That would make you a Randian. Welcome to the club! |
Back at ya!  |
Like a glove. |
|
The thing people have trouble understanding is the reason why capitalism is the most efficient economic system. It seems that with no central planning and with everyone looking out for themselves only, it would be horribly inefficient. However, those people underestimate the effect of market forces. They drive people to become efficient; to be otherwise is not in your best interest as others will pull ahead and have leverage over you. It's kind of a collective regulation, to put it another way. If everyone is out to screw everyone else over, then everything kind of balances out in the macro view. This is assuming that economics is a strict zero-sum game. The principle works just as well if you toss out that assumption though. |
Even better, because zero-sum means someone wins at the others' expense. In a free market, if both people walk away happy from a transaction, then it's a positive sum game. This happens all the time in a market system, when you get what you want, as much as you want, when you want, and you're happy with the price. |
Yup...and this also allows the creation of "new wealth", or things that didn't exist before...quite simply, capitalism is the greatest engine for the advancement of the human species this world has ever seen. |
i'm not sure where you are on the abortion issue, but read it at the site. If that's the type of logic they use on the rest of their site, they're boneheads. that's all. |
Why are they boneheads? Because they don't agree with your pro-life (anti-freedom) view on abortion? Pro-choice is the ONLY logical position on this. Read the WHOLE website...take the "Capitalism Tour"...LEARN...KNOW...LIVE... |
No argument on the secular part, Objectivism is based on reason, not superstition. As for the ruthless part, how is having people mind their own damn business and take care of themselves ruthless? |
Hi WI_Rifleman, I am in favor of capitalism, but unlimited capitalism has the same problem as unlimited democracy. Instead of a mob rule you have the golden rule "he who has the gold, makes the rules" When we had something closer to unlimited capitalism, it was the days of the robber barons and wage slavery. How does Randian Capitalism deal with this problem? |
Dino summed it up pretty well for me as far as my views on limited capitalism. as far as the abortion issue, the baby is not given a choice. you're choice of 'anti-freedom' is emotionally charged, but you knew that, didn't you. give the baby freedom. and no, it's not the only logical choice, though you may wish it was. |
"Take care of themselves" is not ruthlesness. Strict Randianism would advocate a pro-abortion point of view, since the baby, not being a "rational creature", would have no say in the ending of its own life. This is ruthlesness. And this is wrong. |
Rand addresses this issue in the book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal". She can explain it much better than I, but it basically comes down to that back in the day of 'wage slavery' (this isn't actually a valid concept, the 'slaves' could quit at any time) thier wages were all the economy could afford to pay them. Nowadays general wealth is much greater, so wage slavery wouldnt be a problem. To address your statement "he who has the gold makes the rules" under a Randian Capitalist Society no one would have more rights than any other person, so the rich could not enforce their will on people by means of the government. |
Agreed. |
Yup...the market would regulate actions, not government. |
the problem with pure capitalism is that through whatever circumstances, there will be some people who acquire a great deal before others. Those who come along after them (suppose they were born later) will be effectivelly locked out of any potential opportunities. The established wealthy families will have a virtual monopoly on just about everything. That is not equal opportunity for all. Equal opportunity keeps the playfield level. This is why the Sherman Anti-Trust law came into being. Pure capitalism, if it existed in this country, would most likely have you impoverished right now with a certain hierarchy of wealthy families. This country, as it exists now, affords you opportunities you would not otherwise have under a pure capitalist system. That is an interesting web site. I've seen it before and I remain unconvinced. |
Wrong. Every single coercive monopoly in history was only possible because of government intervention. Get rid of government intervention and you get rid of coercive monopolies. |
Not true...the main reason that the rich have such a hegemony in this country is because of the complicity of government via the "old boy network"...one hand washes the other...this is corruption...in a truly capitalist system, the "special interests" wouldn't exist, or if they did exist, wouldn't exert much, if any, influence. You could only get wealthy if others were wealthy enough to buy your product or service. Unfortunately, we have probably gone way too far down the track of socialism in this country to make it back to where we should be. The GOP and the Dems spending $$$ like drunken sailors doesn't help matters, either. |
Damn you are good. How long have you been into Objectivism? Here is a link to a great Objectivist Website. ObjectivismOnline |
Thanks! Actually, I had been an "Objectivist" for years before I knew I was one...when I read Ayn Rand's writings and about Objectivism, it was like a revelation...I found out there was a name for what I believed, and there were others out there that think as I do. Objectivism and capitalism just plain make sense, don't they? |
For every product, there has to be a seperate assembly line or construction procedure. Those lines or procedures aren't compatible with others. Those lines cannot augment others, nor can the others augment those lines, if this line or that line be unable to keep up with demand. Companies eventually discovered that a tight focus on one product, product type or product support is more efficient, because everything and everybody in the company relates to that product. A guy at Fab Plant Echo is generally in the same line of work as a guy at Fab Plant Yankee, when they work for the same company. Specific examples of this? Intel and AMD are direct competitors in the same industry. They do not do much else outside of computer chips. Xerox is known for a tiny handful of products and services. When a company needs something that they don't specialize in, or cannot do without a lot of retraining or money and time, they hire a subcontractor. Few companies have in house security, moving, interior decorating, etc. The companies that specialize in those areas are hired to do that job for the companies that don't specialize in them. And there is the way in for upstarts to enter a crowded market. Another example: NASA may subcontract out a certain hose fitting somewhere on the shuttle to a plumbing supplies manufacturer, who may subcontract it out to a guy who can fabricate the part in his garage. Without the crowded market, that guy in his garage wouldn't be producing that hose fitting. The Plumbing supplier would, or maybe NASA itself, if the scenario were tweaked a bit. And then, those subcontractors become major players. See again Xerox. |
|
When I took the tour on the Capitalism website, it mentions that neither a person or government entity can act with force preemptively (my words) or it would be considered evil (their words in the example). While this is an admirable ideal, realistically it is not feasible. Having to always react before engaging either tactically or worse strategically is a statisitically losing proposition. For example, protective service details are already one step behind if waiting to react to a situation. Basically, I agree with the concept of taking terrorist out prior to them having them attack us on our soil. On that point alone I dissent with the idealogy. If I'm missing something on this point please let me know. |
Killing terrorists is good for the economy...  |
Actually, neither. Most "rich" people are rich cuz they work harder and are smarter than you. ANd me. Y'alls clap-trap is nothing more than marxist class struggle |
Have you ever read any Rand? |
Actually, they did. Yahweh pre-exists the Jews, and evidenced Himself to man before Abraham was born.  Dude - a piece of advice if I may - STAY AWAY from religious examples and illustrations. You ain't got a clue. |
Enough exceprts of her work, and those of here minions to know its re-packaged garbage. I've read you simultaneously saying "Randianism is about individual rights" AND sayign "Randianism isn't antonomian - it would have more codified laws than the US currently has." Mutually exclusive propositions. You need to decide if Randianism IS for individual rights or IS for big gov't. |
I never said Rand is for big gov't. I said Rand was for codified objective laws. Big Difference. Why don't you actually read one of her books. Capitalism:The Unknown Ideal is good. It is an extremely simple and effective moral case for capitalism. I have read your bible, so I judge it on what I know. You are trying to judge Rand without even taking her word for it. |
You've said Randianism would be for MORE laws than currently codified in the US. I'd say the US is pretty dammed big gov't right now. SO you are right - Randianism ain;t for big gov't - its for dictatorship. I've read Rand. (some of Atlas Shrugged) She makes some good points. But she's still an intellectual egghead, pontificating about a utopia that HAS NEVER and WILL NEVER exist. And making life WAY more complex than it is. |
There are lots of issues not addressed here. 1. Dumping - Company ABC is a leader in capital intensive enterprise, auto manufacturing, for example, and reaches a financial position where they can afford to charge half their manufactured cost for a long enough period of time to bankrupt their competition. They buy up each of their bankrupt competitors for pennies on the dollar. Every time a potential competitor tries to enter the market they buy up potential suppliers and double the cost of subcontracted products while charging their factors half, effectively barring entry to the market. They then double the price of their product due to lack of competition. 2. Through whatever means available, company xyz becomes the de facto standard in their industry (think Microsoft), then proceeds to buy out competitors as their attempt to arise, thus maintaing a monopoly position that allows them to produce inferior products and sell them at inflated prices. 3. Under the guise of public safety, company DEF lobbies the government to raise the standards for fuel mileage and crash worthiness through dummy 'consumer advocate' organizations. The standards are set so high that only established players can meet the spec as written. Competition is thus barred as the specs change each time a competitor emerges. Capitalism is based on greed and unchecked capitalism results in monopolies that operate to the detriment of society. When this stage is reached, the rule of law breaks down and the people respond in kind. Don't forget that one of the causes of the American Revolution was the monopoly held by the East India Tea Company, IIRC. |
I think you misunderstood what I said. I could have phrased myself better and for that I am sorry. What I meant when I said Randianism would have more codified laws is that the laws would be more codified i.e. objective. In the US right now we have many laws that aren't objective, like anti-trust laws. Any company could be prosecuted under anti-trust laws at any time because the law does not state objectively what is illegal. It is very vague. Under a Randian society everything that would be illegal would be spelled out to the letter. That is what I mean by more codified. |
They seem to think insider trading is a good thing. Do you think insider trading will benefit you as an individual investor? |
"the wages were all the economy could afford to pay them" that is priceless. The reason the government had to get involved is because the robber barons were cooperating with each other to prevent wages from increasing. If your choice is work for shitty wage for business A, work for a shitty wage for business B, or starving; that isn't much of a choice. Labor unions didn't just suddenly spring into being, they were an answer to a clear problem. They may have outlived their usefulness, but they were definitely needed at first. How would a Randian Capitalist society prevent moneyed interested from having undue influence on the government? To me Randian Capitalism is like any other form of utopianism. It looks good on paper, but in practice it aint worth shit. All it takes is a small group who are not willing to play by the rules and do things like conspire to fix wages (thus interfering with the free market) and we're back to needing government oversight. I think unbridled capitalism would be as bad (if not worse) for this country as a pure democracy. |
I believe what you are missing is the concept of "initiation of force". A terrorist does not necessarily INITIATE force when he actually slams the plane into the world trade center. Threatening to use or planning to use force is the same as using force. It would be ethical under randianism to kill terrorists as soon as they suggest that Americans are targets. (Anyone? Am I correct in my interpritations here?) |