10 May 07
...of Ayn Rand.
How does laissez-faire capitalism value the individual any more than the most restrictive command economy does? One succeeds as a capitalist only if one offers a product or service for which there is demand of a sufficient size to make one's business profitable. Demand for a product or service is the result of social forces which, instead of being mandates from the state, are mandates from tradition and the average preference of some subset of the public. These forces are not the result of individual volition, but it is in the capitalist's interest than they continue to exist regardless of their source, because xe depends on them for a market.
A good employee of capitalists is in the exact same position, because xe succeeds or fails according to whether xe possesses skills for which there is demand among capitalists.
I don't have a well-articulated reason to favour any large-scale economic system over any other, but how does the sort of system you advocated in the taxation thread "liberate one from one's brothers" any more than a system in which the markets are controlled explicitly, rather than implicitly?
Randroids, sell your copies of "Atlas Shrugged" to the misguided element of society who buy into that rubbish and read "Anthem" instead. It's better-written, too.
11 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ChronicLeakylol
...of Ayn Rand.
How does laissez-faire capitalism value the individual any more than the most restrictive command economy does? One succeeds as a capitalist only if one offers a product or service for which there is demand of a sufficient size to make one's business profitable. Demand for a product or service is the result of social forces which, i ciety who buy into that rubbish and read "Anthem" instead. It's better-written, too.
It is amazing how differently this strikes me now... forty years after first reading it; now that I reside in the Home of the Useless and sputter as an Old One with whispered contempt at a world unholy.
Buzz words I think. "capitalism" and "economy" and "employ" and "market"... are as meaningful as a cat with diarrhea; they have their own way of making themselves noticed.
I don't think one can mix the questions of "economy" with deeper questions that touch on the very nature of "Being" such as pride, honor or self-respect.
11 May 07
4 edits
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyGo live in China or South Korea or Cuba for a while. Then read some first-hand accounts from Soviet Russia by Solzhenitsyn and Doestoyevsky, and imagine yourself in their world. Then try to get and maintain a job in the United States for a year. Return and tell me in which society you felt most like a free individual from an economic perspective.
...of Ayn Rand.
How does laissez-faire capitalism value the individual any more than the most restrictive command economy does?
As an empirical matter, it's simply true that there are no books titled "The Gulag Archipelago: Treasured Memories of the Prosperous Glory Days," or "Lamentations on Free Trade: Why can't the government just assign me a job and spend my wages for me?"
Under your hypothesis that all economies are equally conducive to individuality, how do you account for the disparity among the personal accounts?
Sure, there are exceptions. The impressive Red Square was built and several individuals live like kings in Havannah, while there is poverty among some individuals in the United States and Industrial England was no walk in the park for laborers, but on balance, are you really willing to wager that if you pick some random people from various economic structures, there would be no correlation between the degree of economic individuality they report and the type of system governing their economy?
Why do you suppose Mexican individuals cross the border to the United States to get work and not the other way around?
11 May 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesZing!
As an empirical matter, it's simply true that there are no books titled "The Gulag Archipelago: Treasured Memories of the Prosperous Glory Days," or "Lamentations on Free Trade: Why can't the government just assign me a job and spend my wages for me?"
11 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by NordlysCommunism by any other name smells as [doodoo-like]. He saw it coming, no matter what it was called at that time, and he experienced its evils.
Did Dostoevsky continue to write after his death, or how else did he write a first-hand account from Soviet Russia?
11 May 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou're confused. Individual wealth, beyond the material necessities of purely individualistic pursuits, only exists relative to the wealth of other individuals. I have not in this thread or ever on RHP advocated economic collectivism; my position on taxation is remarkably similar to yours.
Go live in China or South Korea or Cuba for a while. Then read some first-hand accounts from Soviet Russia by Solzhenitsyn and Doestoyevsky, and imagine yourself in their world. Then try to get and maintain a job in the United States for a year. Return and tell me in which society you felt most like a free individual from an economic perspective. ...[text shortened]... ndividuals cross the border to the United States to get work and not the other way around?
What I'm criticising is the motivation within individuals to become unncecssarily wealthy, which I claim is the result of social pressures which are as contrary to the free exercise of individual will as gulags are, albeit methodologically different.
In what ways is, say, the American economy consistent with Rand's conception of the exercise of individual will? Include in your answer an explanation of the fact that her archetypal individual spends much of his time at the brink of starvation due to market forces.
11 May 07
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyAre you referring to people like Roark? Do you think he was on the brink due primarily to market forces or collectivist forces?
Include in your answer an explanation of the fact that her archetypal individual spends much of his time at the brink of starvation due to market forces.
Were any Gulch residents constantly on the brink of starvation?
11 May 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesRoark was on the brink because of market forces; nobody wanted to build buildings designed by him. That these market forces were the result, arguably, of collectivist thinking is irrelevant, because they are not state-imposed collectivist forces. They are the result of the manipulation of public opinion by a demagogue (Toohey) and someone in a very self-referential business (the mass media), which uses its product to create a market for itself by telling people what it is that they wanting to hear while telling them what they want to hear (Wynand). Roark's failure to thrive economically was the result of flawless operation of a practical free market.
Are you referring to people like Roark? Do you think he was on the brink due primarily to market forces or collectivist forces?
Were any Gulch residents constantly on the brink of starvation?
My point is that free market capitalism puts the survival of someone like Roark in the hands of people who are susceptible to manipulation by people like Toohey and Wynand (if he'd compromised in some way, he wouldn't have been a person like Roark, so it is his survival and nothing else that was at stake). What's the difference between a society starving its Roarks indirectly and starving them officially in gulags?
Rand herself has asserted (in Leonard Peikoff's introduction to my copy of "The Fountainhead" which I can't be arsed digging out right now) that the political aspects of Objectivism are essentially plot devices, and her move to more direct philosophical exposition after the publication of "Atlas Shrugged" (from what little I've read) bears this out.
Galt Gulch is completely fictional (or was essentially fictional at the time -- I'm actually very interested in the practice of "gulching" which is named after it), as opposed to being a fictionalisation of a real society, so your counter-query is kind of evasive.
(As a side note, Rand should have set "The Fountainhead" in Britain, where sheepleistic behvaiour is even more culturally ingrained than it is in the States. The "New York Banner" is not even a caricature of most of the British press; it's just a factual description.)
11 May 07
4 edits
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyThat's not so. Roark was never actually in danger of not surviving. He was only in danger of not surviving as an architect with integrity. When the market demanded manual labor above novel architecture, that became the work that he provided to the best of his ability and he felt no less of a man and no less of an individual for it. He also had the option to be a successful architect without integrity. His survival was always in his own hands.
My point is that free market capitalism puts the survival of someone like Roark in the hands of people who are susceptible to manipulation by people like Toohey and Wynand
I don't think Roark should have been entitled to survive by earning his living as an architect, anymore than I should be able to survive by earning a living as a bastion of online reason. If there is no market demand for our skills, then tough. That's life.
When the government forcibly seizes your means of sustenance, then your survival as a human being is no longer in your own hands. You have to revert to something less than a human being, as Roark may have reverted to an architect without integrity, in order to survive. But when it is merely a free market against which you're struggling, you don't need to ditch your humanity, just as Roark didn't.
Roak felt more like an individual laboring in the quarry than each future member of the Gulch did before conceding defeat to the governmental regulations of the outside world.
11 May 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThat may be true, but it shows how wrapped up in social comparisons your notion of individuality is, because you've compared him to the other individuals. Unfortunately, we can't ask Roark on his lunch break in the quarry whether he would rather have been practicing architecture, but presumably his answer would have been in the affirmative, and he would have been forced to admit to having compromised in the face of social forces.
Roak felt more like an individual laboring in the quarry than each future member of the Gulch did before conceding defeat to the governmental regulations of the outside world.
The fact remains that what a "free society" does by demanding certain compromises is just a sophisticated analogue of what a totalitarian government does when it resorts to Draconian measures to suppress unwanted individual expressions of will.
I reiterate that I can't think of any practical solutions to this problem, and I have never lived in a totalitarian society, but I don't see the fundamental difference, either.
11 May 07
3 edits
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyWell, I'm sure. But not having all of your preferences met is not indicative of a problem. Every rational person in a laissez-faire economy would prefer to have more goods. Roark was still free to attempt to and eventually succeeded in showing the world that they ought to demand what he could provide; he was free to pursue his preferences, although not entitled to have them fulfilled.
Unfortunately, we can't ask Roark on his lunch break in the quarry whether he would rather have been practicing architecture, but presumably his answer would have been in the affirmative
However, not being free to pursue your preferences may be indicative of a problem. If Roark had lived in, say, something like Orwell's 1984 where everybody is assigned stock housing, it would have been completely futile for him to pursue his preferences of creating custom homes for individuals, since by government fiat, they could not be fulfilled.
11 May 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesEvery rational person in a laissez-faire economy would prefer to have more goods.
Roark was still free to attempt to and eventually succeeded in showing the world that they ought to demand what he could provide; he was free to pursue his preferences, although not entitled to have them fulfilled.
However, not being free to pursue your preferences may be indicative of a problem. If Roark had lived in, say, something like Orwel ...[text shortened]... f creating custom homes for individuals, since by government fiat, they could not be fulfilled.
Why? I think this is what we disagree about.
11 May 07
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyWell, it's not germane to my point, but typically a good is defined to be something that a rational person would prefer to have more of than less of. But I'll be glad to restate it as "Every rational person in a laissez-faire economy has preferences," or to withdraw the remark altogether, and just stick with saying that preferences not being met is not indicative of a problem.
[b]Every rational person in a laissez-faire economy would prefer to have more goods.
Why? I think this is what we disagree about.[/b]
11 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAgreed. I apologise if my earlier post suggests I thought otherwise; my thesis is simply that, when considering the mechanisms present in a society with which individuals must contend in order to satisfy their preferences, differentiating between official and unofficial mechanisms leads one down a blind alley.
Well, it's not germane to my point, but typically a good is defined to be something that a rational person would prefer to have more of than less of. But I'll be glad to restate it as "Every rational person in a laissez-faire economy has preferences," or to withdraw the remark altogether, and just stick with saying that preferences not being met is not indicative of a problem.
DIGRESSIONTASTIC EDIT Personally, I'd also suggest that these unofficial mechanisms are more pernicious and deeply-rooted, if not as obviously dangerous as their official counterparts. If official authority were actually effective, why do authoritarians bother with the manipulation of social forces through things like the Nuremberg rally, Heaven, D.A.R.E., FOX News and the Two Minutes' Hate?