Mr. Bush have told that it is because the government wants to protect businesses that they won't. Kyoto doesnt dictate the means only the desired effects. I take it my level of ignorance concerning the causes of global warming is pretty much the same as yours, forgive me if im wrong, so i would find it totally legitimate if the US would rebel against Kyoto and say; we believe that reducing [insert favorite global warming contributor here]-emissions would do the job better... but i don't see any such initiative, all i see is; we want to protect businesses whatever the cost on the environment. So to bring it back to the point i was trying to make... the question remains; for or against government protection of businesses?

To A.B.A.H, i fail to see why corporations are evil. I fail to see why doing what they do in self-interest is evil. In order for most any corporation to achieve their goals, they will need to satisfy their interest groups; employees, environmental groups, shareholders, journalists etc but their overall objective will remain earning money. If i had the choice between being capable of giving my children food on the table and say reduce CO2-emissions i would naturally seek to give my children food, and then i would rely on my government to impose restrictions on how much i was allowed to hurt others in doing so. Not because i am a irresponsible human being, but because my responsibilities are prioritized.

Post 35

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 1:07pm

Ed,
I'll restate my last question better for you:

d. Can true laissez-faire capitalism be acheived by a natural shift in the economy? Is the economic situation revolving slowly towards the economic state? Or will it be acheived by a reform of capitalism altogether?

you wrote:

look into the food company, Monsanto. They had a revolving-door lawyer jumping from Monsanto to government, and back again, at least 4 times!

Ed, this happened because both instiutions want to gain financially. Monsanto wanted government support for their financial endeavors, and the government wanted to in some way reap from Monsanto's corruption. This is the problem with present day capitalism. Both instiutions want financial gain, and so both instiutions will impose corrupt means to acheive this end.

Ed, I don't believe that politicans are "stricken" with the paradox of supporting economic corruption. I don't think they are coerced or manipulated- I think they have reason to join in and support the corruption. I'm not looking for the problem to be solved by "angels in the government", but by constitutional laws that ban such behavior. No such laws are being crafted and thus no laws in place have any way of deterring this because to admit that such a law is necessary would be to admit that the government is practicing such corruption, and violating the ethics of capitalism.

Sam-

They exist because they love power.

If this is so, why would the government want to in any way impose decrees that limit their power. Politicans would want more power- and laissez-faire capitalism doesn't allow this. It seems to me that your are insinuating that constitutional laws should be imposed to develop this "absolute separation". But constitutional amendments can only be decreed by politicians, who would have no reason to do so.

Sharon-

Well, isn't that almost the ethics of a corporation? If a corporation is publicly traded, then a crash in the corporation doesn't really hurt the big management positions; CEO etc. What it really hurts are the shareholders.

OK, Sam and Ed, I'll now answer your questions-

Sam- I have read some material of Rand, though not as much as most objectivists because I am not particulalry interested in philosophical dialogue. I have "the virute of selfishness" and "philosophy: who needs it" along with "anthem." I'm guessing from the question then you're really asking me if I've read "capitalism: the unknown ideal". And to answer that, I haven't.

Ed-

1) I would think that the political candidate won.

2)

an excess of something good -- is what gives birth to evil]-Menander

Yes, Ed, but I don't argue for an "excess" of something good, that would be communism, and that is not good. I'm asking for relaxed capitalsim, but capitalism nonetheless.

democratic socialists want an excessively-imposed order

The same applies here.

3) This economic wealth did come from the growth of capitalism, I won't deny you that. What concerns me is the repercussions of the fact that financial gain has become of such great importance. As these numbers increase, the economic game becomes more ruthless (evil corporatism) and the overall sociological orientation an inescapable paradox; dissent cannot be made effective, and basic qualities of freedom are forgotten in what could be called " a capitalist society that is too free."

4) Again, Ed, financial gain has come about from "rivalrous" entrepreneurial discovery, but the rivalry has erupted in such massive tones (due to the massive financial expansion) that ethical disregard and corporate control of poltics and society has also become apparent.

5) The ethical disregard doesn't lie in production (unless you consider sweat shops), but in how the products are sold.

6) I believe I already answered this question at the beginning of this post.

It also seems I have in one way or another covered all of these issues in further depth throughout this debate.

Post 36

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 3:05pm

A.S.A.H.:

Sam-

They exist because they love power.
If this is so, why would the government want to in any way impose decrees that limit their power. Politicans would want more power- and laissez-faire capitalism doesn't allow this. It seems to me that your are insinuating that constitutional laws should be imposed to develop this "absolute separation". But constitutional amendments can only be decreed by politicians, who would have no reason to do so.

Because politicians love power they will test the wind and promote policies that will get them elected. If the electorate insists on absolute separation of the state and business they will comply.

Sharon-

Well, isn't that almost the ethics of a corporation? If a corporation is publicly traded, then a crash in the corporation doesn't really hurt the big management positions; CEO etc. What it really hurts are the shareholders.

Someone else on this thread pointed out that there are fraud laws and the "big management positions" will go to jail. Yes, the shareholders might get hurt. I guess they didn't do their due diligence. This is part of the "legitimate" justice system. Compare this with the FDA. They can be as incompetent as they want and no one will go to jail. The FDA would never be disbanded if they delayed a certain drug and thousands died as a result. They are immune.

OK, Sam and Ed, I'll now answer your questions-

Sam- I have read some material of Rand, though not as much as most objectivists because I am not particulalry interested in philosophical dialogue.

What do you think you're engaging in here?

This has been a waste of time because you have no idea what the responses of the members of this forum will be. You're not prepared for the debate.

Sam

Post 37

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 9:03pm

A.B.A.H., I agree with Sam -- you appear to be wasting our time (you appear to be unprepared -- or unsuited -- for philosophical debate).

Someone who no longer expects to "trade value for value" with you,

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 7/01, 9:05pm)

Post 38

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 5:59am

Sam and Ed,

Do you think that A.B.A.H. will come to your sopisticated understanding of the principles of OBJECTIVISM, in a vacuum?

Instead of looking at how her ideas are incongruent; look for some common ground; and use your superior knowledge to bring her over to your side, one thought at a time. She's in LEARNING MODE, please act like the BENEVOLENT SKILLFUL TEACHERS for which Objectivism seems to be crying out?

Assaulting learners with a barrage of information showing how they are pathetically incorrect, is incongruent with my understanding of SOLO. Life by the inch is a cinch; but life by the yard is very________.

When the pupil is ready, the teacher will appear.
Sharon

My uppercase entries are NOT SHOUTING; I use them to highlight the intent of my post.
(Edited by Sharon Romagnoli Macdonald on 7/02, 6:09am)

Post 39

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 6:29am