Objectivism/capitalism... something is wrong here.

Sharon and Ed: I disagree. He has shown that he doesn't want to bother understanding Objectivism. "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."

He hasn't said he's read these books — only that he has them. Evasion on two counts? He's also said that he doesn't want to get involved in philosophical discussions.

Btw, I think that he signed his name as Andrew somewhere but I may be wrong, so I think he's male although my first impression was that he was female. Unjustified stereotyping on my part?

Sam

Post 41

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 1:14pm

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/he? Come on you guys make your minds up.

A.B.A.H. should come out of the shadows and reveal him or herself. Come out of the shadows and stand up for what you believe in and you will get my respect!

Post 42

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 6:36pm

Sam, when I said I agreed with Sharon, I used the word generally. I did this to try to capture the idea that I agreed in spirit, though not in letter (e.g. spirit of the law vs letter of the law).

Like you, I find A.B.A.H. to be someone currently deficient in key things required for beneficial debate. Notably: identifiable concern for truth, understanding, progress, and benevolence.

Now some may claim I'm being a hypocrite, because I'm one of the masochists who often give Danny the Dissembler the time of day. But when I interact with double-D, I get stronger (like building up a tolerance to cyanide, for example -- or like the Incredible Hulk, getting stronger the harder he's been hit). This is because he respects reason enough to make challenging arguments (though not enough to learn and grow). I interact with him to hone my own skills -- like Bruce Wayne said: "I don't consider [him] the devil, I consider [him] practice."

Ed

Post 43

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 11:20pm

Okay, I'll set the record straight: I am a male.
You guys might be sick of me but I'll still expound some last phrases.

Sam said:

If the electorate insists on absolute separation of the state and business they will comply.

Politicans will comply with the electorate for a constitutional and legitimate establishment of laissez-faire capitalism, but they will still work in clandestine means to benefit from such a system.

Sam, you also have misunderstood me when I said "I am not particularly interested in philosophical dialogue", what I meant was not that I'm interested in objectivism, but that I'm not the person who would cram up on plato and aristotle all night. I recognize the power of philosophy, but only so that I can indiviudally apply it, not to understand how philosophy has affected others. To be concise: I wouldn't study philosophy as a major in college, but I would craft my own philosophy, individually, to enrichen my life.

He hasn't said he's read these books — only that he has them

I have read them, Sam.

Evasion on two counts? He's also said that he doesn't want to get involved in philosophical discussions

What a ridiculous accusation.

And to everyone:

1. From what I've heard, Capitalism: the unknown ideal from Ayn Rand disregards the laws of economics and instead places value on the laws of philosphy (objectivism). Just saying what I heard (I will read the book).

2. My knowledge may be "deficient" in your eyes, but if you are so keenly observant of objectivism yourselves, then you should have no trouble arguing your views instead of retiring from the debate in what I see as exasperation from my supposed "stubborness". In resigning, you're almost relegating my views under the label of "irrational", and thus implying that the rational ethics of debate are futile in at all proving your point. My ideas my seem "stubborn" to you, but not irrational in the sense that they lie in the fields of "mysticism" and "whimsical." I am arguing logically and rationally, so this resignation(not from defeat, but exasperation) is almost seen as a victory to myself. them. As for now, I'll carry my "deficient mind" out of here (unless someone speaks up) and maybe argue my ideas elswhere. Certainly, I'll improve , both by reading from other works from "my side", and some from yours. I'll observe, and I'll note concrete "defficiences" in society. I'm disappointed it had to end like this, with the "teacher" giving up, and the knowledge hungry "student" having not whetted his appetite.

Well, thanks for arguing anyway. I don't know how to end in a more glamorous way, but hey, the end just came. I thought the debate had just begun!

Marcus: thanks for the encouraging note. I hope this finale suffices. I'll continue to do so.

One thing I'm sure we all agreed on is that the (American) capitalist system needs reforming and restructuring. I can see we both want it changed to different extents and in differing directions.

My last question: is this a debate of philosophy, or economics(in your eyes) ? Where do the two dimensions converge, if at all?

Post 44

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 11:38pm

I'm sorry, I keep exiting but then reentering. I was just skimming through this debate when I thought I'd ask you some last questions.

So far, I've imposed many solutions at restructuring a. politics b. society c. economy

But here are some more concrete questions I'd like to ask:

1. What do you say about the corporate onslaught on the environment?
2. About sweatshops a cheap labor?
3. About privitization of basic resources in third world countries?

Post 45

Sunday, July 3, 2005 - 2:12am

'1. From what I've heard, Capitalism: the unknown ideal from Ayn Rand disregards the laws of economics and instead places value on the laws of philosphy (objectivism). Just saying what I heard (I will read the book).'

Well, if you have understood Objectivism you would know that Rand's #1 goal with 'Objectivism' was to create a philosophical system that reflects the laws of reality -- which include the laws of economics. Now if you really want to dig into this issue I suggest you read George Reisman's book 'Capitalism'. Reisman was a student of both the vaunted Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand (he is an avid Objectivist) and in this gigantic book he created the most complete and up to date arguements for absolute capitalism as you will ever find.

- Jason

Post 46

Sunday, July 3, 2005 - 3:58am

And it's understandable, too - tho you can't just zip thru it...

Post 47

Sunday, July 3, 2005 - 4:51am

Abah,

One of the first things that a student of philosophy must understand, is the complexity of issues, and the need to ask ONE QUESTION AT A TIME. Part of the frustration with your posts is the number of notions you throw out at a time. Is your mind capable of manipulating all those problems simultaneously?

What is your FIRST question? Ask it, let these guys do their thing with each other, stifle yourself for a while as you listen thoughtfully, and ask another burning question. LISTEN AND LEARN.

I am thrilled with the way you came in here, guns blazing, a fire in your belly; and most important, for me; LOOKING FOR A BETTER WAY TO LIVE ONE'S LIFE. My professor of philosophy taught me that PHILOSOPHY IS SOMETHING THAT ONE DOES. That is my first premise; and in my short time here, I think SOLOHQ is the place to search.

Welcome Aboard
Sharon

Post 48

Sunday, July 3, 2005 - 8:49am

A.B.A.H asks:

1. What do you say about the corporate onslaught on the environment?

In order to make a profit businesses must provide those goods and services that improve man's environment.

2. About sweatshops a cheap labor?

Offering jobs to the jobless is a good thing.

3. About privitization of basic resources in third world countries?

The lack of private property is what has been keeping the third world poor.

Post 49

Sunday, July 3, 2005 - 11:07am

Rick,

Absolutely, true about the private property; especially that property between the ears.

Sharon

Post 50

Sunday, July 3, 2005 - 11:31am

Rick P.,

Good reply.

Post 51

Sunday, July 3, 2005 - 2:45pm

ASAH:
Sharon put her finger on the problem exactly — concentrate on one issue at a time. For instance, the second point you brought up — that of sweatshopes and cheap labor. Firstly, in order to understand the Objectivist position you have to know that one of the principle tenets is that of Non-Intiation Of Force (NIOF). One may not initiate force but may use force in self defense. If your argument against sweatshops doesn't recognize that the NIOF principle has precedence over other issues then that is what you should dispute.

When one investigates sweatshops or cheap labor one has to ask, "Is there force being initiated here?" Well, there may be in some cases and in some cases not. It may well be that in some third world countries parents sell their children into bondage to work in sweatshops to local manufacturers. This is an abominable, evil practice because the rights of the child, as an individual, are trampled on for the benefit of the group (family) — a socialist concept, and it violates the NIOF. However evil this practice may be it can be understood at some level. American companies may contract with the manufacturer to provide cheap goods for the American consumer. So, what, if anything, should be done?

1. Americans could boycott the companies that do business with the foreign manufacturers. The upshot is that the children would not be employed at all and the third world country would be poorer. Americans would pay higher prices for the goods that would be displaced and either other countries would manufacture them instead, or local American manufacturers would be more competitive.

2. Place heavy tariffs on the goods from the third world country. The results would be the same as above.

3. Try to deal diplomatically with the foreign country. Maybe there might be some success with this if there could be some pressure to bear on them to enforce laws against child labor. Most third world countries are so corrupt that they might try to dress the situation up but it would be mostly window dressing. (Witness China ostensibly protecting copyrights and patents).

4. Let American corporations into the country. This would displace the local manufacturers and set new hiring practices. The local manufacturers will have lost their clout for corruption. Now, if the wages were judged insufficient, a boycott of the American company would be effective. (Remember what happened to Kathy Lee Gifford when it was found out that she had an interest in such a U.S. corporation?). Also remember that if the wages are too high the U.S. corporation will pull out leaving unemployment behind. This is what is meant by deploying capital around the world to where it is most efficient.

So, this is the argument I present and it also leads to the acceptance of the legitimacy of large, international corporations.

Refutation?

Sam

(Edited by Sam Erica on 7/03, 3:25pm)

Post 52

Sunday, July 3, 2005 - 6:31pm

Speaking of 'sweatshops', there is context - what may be sweaty to you may be haven for those in the shops, having wages far more than they otherwise would have, assuming even an employment...

Post 53

Monday, July 4, 2005 - 2:07pm

Sharon-

The difficulty I'm having is that I'm aiming my arguements at about 7 people, while all of you are aiming your arguements at one person.

Rick-

In order to make a profit businesses must provide those goods and services that improve man's environment

Not true. Businesses do not succeed from improving man's environment. They succeed through good marketing.

Offering jobs to the jobless is a good thing.

BUt is exploiting their "joblessness" to weed out the lowest working wages a "good thing"?

The lack of private property is what has been keeping the third world poor

But what about privitizing things like water and electricity, and selling them back at a higher price?

Sam-

I agree with you in identifying the problem, but not with your solutions.

Americans could boycott the companies that do business with the foreign manufacturers

A boycott has never worked, and likely will never. Corporations are to expansive with their product reach, and there is no financial incentive for dissent and boycott. Thus, it is not plausible.

Try to deal diplomatically with the foreign country

Let American corporations into the country

These are both viable solutions, but the corporation and the government would have no desire to initiate such reforms. Sweat shop production allows for economic growth, and so the government and corporation, who both benefit from it, would not want to change it.

Post 54

Monday, July 4, 2005 - 4:23pm

A.B.A.H

In order to make a profit businesses must provide those goods and services that improve man's environment
Not true. Businesses do not succeed from improving man's environment. They succeed through good marketing.

Why did the customer buy the product? Because he believed it would improve his well-being, ie, his environment.

Consumers are not pawns that can be manipulated by advertizing.

Offering jobs to the jobless is a good thing.
BUt is exploiting their "joblessness" to weed out the lowest working wages a "good thing"?

Of course it is! Offering a higher wage than their current wage is definitely a good thing.

The lack of private property is what has been keeping the third world poor
But what about privitizing things like water and electricity, and selling them back at a higher price?

What about it? Goods must be produced. Do you think that usable water and electricity (!!!) are just lying around for the taking?

Post 55

Monday, July 4, 2005 - 7:21pm

ABAH

The reason I listed in order the four options that could be taken is because I also believe that the first three would be largely ineffective, however you disagree that the fourth one of allowing US corporations could be effective. The fact is that there are US corporations in third world countries employing locals albeit at low wages by US standards. You don't want to acknowledge that 35 cents an hour is better than no cents per hour. The test for any such question is if the people voluntarily reach for it. Russian citizens risking death to escape to West Berlin, Cubans fleeing Castro, Mexicans flocking to the USA are all potent examples. Why would you want to deny a poverty stricken individual from eking out a living on 35 cents per hour?

BUt is exploiting their "joblessness" to weed out the lowest working wages a "good thing"?

Rick explained it in a little different way but, yes, those who will work for the lowest wage should be given preference. Why would you want to hire someone who isn't so eager and desperate? You'd be helping the most downtrodden.

IMO the biggest thing preventing the emergence of prosperity in the third world is their traditions, particularly in Africa where their tribal (collective) customs inhibit it. Tribes do not recognise private property so no one has the entrepreneurial spirit or the urge to create wealth for himself, except maybe for wives, cows or goats.

...but the corporation and the government would have no desire to initiate such reforms. Sweat shop production allows for economic growth, and so the government and corporation, who both benefit from it, would not want to change it

You seem to be arguing that sweatshop production allows for economic growth but a US company investing wouldn't. I always thought that foreign investment in a downtrodden country helped the economy. Foreign governments offer incentives to US corporations but they also want to get the best wages possible for their workers.

You're bringing up another topic when you mention privatized utilities. You must have a specific example in mind. What is it?

Sam

Post 56

Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - 12:54am

ABAH

The difficulty I'm having is that I'm aiming my arguements at about 7 people, while all of you are aiming your arguements at one person.

I would think of it terms of aiming your argument at one issue (or three issues) and having seven people kind enough to take up the challenge.

Businesses do not succeed from improving man's environment. They succeed through good marketing.

Bad marketing can destroy a good product, but good marketing can never sell a bad product, for cheap products where you dont invest time in checking the product before you buy, you might be fooled to buy once, but cheap products survive on quantity - products can only survive if they serve a good purpose in your life, marketing is merely needed to make you prefer one good product over an other equally good product.

BUt is exploiting their "joblessness" [snip] a "good thing"?

Yes. A young child getting a bowl of rice and a kick in the butt for working 14 hours a day is a bad thing, but remove that job, and the child will be left with the kick in the butt and no bowl of rice. Its a problem that is only solved by a fundamental change higher in the system, a change more developed countries have gone through, hence a change that will come when the county develops. In more developed countries employers will need to pay their workers enough to keep them motivated, you dont exploit workers, workers can leave, you buy services from workers at the best price you can get, a low-cost worker with no motivation will generally cost more than a highly motivated worker on a higher salary.

Post 57

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 11:18am

Wow. I just blasted through all this...zowie.

I think everyone acted in good faith in their exchanges with A.B.A.H.

In broad strokes, A.B.A.H.-

You seem traumatized and full of anxiety when you talk about almost any kind of social structure, particularly corporations. This is something we all can understand unless we've been raised in a bubble. That stance, though- it will affect how you see things, it will compromise your efficacy, too. The problem is, when we're inside a think like that, it's very hard to get out of it. One reason people here love AR so much is because she wrote two books in particular that seem to almost always turn that around for people that read them. What I'm suggesting, with all sympathy and respect, is that you are compromising yourself by the mindset you are displaying in some of your writing.

Corporations are rarely "evil", unless maybe they went into business as Evildoers, Inc. and built evil-doing into their mission statement and business plan. It just doesn't go that way- capitalism is its own ecosystem and doesn't do much to support that kind of enterprise. On the other hand, they certainly can look evil as Hell (Enron). Generally, the bad things that come out of corporations are when people make mistakes, get under pressure, and then compromise their ethics and pull off some kind of bullshit. Sure, there are criminals too, but trust me- 99% of the time it's because of what I said- it all starts with fuckups. Evil itself is not an entity, correct? What is your definition of evil? That's something to check out.

When you made broad generalizations about corporations, my first reaction was "not mine!"

Post 58

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 7:52pm

I've started re-reading Atlas Shrugged for perhaps the eighth time ... each time I marvel at the insight that Rand had into human nature and how the world actually works. I wasted a lot of time debating with ABAH because he had no understanding of the underlying philosophy in AS and in the future I'm just going to ignore anyone on a 'Dissent' thread who hasn't grasped the basics of what they're arguing about.

Sam

Post 59

Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 12:41am