NationStates Jolt Archive

accully, two.

1)The group has no extra rights that the indevidual does not have. But what about government? I know Objectivists are not anarchists, so how come the government has the right to make laws people must abide by, a power that the indevidual does not have

2) I know that objectivism supports free market capitalism, but what are your views on things like child labor laws, safty regulations, stuff that prohibits 14 hour work days, overtime laws, and anti-trust laws?

bump

accully, two.

1)The group has no extra rights that the indevidual does not have. But what about government? I know Objectivists are not anarchists, so how come the government has the right to make laws people must abide by, a power that the indevidual does not have

2) I know that objectivism supports free market capitalism, but what are your views on things like child labor laws, safty regulations, stuff that prohibits 14 hour work days, overtime laws, and anti-trust laws?
Wow.. You almost sold that philosophy to me with the first scentence.
Too bad about line two. Will be interesting following this topic.

accully, two.

1)The group has no extra rights that the indevidual does not have. But what about government? I know Objectivists are not anarchists, so how come the government has the right to make laws people must abide by, a power that the indevidual does not have
To be honest, governmental 'rights' are the only concession Objectivism appears to make that appeals to the concept of 'need.' Generally its an abhorrent issue for us from a societal standpoint; we don't generally think that things neccessarily [i]need to be done just because a certain group wants/needs it, but rational laws are a must for any functioning society. A Government, we reason has to exist in order to properly denote and enforce our individual rights.

In a proper society, the citizens have rights but the government does not. The government acts by permission, as expressed in a wirtten consitiution that restrcts government officials to defined functions and procedures. The source of a government's power is not arbitrarily consent, but rational consent, based on an objective principle: the principle of the rights of man.

2) I know that objectivism supports free market capitalism, but what are your views on things like child labor laws, safty regulations, stuff that prohibits 14 hour work days, overtime laws, and anti-trust laws?
It depends on who you ask. I tend to oppose most of these things as government regulations because I don't think their presence really makes that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things. If a company wants to hire small children or pay shit wages they'll just outsource their jobs: most of them, however, aren't as dead-set on shafting the worker as your average Socialist would want you to think. Generally, the argument is that if you did away with these things, conditions would rapidly deteriorate in a work environment, because no company is supposedly interested in actually staying in business.

I guess the flaw here lies in the fact that we sort of expect everyone involved to get their goddamn heads out of their asses. I suppose we're incurable optimists that way.

And if 14 hour work days are prohibited that's [rather angering] news to me, unless I'm still allowed to do it if I want. I can see how it would be taxing and unneccesary in the manufacturing industry, but for a more low-energy job I can see no logic in making this a widespread proclimation. I can tell you for certain though, that we are ardent opponents of antitrust legislature. I believe that if a business is to be punished, it should be punished for unscrupuolous behavior, not simply for holding a monopoly. If they're swindling people to get said monopoly yeah; come down on them like a ton of bricks. I can, however, find no justification for condemning a business just because they wipe the floor with their competition.

Good questions. I wonder if I'll be the only one to answer! :eek:

Yea, I was wondering if you were the only objectivist on nationstates.

On the anti-trust note, since you have already made a consession to need by having a (minimal) government, what if it is shown that a certain monopoly is clearly harmful to society? Wouldn't the need to keep compatition in a market economy win out?

I'm just trying to attack this from every point I can, as I do with any new way of thinking.

I'm not strictly an objectivist but I will answer this one point to the best of my understanding:

I know that objectivism supports free market capitalism, but what are your views on things like child labor laws, safty regulations, stuff that prohibits 14 hour work days, overtime laws, and anti-trust laws?

On the anti-trust note, since you have already made a consession to need by having a (minimal) government, what if it is shown that a certain monopoly is clearly harmful to society? Wouldn't the need to keep compatition in a market economy win out?

For non-objectivist free-market economists the market is the best means to a certain end. That being the organization of societies resources and the production and distribution of wealth.

For an objectivist, however, the free-market is an end in and of itself as it is the economic system which gives the most liberty to the individual to act, economically speaking.

Monopolies for a non-objectivist are inefficient, monopolies for an objectivist are a sort of tyranny. Therefore I would expect that objetivists would support anti-trust legislation and enforcement, though that aspect may be non-governmental in nature.

Oh and by the way Melkor, I'm still waiting on your responce on the rationality of natural rights. :D

I guess the flaw here lies in the fact that we sort of expect everyone involved to get their goddamn heads out of their asses. I suppose we're incurable optimists that way.

That sentence almost makes you sound like a Marxist.

I think I've got the wrong idea as to what objectivism is...

I thought it was the opposite of subjectivism, claiming absolute moral laws or an absolute reality instead of both dependent on the observer. What you're talking about sounds like libertarianism.

A Government, we reason has to exist in order to properly denote and enforce our individual rights.
I believe that if a business is to be punished, it should be punished for unscrupuolous behavior, not simply for holding a monopoly. If they're swindling people to get said monopoly yeah; come down on them like a ton of bricks. I can, however, find no justification for condemning a business just because they wipe the floor with their competition.
Good post. I think you summed things up nicely. :)

To my understanding the philosophical justification of objectivism is based on the individual, but the result isn't moral relativism, it's actually a fairly strict moral code.

I'm probably butchering it though. You can do a wiki search for Ayn Rand, she's the founder of the objectivism being discussed here.

Oh and by the way Melkor, I'm still waiting on your responce on the rationality of natural rights. :D
Natural rights? What? Was this from The Healthcare thread or somewhere else? Regardless, 'Natural Rights' as it's traditionally used in philosophy is not really an accurate way to describe it.

I think I remember attempting to respond, only to have a massive post eaten by jolt. I may try again if and when I feel like it, but I'm not sure it will be that productive. I'm sure you already hold some more or less opposite ideas and I doubt they'll be changed or meaningfully expounded upon by me. If I actually get off work early tonight like I'm supposed to, I may be motivated to attempt this again.

1)The group has no extra rights that the indevidual does not have. But what about government? I know Objectivists are not anarchists, so how come the government has the right to make laws people must abide by, a power that the indevidual does not have

The government does not possess rights. When government assumes that it has rights, it has already overstepped its bounds.

Government is meant to operate as an extension of the political rights of the individual.

I think I've got the wrong idea as to what objectivism is...

I thought it was the opposite of subjectivism, claiming absolute moral laws or an absolute reality instead of both dependent on the observer. What you're talking about sounds like libertarianism.

I'm talking about the philosophy of Ayn Rand, spacifclly the political implications therein of.

And Melkor, any answer for the need for competitian vs. right of the monopoly?

I think I remember attempting to respond, only to have a massive post eaten by jolt. I may try again if and when I feel like it, but I'm not sure it will be that productive. I'm sure you already hold some more or less opposite ideas and I doubt they'll be changed or meaningfully expounded upon by me. If I actually get off work early tonight like I'm supposed to, I may be motivated to attempt this again.

Well, you aren't obligated of course. But you shouldn't assume that I'll reject your arguements outright. I stop in here for some good discussion and the occasional arrogant and insulting outburst. It's a lot more fun then just reading a book about it.

I'm talking about the philosophy of Ayn Rand, spacifclly the political implications therein of.

And Melkor, any answer for the need for competitian vs. right of the monopoly?
It's generally safe to say that a monopoly is only harmful to society when some form of fraud or swindling is involved. Ticketmaster, for instance, holds what appears to be a more or less unchallenged monopoly on event ticket sales. This in and of itself is not neccessarily "harmful to society," and in most cases I'd doubt it would be.

Don't mistake this for an anti-competition viewpoint: I think it should always be encouraged of course, but just like in nature the stronger businesses all too frequently push the smaller ones out. I realize how hard it can be to break into a monopoly, but it's been done before: surely it can happen again.

Nikitas: I'll get to it when I can, right now I'm incredibly hung over. Incidentally, I'm sorry if I didn't explain things to the extent that I normally do, but god damn am I dazed.

snip some good stuff ..

And if 14 hour work days are prohibited that's [rather angering] news to me, unless I'm still allowed to do it if I want. I can see how it would be taxing and unneccesary in the manufacturing industry, but for a more low-energy job I can see no logic in making this a widespread proclimation.
I agree but I feel people should have the right to work as much as they want with a proviso in the health care industry or those jobs have an unacceptable danger associated with over work

For example I would hardly want a helicopter pilot to be able to work 20 hr days … unless in emergency situations along with things like truck driving

Besides that things in the service industry or some others should be fine working as much as you want

I agree but I feel people should have the right to work as much as they want with a proviso in the health care industry or those jobs have an unacceptable danger associated with over work

For example I would hardly want a helicopter pilot to be able to work 20 hr days ? unless in emergency situations along with things like truck driving

Besides that things in the service industry or some others should be fine working as much as you want
Agreed. Certain jobs like the ones you mentioned just can't be done with crazy, 14 hour days. That said, I'd venture to guess this is an aspect of the issue to which most employers are already aware. I wouldn't think a helicopter dispatcher or a hospital director would be interested in these possibilities either.

Agreed. Certain jobs like the ones you mentioned just can't be done with crazy, 14 hour days. That said, I'd venture to guess this is an aspect of the issue to which most employers are already aware. I wouldn't think a helicopter dispatcher or a hospital director would be interested in these possibilities either.
No competent one anyways, though sometimes they are incompetent (or get an excessive amount of pressure from above)

No competent one anyways, though sometimes they are incompetent (or get an excessive amount of pressure from above)
Right, and this is precisely why I get so annoyed at people when they invoke examples of people being incompetent [like in Dempublicent1's recent thread about the FDA and some cancer cream] and try to use that as justification for punishing the rest of us. I don't think it's fair to make me jump through a thousand goddamned hoops to start a business just because some other people happened to be irresponsible with theirs.

If we were to apply this same principle to every other aspect of society, nothing would ever get done. Unfortunately, we seem to be well on our way in this country.

Right, and this is precisely why I get so annoyed at people when they invoke examples of people being incompetent [like in Dempublicent1's recent thread about the FDA and some cancer cream] and try to use that as justification for punishing the rest of us. I don't think it's fair to make me jump through a thousand goddamned hoops to start a business just because some other people happened to be irresponsible with theirs.

If we were to apply this same principle to every other aspect of society, nothing would ever get done. Unfortunately, we seem to be well on our way in this country.
Yeah there is a fine line between protecting people from harm because of other peoples deception or incompetence (things like false advertising or illegal business practices) and protecting them from their own stupidity

I think I've got the wrong idea as to what objectivism is...

I thought it was the opposite of subjectivism, claiming absolute moral laws or an absolute reality instead of both dependent on the observer. What you're talking about sounds like libertarianism.

I think that they're talking about the "philosophy" of Ayn Rand. It's not the opposite of subjectivism, in that it claims the world can be understood objectively. It's the opposite of humanism in that it argues one ought to treate people like objects.

I think that they're talking about the "philosophy" of Ayn Rand. It's not the opposite of subjectivism, in that it claims the world can be understood objectively. It's the opposite of humanism in that it argues one ought to treate people like objects.
Pfft. About 3/4 of the time, Objectivists and Humanists are on more or less the same page philosophically; at least from what little I've read on them so far.

If you want to talk about treating people like objects, you might want to take a look at some weath distribution models and take note of the moral connotations to it. I'm not making a man an "object" by allowing him the same freedoms I allow everyone else; but I am by taking the product of his labor and distributing it as I see fit. The irony in this argument is amusing, to say the least.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, all I really know about is Humanist metaphysics, which is all I've really had the time to get into so far. They're materialists, but then again so are Marxists. As I think about it now, I'm not prepared to say we're "on the same page philosophically" most of the time, since most of the moral implications of Humanism remain unknown to me.

Agreed. Certain jobs like the ones you mentioned just can't be done with crazy, 14 hour days. That said, I'd venture to guess this is an aspect of the issue to which most employers are already aware. I wouldn't think a helicopter dispatcher or a hospital director would be interested in these possibilities either.

And yet hospital resident is one of the few jobs left where someone can be given 24+ hour shifts.

The problem with just allowing people to work "as long as they want," is the same thing that's wrong with allowing child labor by arguing that parents should have the right for themselves to decide when their children will work, or that some families rely on their childs income, it's meager, but it's the only income they get.

If you inflate the labor pool then other people will be forced to adopt the same tactics. If one person works a 20 hour day then he's working jobs that could be done by two other people. In Montana, for example, people regularly have to work 3 jobs to make ends meet. If there was a law restricting everyone to one job and a 40 hour week then employers would have to give jobs to 3 times as many people (reducing the unemployment rate) but would also have to pay those people enough money in their 40 hours to make it worth their while. If every hour you work at a Walmart for 7 dollars is an hour that you can't work at Home Depot for 10 then you're going to turn Walmart down no matter how industrious you are.

Pfft. About 3/4 of the time, Objectivists and Humanists are on more or less the same page philosophically; at least from what little I've read on them so far.

If you want to talk about treating people like objects, you might want to take a look at some weath distribution models and take note of the moral connotations to it. I'm not making a man an "object" by allowing him the same freedoms I allow everyone else; but I am by taking the product of his labor and distributing it as I see fit. The irony in this argument is amusing, to say the least.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, all I really know about is Humanist metaphysics, which is all I've really had the time to get into so far. They're materialists, but then again so are Marxists. As I think about it now, I'm not prepared to say we're "on the same page philosophically" most of the time, since most of the moral implications of Humanism remain unknown to me.

I find the irony in your arguments amusing too. You start off by saying that objectivism doesn't have a problem with treating people like objects, and then for contrast you start complaining about how socialism treats objects like objects. Just because a person owns a thing doesn't make that thing a person. Just because a person claims to own a person, doesn't make that latter person a thing.

You've presented this agrument before, that every penny that passes through your hands is somehow yours in a sacred and ultimate sense. The truth is that the government supports you in many ways that you don't seem to acknowledge, no matter how much of a rugged individualist you are, and it is incumbent upon you as a member of society to contribute your fair share. As the conservatives are so wont to tell liberals with no justification at all, "if you don't like it, why don't you get out?" There is some justification to the question in this case however, because you're arguing that you ought to be a member of the club without paying your dues.


When I read Jared Diamond's "Collapse" he said several times "I wonder what the Easter Island lumberjack thought to himself when he chopped down the last tree." Whatever he said, it was probably very similar to something in an Ayn Rand book.

It depends on who you ask. I tend to oppose most of these things as government regulations because I don't think their presence really makes that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things. If a company wants to hire small children or pay shit wages they'll just outsource their jobs: most of them, however, aren't as dead-set on shafting the worker as your average Socialist would want you to think. Generally, the argument is that if you did away with these things, conditions would rapidly deteriorate in a work environment, because no company is supposedly interested in actually staying in business.

I guess the flaw here lies in the fact that we sort of expect everyone involved to get their goddamn heads out of their asses. I suppose we're incurable optimists that way.


But things like child labour, or work in unsafe environments are hardly socialist delusions. They are things which were common until they were banned by governments.

And yet hospital resident is one of the few jobs left where someone can be given 24+ hour shifts.
And I suppose you're fully prepared to overlook the fact that many of them are run or at least funded by the State.

The problem with just allowing people to work "as long as they want," is the same thing that's wrong with allowing child labor by arguing that parents should have the right for themselves to decide when their children will work, or that some families rely on their childs income, it's meager, but it's the only income they get.
Of course self governance is not perfect, because people are likely to make bad decisions on a personal level. This might surprise you, but they're also capable of making bad decisions in large groups too, and when they do it effects more people.

If you inflate the labor pool then other people will be forced to adopt the same tactics. If one person works a 20 hour day then he's working jobs that could be done by two other people. In Montana, for example, people regularly have to work 3 jobs to make ends meet.
"Regularly?" 3 Jobs? With minimum wage being what it is, I'd doubt this is the case in Montana. In a more cost intensive area like Beverly Hills or New York I can understand, but what the hell is so hard about living in Montana? I'd ask for a source, but I doubt I'd buy that either.

If there was a law restricting everyone to one job and a 40 hour week then employers would have to give jobs to 3 times as many people (reducing the unemployment rate) but would also have to pay those people enough money in their 40 hours to make it worth their while. If every hour you work at a Walmart for 7 dollars is an hour that you can't work at Home Depot for 10 then you're going to turn Walmart down no matter how industrious you are.
A law restricting how many jobs you're allowed to have? That's ridiculous. If we wanted to guard against every possibly harmful or detrimental facet of life, we'd chain ourselves to our beds and never leave.

The unemployment rate is this country doesn't happen to be a particularly big problem at the moment, so I see no need to fix something that is most assuredly not broken.

And I suppose you're fully prepared to overlook the fact that many of them are run or at least funded by the State.


Of course self governance is not perfect, because people are likely to make bad decisions on a personal level. This might surprise you, but they're also capable of making bad decisions in large groups too, and when they do it effects more people.


"Regularly?" 3 Jobs? With minimum wage being what it is, I'd doubt this is the case in Montana. In a more cost intensive area like Beverly Hills or New York I can understand, but what the hell is so hard about living in Montana? I'd ask for a source, but I doubt I'd buy that either.


A law restricting how many jobs you're allowed to have? That's ridiculous. If we wanted to guard against every possibly harmful or detrimental facet of life, we'd chain ourselves to our beds and never leave.

The unemployment rate is this country doesn't happen to be a particularly big problem at the moment, so I see no need to fix something that is most assuredly not broken.


I work 3 jobs :D but I am in minnesota and thats hardly the norm

But things like child labour, or work in unsafe environments are hardly socialist delusions. They are things which were common until they were banned by governments.

Ayn Rand's philosophy is the result of a wounded childhood. She grew up in Communist Russia. When people grow up with one extreme form of government they often grow up to think that the opposite of that form is the best kind. It results in its own form of extremism. Take a look at Hobbes. He essentially argued in favor of dictatorship because he grew up with the British civil wars. If you grow up in Communist Russia, a small government that allows any sort of economic activity at all, no matter how harmful, starts to look pretty good, because you didn't grow up with the problems of free-market economics, you grew up with the problems of no-market economics. If you grow up with riots in the streets your whole life, you're going to think that a guy who rides through the streets shooting anyone who makes noise over an arbitrarily chosen decibel level is a pretty good thing, because you didn't grow up with the problems of a government that claims the right of arbitrary life and death, you grew up with the problems of a population that claimed the right of arbitrary life and death.

Once someone who argues for something stupid and harmful in an eloquent and reationalized fashion, then people who believe that for self-centered and mean-spirited reasons will wave that philosopher's works like a flag and claim the moral high-ground. Problem is, it's still just wounded inner children wishing that the world would be remade on the off chance that they'll suddenly find themselves young again with the chance to live through a world that's been "fixed."

"Regularly?" 3 Jobs? With minimum wage being what it is, I'd doubt this is the case in Montana. In a more cost intensive area like Beverly Hills or New York I can understand, but what the hell is so hard about living in Montana? I'd ask for a source, but I doubt I'd buy that either.

I cited the book earlier. Jared Diamond's "Collapse."
Your willingness to admit to an obstinate rejection of evidence that disagrees with your chosen belief is refreshing however. Big ups to you sir.

I find the irony in your arguments amusing too. You start off by saying that objectivism doesn't have a problem with treating people like objects, and then for contrast you start complaining about how socialism treats objects like objects.
What? People like objects? Is this supposed to be a joke?

And no, my objection with Socialism is that it treats people like objects; it contends that man is a means to an end, i.e. that his earnings have some higher purpose than actually remaining his earnings. It appears you're about as uninformed about leftist dogma as you are about Objectivism.

Just because a person owns a thing doesn't make that thing a person. Just because a person claims to own a person, doesn't make that latter person a thing.
And I said this....where?

Possessions do not detrmine identity; metaphysically speaking, our physical boundaries do.


You've presented this agrument before, that every penny that passes through your hands is somehow yours in a sacred and ultimate sense.
It is. I'm glad to see you got that much right.

The truth is that the government supports you in many ways that you don't seem to acknowledge, no matter how much of a rugged individualist you are, and it is incumbent upon you as a member of society to contribute your fair share.
I already do, because I have something called a job. I provide society a service that they're willing to pay for. If this should ever cease to be the case, I will be forced to find a new service.

Also, I'm aware of the functions of the Government and the less tangible aspects of said functions: believe it or not some of them I may actually be willing to pay for. Roads, cops, and courts are nice for instance, but they're not worth thirty cents on the dollar.

As the conservatives are so wont to tell liberals with no justification at all, "if you don't like it, why don't you get out?" There is some justification to the question in this case however, because you're arguing that you ought to be a member of the club without paying your dues.
Justification my ass. This is a slippery slope and I hope you know it. Saying I should just "get out" because I hold certain ideas is laughably fascist of you.

I cited the book earlier. Jared Diamond's "Collapse."
Your willingness to admit to an obstinate rejection of evidence that disagrees with your chosen belief is refreshing however. Big ups to you sir.
Color me unimpressed. Am I to understand that you're attempting to cite a work of fiction as a legitimate source of information, or is this some kind of essay or something?

This is a remarkably non-descript source. For all I know it's a song or some dude putting a contact mic to his throat while he drinks carrot juice. Traditionally, when a source is asked for, its bibliographical information is presented. Not "Jared Diamond's 'Collapse'" I ain't feeling it.

And say what you want to say about Ayn Rand herself and her reasons for devising this philosophy, that doesn't make it any less apt. If turnabout is fair play, all I need to do is find something in Karl Marx's upbringing to supposedly discredit his entire philosophy. The substance of ideas are not contingent upon the experiences and prejudices of the thinker in question: like all other aspects of reality ideas stand or fall on their own merits.

In short, try attacking the philosophy next time, rather than attempting to discredit it with biographical information about it's creator thankyoudrivethrough.

To be honest, I am not going to take the time and effort to read the entirety of this thread. I'm simply going to post some thoughts on objectivism.

Objectivism relys on the idea of an informed populace. The idea of moral business practices, theoretically, should derive from there. For example, if a company engages in child labor, I will not purchase their product because child labor is wrong. If the large majority of consumers follow suit, then the company shall go out of business due to lack of customers. That is how the market business ethics.

Thus ethics in objectivism.
- Brian Kemp
Politics Student, Tyslan High

Somehow I'd think an 'informed populace' is slightly less of an impossibility than you might think. You're currently sitting in front a brilliant tool for said information, for instance.

Do you really think that many people are getting away with child labor and ridiculous overtimes in this country? There's a reason that kind of thing is generally plastered on the headlines all huge and shit when it happens.

It's funny to be condemned as an absolutist [not by you, don't worry! yet!] when my opponents generally favor introducing arguments like "not giving is wrong" and "child labor is wrong" while conveniently ignoring that those are absolutes too. In this case it's a bit ridiculous, as I have a hard time believing that it's wrong to hire a ten year old to sweep the hair off the floor in a barbershop in his off hours, for instance. My stepfather did it when he was growing up, and while I'm given to understand he didn't have the easiest childhood, I doubt he'd argue that his "wage slavery" was surely not the greatest of his concerns. In fact, it probably helped, seeing as how he paid his way through college with the money.

Somehow I'd think an 'informed populace' is slightly less of an impossibility than you might think. You're currently sitting in front a brilliant tool for said information, for instance.

Do you really think that many people are getting away with child labor and ridiculous overtimes in this country? There's a reason that kind of thing is generally plastered on the headlines all huge and shit when it happens.

It's funny to be condemned as an absolutist [not by you, don't worry! yet!] when my opponents generally favor introducing arguments like "not giving is wrong" and "child labor is wrong" while conveniently ignoring that those are absolutes too. In this case it's a bit ridiculous, as I have a hard time believing that it's wrong to hire a ten year old to sweep the hair off the floor in a barbershop in his off hours, for instance. My stepfather did it when he was growing up, and while I'm given to understand he didn't have the easiest childhood, I doubt he'd argue that his "wage slavery" was surely not the greatest of his concerns. In fact, it probably helped, seeing as how he paid his way through college with the money.


I work 3 jobs to do the same

Not a dime in loans no grants no financial aid of any sort


2 masters so far ...

I work 3 jobs to do the same

Not a dime in loans no grants no financial aid of any sort


2 masters so far ...
Nice work. I make it a point to put my money where my mouth is and not ask for handouts either, which saves a lot of wasted time paying off student loands and shit. I also have an aversion to spending money I don't have [something a lot of people my age have problems with; say nothing of politicians], which is one of the main reasons I haven't been able to start school yet.

Nice work. I make it a point to put my money where my mouth is and not ask for handouts either, which saves a lot of wasted time paying off student loands and shit. I also have an aversion to spending money I don't have [something a lot of people my age have problems with; say nothing of politicians], which is one of the main reasons I haven't been able to start school yet.
It makes it a lot more important to you when mommy and dady don’t pay for it

And it is somehow more “real” when you pay for it each semester rather then just letting the loan cover it

It makes it a lot more important to you when mommy and dady don?t pay for it

And it is somehow more ?real? when you pay for it each semester rather then just letting the loan cover it
*points to UpwardThrust and makes wild gestures at the local Socialists*

SEE? SEEE?!!?!

*points to UpwardThrust and makes wild gestures at the local Socialists*

SEE? SEEE?!!?!
Just wait till they found out my dad never made it through collage cause of the draft (got pulled out of school) and my mom is a nurse. And they live and work on a farm. (dad is actually an electrical inspector as well)

So they were an upper lower class (when I was younger) and managed to drag themselves to middle middle class. With nothing but a whole lot of work … and I have managed to do the same :)

Yeah you could look at us as the quintessential “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” family lol (not to mention my two brothers each have two jobs a piece and are both in collage doing the same thing … 3 brothers no loans no financial aid and no parental aid)

Nice work. I make it a point to put my money where my mouth is and not ask for handouts either, which saves a lot of wasted time paying off student loands and shit. I also have an aversion to spending money I don't have [something a lot of people my age have problems with; say nothing of politicians], which is one of the main reasons I haven't been able to start school yet.
Rationally, this seems a poor strategy. The money you'd make after graduating should enable you to repay your debt fairly easily, and also put you in a higher income bracket for the rest of your life. It seems you're allowing irrational emotions - a distaste for taking advantage of opportunities offered - to come between you and success.

That said, I understand if the distaste comes because you realize the money for loans is taken by taxation. If you don't believe in the system, I certainly support you in not using it in any way. Unfortunately, that typically does translate to "move", not because of any notion of seeing someone with different ideals move, but just because your own morality seems to compel it.

If taxation is theft, and availing yourself of the results of theft is also immoral, then, if you must live by the moral code, it seems you must somehow avoid the results of taxation. Unfortunately, as pretty much everything most people use on a daily basis (with the possible exception of air) is a result at one point or another of taxation, (there are very few businesses that haven't started without governmental help, and all of them make use of the monetary supply printed and regulated by government) that doesn't leave a lot of options.

Rationally, this seems a poor strategy. The money you'd make after graduating should enable you to repay your debt fairly easily, and also put you in a higher income bracket for the rest of your life. It seems you're allowing irrational emotions - a distaste for taking advantage of opportunities offered - to come between you and success.
No, I avoid this strategy because everyone I've ever met that used student loans is telin me that they're not worth it and to work my way through. I also do it because I want to earn my keep and contribute to society with my services in the meantime [!], not avoid it and work to pay off a greater amount [interest!] later. In order to get the most bang for my buck, I work and put myself through on my own merits.

The rest of this post, leaving aside for the moment the very end, is probably the best thing I've ever seen you write and I agree with it nearly implicitly.

UpwardThrust and Melkor:

You guys (gals?) seem educated and reasonable, I'm sure you know the actual weight of anecdotal evidence...

Anyway I just have a quick responce to this:

It's generally safe to say that a monopoly is only harmful to society when some form of fraud or swindling is involved. Ticketmaster, for instance, holds what appears to be a more or less unchallenged monopoly on event ticket sales. This in and of itself is not neccessarily "harmful to society," and in most cases I'd doubt it would be.

Even if a monopoly came about through 'fair' means, it would still be quite harmful to society.

Monopolies produce less at a higher price than a free-market. They enjoy higher profit margins than if they were just a single competitor. Furthermore, they are most likely going to be facing diseconomies of scale, meaing gross cost inefficiency (think bloated government bureaucracy).

Now monopolies may arise for a short period of time and then be overcome with competition if they are playing fair. But any lasting monopoly has to be, either intentionally or unintentionally, setting up barriers to market entry. Such barriers are, at least in my estimation, an infringment of the rights of individuals to attempt to enter a market. Of course, I tend to positively define rights and it seems that objectivism tends to negatively define them, so there is a whole other debate right there.

There are natural monopolies in industries where the cost structure can only support one firm. In these cases it was considered best for the government to regulate the monopoly's price setting ability. This would lead to higher average costs, but the high monopoly price wouldn't be reached. Anyway, it is true that some monopolies are unavoidable, but that doesn't justify all monopolies.

Nikitas, I think with all due respect you're forgetting the fact that not even a monopoly can set its prices arbitrarily. If they start charging $25 for a candy bar or a box of cereal, it will be remarkably easy to undercut them and establish a competitive presence.

Putting all of your competitors out of business isn't 'putting up barriers to free market,' it's just kicking ass and taking names at what you happen to do. I'll grant that new entries to the market can be difficult with a competent foe, but in a free country it should never be impossible.

I'm not saying I want to live in a world where every store is a Wal-Mart and every computer is a Gateway [eww Gateway]. What I am saying, is I don't want to live in a world where they are liable to be punished for no better reason than they're the best at what they do.

Well that's true, I was trying to account for that but I suppose I wasn't clear.

Yes, a monopoly in a market without barriers to entry would not last long if it were to price 'unfairly'. That would be the whole being better than everyone else scenario.

The problem is that it just wouldn't last long. Either the monopoly would resort to monopoly pricing and lose it's position or it would have set up barriers to entry to keep it's position.

But then, even if the monopoly doesn't attempt go to a monopoly price (which is highly unlikely given that economic profit is to be had), then you still have gross inefficiency because that monopoly has probably lost it's inherent advantages by the time it reaches the capacity where it has to satisfy an entire market. Now it is conceivable that it hasn't, and hell if it's economies of scale are so great then yeah sure it should be the only firm operating. It's just that such a thing is highly unlikely.

So, you are right in that a short-term monopoly probably wouldn't cause much harm. But a monopoly that has lasted for more than a few months or so is probably doing harm.


Edit: When I said "that's true" I mean the part about a monopoly without market barriers not being able to set their chosen price.

But it should be noted that by the technical definition of a monopoly, barriers and all, then yes the monopoly is free to set prices at will and will set them were profits are maximized.

Well that's true, I was trying to account for that but I suppose I wasn't clear.

Yes, a monopoly in a market without barriers to entry would not last long if it were to price 'unfairly'. That would be the whole being better than everyone else scenario.

The problem is that it just wouldn't last long. Either the monopoly would resort to monopoly pricing and lose it's position or it would have set up barriers to entry to keep it's position.
Except that no one in their right mind would grant corporations [or government, for that matter] the power to bar any sort of entry into a business enterprise. I also can't understand why they would resort to "monopoly pricing" in the presence of a cheaper [presumably significantly available] alternative.

But then, even if the monopoly doesn't attempt go to a monopoly price (which is highly unlikely given that economic profit is to be had), then you still have gross inefficiency because that monopoly has probably lost it's inherent advantages by the time it reaches the capacity where it has to satisfy an entire market.
It's a common mistake to assume that higher prices always means a greater profit: this is most certainly not always the case. Profit is maximized when a company is able to move all of its units, not a select few because the price is outrageous. Using my candy bar example, it wouldn't be anywhere near profitable for them to charge a price like that because they would not sell very many. People are more resourceful than you seem to be thinking. If we can build cities and roads and friggin pyramids we can do something about being scammed.

Now it is conceivable that it hasn't, and hell if it's economies of scale are so great then yeah sure it should be the only firm operating. It's just that such a thing is highly unlikely.

So, you are right in that a short-term monopoly probably wouldn't cause much harm. But a monopoly that has lasted for more than a few months or so is probably doing harm.
I don't remember making any distinction between 'short-term' and 'long-term' monopolies. I was attempting to discuss their philosophical function in a general sense; I wasn't talking about just one kind.

Except that no one in their right mind would grant corporations [or government, for that matter] the power to bar any sort of entry into a business enterprise. I also can't understand why they would resort to "monopoly pricing" in the presence of a cheaper [presumably significantly available] alternative.

The barriers don't have to be political. They could be I suppose, you know if you found the right Congressmen.

But the barriers could be economic as well, such as a high cost to entry preventing firms from starting up in that market.

It's a common mistake to assume that higher prices always means a greater profit: this is most certainly not always the case.

Well you are right. I wasn't trying to say that a higher price will always yield more profit. It's just that profits are maximized at a price that is higher than that of the free-market price, hence the monopoly price is higher.

Technically speaking profits are maximized at exactly the point where marginal revenue is equal to marginal cost, but that doesn't mean much without further discussion of those terms so I tried to use plain language and came off as quite vague (my mistake).

I don't remember making any distinction between 'short-term' and 'long-term' monopolies. I was attempting to discuss their philosophical function in a general sense; I wasn't talking about just one kind.

Right, that is a distinction I made. I was agreeing with you that a monopoly wouldn't be harmful, on the condition that it didn't last too long. But if you have a monopoly that persisted (so I argued), then it would be harmful with the exception of the case I mentioned above. (where the monopoly was experiencing economies of scale and there were no barriers so that it would have to price at the free-market level.

I'd contend that any barrier to market entry would be political, whether it was intended to be or not. Even if it somehow wasn't, it still shouldn't exist anyway.

Cost of entry is also not generally dependent on what other people happen to be charging for their product. Startup costs are largely dependent on distribution needs.

Also, you can raise the raise to "monopoply pricing" all you want, but you can't count out and lay down your customers' money for them: it does take two parties to trade. If a "monopoly price" is outrageous but we're apparently still willing to pay it, that's not the company's fault either. I don't care how thirsty I am, I ain't paying no $5 for a glass of pepsi, for instance. Unfortunately, with our economy being what it is, I can only hope it doesn't actually get that expensive.

The bottom line for me is no monopoly would exist without a demand for their product or service, thus to restricting it in the name of the 'public interest' is somewhat redundant since public interest created that particular company's success.

No, I avoid this strategy because everyone I've ever met that used student loans is telin me that they're not worth it and to work my way through. I also do it because I want to earn my keep and contribute to society with my services in the meantime

I though you were against contributing to society. I thought that contributing to yourself was the only matter of importance.

I though you were against contributing to society. I thought that contributing to yourself was the only matter of importance.
When you work for your own self-interest, you contribute to society simply by your competence. If I want to get ahead, I have to be the best. And if I'm the best, the consumers profit from it.

Furthermore, Objectivists have nothing against charity that I can see. They do however have something to say about forced charity (theft). I see this one all the time:

"I don't think stealing is right."
"Omg, you don't help other people!??!"

Cost of entry is also not generally dependent on what other people happen to be charging for their product. Startup costs are largely dependent on distribution needs.
Agreed. However, costs of entry can in fact be larger than production costs, especially where economies of scale come into play. At a certain size, the monopolist has the power to lower their prices for a temporary period, perhaps even below the cost of production as they have built up savings from monopoly type pricing before, and thus put any would-be competitor out of business. Once out of business, the monopoly can safely raise the prices once more and any public that wants that service is required to buy from the monopoly. It's not long before the capitalists realize how futile it is to try to compete in the monopoly sphere, and stop providing any capital to even start competition.

The bottom line for me is no monopoly would exist without a demand for their product or service, thus to restricting it in the name of the 'public interest' is somewhat redundant since public interest created that particular company's success.
Let's say the monopoly winds up being, say, a Wal-Mart. They not only become the single provider of consumer goods, but the single provider of groceries as well. This puts a different spin on things, wouldn't you say? Sure, some competitive grocers start up, but Wal-Mart puts out a temporary "Beating the Competition!" sale and charges less than the competition can effectively survive at. Yet people can't just say, "Ah.. I'll just skip groceries this month.." and in fact, in such an instance, someone being able to start a competitive industry becomes even less likely.. why? Because as the monopoly provider of groceries, say you try starting your own business and Wal-Mart, not liking this, denies you the opportunity to purchase, not just groceries, but anything else, until you close your business down.

Will this happen? Probably not. But it's a thought experiment. What prevents a monopoly from doing this once it gains monopoly control?

Now, will such a monopoly eventually die? Most likely. They may well get complacent or corrupt or whatever, but what damage is done in the meantime, and how many people's lives are ruined by it?

What? People like objects? Is this supposed to be a joke?

And no, my objection with Socialism is that it treats people like objects; it contends that man is a means to an end, i.e. that his earnings have some higher purpose than actually remaining his earnings. It appears you're about as uninformed about leftist dogma as you are about Objectivism.

No, post-Marxist socialism is about giving people control of their own destiny. Let's take a case study. Merry Maids.

An independent maid can make about $50 an hour cleaning houses. In a well-to-do urban environment she can get by simply by putting up flyers that read "cleaning woman available tel. (###)###-####.

Merry Maids is a franchise where they advertise heavily and get a large share of the market, but the maids aren't independent. They're waged employees. They make about $7.50 an hour. They can't compete on their own because Merry Maids advertizes heavily, and the middle class customers feel more comfortable interacting with a middle class businessman than a working class maid. Merry Maids teaches its employees not to disinfect. They are taught "if it looks clean, it is clean." Merry Maids is in every fashion worse than hiring an independent maid. The workers suffer, the customers end up with an inferior service.

Marxist communism says that the employees should kill their employer, because they can then go back to being independent maids without fear of his driving them out of business.

Post-Marxist socialism says that either the government should prohibit the employer from offering sub-subsistence wages, or the maids should get together, buy out the guy running the business, and own it themselves, hiring an administrative assistant to fill the functions of the employer they replaced. The government would only get involved if the employer refused every reasonable offer in order to arbitrate a deal, perhaps the formation of a limited liability company in which the workers have a joint controling interest, but the former employer still recieves dividends.

In the free market system that you advocate, the maids get treated like objects.

In the Marxist system I'm not advocating, the employer is treated as harmful.

In the post-Marxist system that I do advocate, either the employer is forced to recognize the humanity of his employees.

And I said this....where?

Possessions do not detrmine identity; metaphysically speaking, our physical boundaries do.

I've seen you argue before that one's possessions are an extension of oneself. In essence, you are extending personhood to objects.

It is. I'm glad to see you got that much right.

Just because I reject your position does not mean I don't understand it.

I already do, because I have something called a job. I provide society a service that they're willing to pay for. If this should ever cease to be the case, I will be forced to find a new service.

But your job is not necessarily worth the income it brings you. Take the Merry Maids employer I mentioned above. He's essentially useless. If he vanished from the face of the Earth the maids could go on doing their work just fine. Yet he makes more money than all his workers put together.

The payment of a job is the function of a constant negotiation in which you may not take a direct role. Everything that the government does has an influence on those negotiations. e.g. Food is essentially priceless. You can't live without it. Yet the price of food won't even pay for the means by which to produce it without government agricultural subsidies. Government has to intervene, or else farmers (who have no training in economic managment or collective bargaining) end up getting ripped off and reduced to hired hands on the land that they used to own. They end up getting punished for being more productive as over-production reduces the value of their crops.

These disposessed farmers end up driving the wages of other jobs down as they flood the work force looking for jobs more lucrative than that of farmhand.

A federal government that keeps the prices of food high enough to support the costs of agriculture keeps the farm system afloat. Because our government doesn't do that very much those farms are getting bought out by factory farming companies.

You might see some great moral value in all of this mis-managed economy, but all I see is a disaster that results from catering to the pride and miserliness of spoiled self-centered individuals. I hesitate to say citizen, because that implies some appreciation for the cause and effect rules in an integrated economy.

Also, I'm aware of the functions of the Government and the less tangible aspects of said functions: believe it or not some of them I may actually be willing to pay for. Roads, cops, and courts are nice for instance, but they're not worth thirty cents on the dollar.

Justification my ass. This is a slippery slope and I hope you know it. Saying I should just "get out" because I hold certain ideas is laughably fascist of you.

No, it's laughably conservative of me. Conservatives say it all the time, and I laugh at them. In order for a central government to do things like regulate trade between states (so you don't have to pay huge tarriffs) or manage an army (so you don't have to engage in inefficient, locally managed, military maneuvers) it's going to cost money. They cost whatever they cost, not whatever you're willing to pay, and you end up paying less by having the government do it than by trying to do it yourself. It's part of the devision of labor inherent to an integrated economy.

You equate taxes to slavery, which is retarded. I equate taxes to club membership. If you believe that membership in the club is worth everything you get out of it after you pay your dues, then the dues are paid voluntarily (hence the slavery analogy you've used in the past is retarded). The more money a club makes in dues, the more services it can offer its members. As long as those dues are low enough that everyone can join and have it be worth their while (i.e. benifits of membership > membership dues) then it's a fair deal. If I joined a local gun club and then didn't pay my membership dues I don't think they'd be too happy if I continued to show up at their rifle range for target practice, they'd tell me to get the hell out. The same is true of taxes.

accully, two.
I'm not really an objectivist, but I like a lot of objectivist ideas. Plus, I like Ayn Rand's writing (yeah, I know, I'm a total bastard), so maybe I can help out.


1)The group has no extra rights that the indevidual does not have. But what about government? I know Objectivists are not anarchists, so how come the government has the right to make laws people must abide by, a power that the indevidual does not have

I think the idea behind government (for an objectivist) is more like a contract that all individual citizens agree to participate in. The government is very minimal, in this situation, and exists only to ensure that everybody plays by the ultimate libertarian rule: "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." As long as nobody directly interferes with the basic freedom of another (ie, through murder, rape, theft, etc) the government stays the hell out of the way. All individuals in the society are expected to play by these rules because, perversely, they will have greater freedom under this contract than if they did NOT submit to the contract.


2) I know that objectivism supports free market capitalism, but what are your views on things like child labor laws, safty regulations, stuff that prohibits 14 hour work days, overtime laws, and anti-trust laws?
As far as I know, the strict Objectivist answer would be that none of those things should be regulated by the government. I may be wrong, however.

When you work for your own self-interest, you contribute to society simply by your competence. If I want to get ahead, I have to be the best. And if I'm the best, the consumers profit from it.

Furthermore, Objectivists have nothing against charity that I can see. They do however have something to say about forced charity (theft). I see this one all the time:

"I don't think stealing is right."
"Omg, you don't help other people!??!"

American farmers quickly became the most competent in the world, and their profits suffered tremendously for it. I've already pointed out how market forces are not some omniscient deity that will automatically bring all money to the place it most deserves to be. Economy is not a system like weather or evolution that works best when ignored, it's a system like an engine, which needs periodic maintanence to keep it running smoothly, and only gets worse when either ignored, or fiddled with by amateurs.

And taxes aren't theft. If you don't want to be taxed, then go somewhere where there aren't any taxes. Some deserted island that can support single person agriculture

Color me unimpressed. Am I to understand that you're attempting to cite a work of fiction as a legitimate source of information, or is this some kind of essay or something?

Why don't you google it, or check Amazon. I already told you it's a book. A famous and well sourced one written by an evolutionary biologist who ended up devoting 30 years to studying the formation of societies all over the world.

It's funny that you'd accuse me of criticizing objectivism by citing fiction, since the major supporting text for objectivism is a work of fiction by Ayn Rand.

This is a remarkably non-descript source. For all I know it's a song or some dude putting a contact mic to his throat while he drinks carrot juice. Traditionally, when a source is asked for, its bibliographical information is presented. Not "Jared Diamond's 'Collapse'" I ain't feeling it.

Perhaps you should actually try to learn a little before you spout off instead of using your ignorance like a shield to protect yourself from unwelcome evidence of how incorrect you are.

And say what you want to say about Ayn Rand herself and her reasons for devising this philosophy, that doesn't make it any less apt. If turnabout is fair play, all I need to do is find something in Karl Marx's upbringing to supposedly discredit his entire philosophy. The substance of ideas are not contingent upon the experiences and prejudices of the thinker in question: like all other aspects of reality ideas stand or fall on their own merits.

And the philosophies of Hobbes and Rand fall on their own merits. Arguments on economic matters and political ones were propogated in ancient Rome. Then those arguments died out because people read them and said "fat lot of good this did Rome." And eventually people forgot that these arguments were ever made. Then Ayn Rand showed up and made them again, and everyone thought it was novel.

I pointed out the motivation behind her arguments so that anyone reading it who said to themselves "how could anyone be so mean spirited as to think that this is a good philosophy or so stupid as to think that it's a sensible philosophy" can then look at her background and see that an otherwise reasonable person could be moved to those sentiments in her circumstances.

In short, try attacking the philosophy next time, rather than attempting to discredit it with biographical information about it's creator thankyoudrivethrough.

Her philosophy doesn't even make a prima facie case for itself. I've argued against the philosophy more than it deserves, the bio was merely by way of explanation.

Nikitas, I think with all due respect you're forgetting the fact that not even a monopoly can set its prices arbitrarily. If they start charging $25 for a candy bar or a box of cereal, it will be remarkably easy to undercut them and establish a competitive presence.

A. They can always temporarily lower their prices to drive out the competition, and they can lower their prices to below cost feeding off of accumulated capital. Once upstart businesses get driven out of business, they can't even start up again when the monopoly jacks its prices back up because they're still in debt from their investment in their last attempt.

B. Once a company controls the majority of the cereal (for example) market they can either buy up the cereal producers, or they can demand exclusive contracts. So even if someone wants to sell the same goods for less, they can't find them to sell. e.g. Sirius satellite carried the entire Air America line up, XM only carried select shows, but they offered more money to the Air America corporation on the condition that they no longer sell their content to Sirius. Sirius was more competative in terms of real service (they carried the entire line up) but still lost out to a more well established market player.

I'm not saying I want to live in a world where every store is a Wal-Mart and every computer is a Gateway [eww Gateway]. What I am saying, is I don't want to live in a world where they are liable to be punished for no better reason than they're the best at what they do.

Implicit in this statement is that market dominance is always the result of being the best. Compaq became the biggest computer manufacturer (I haven't kept up with the market, it's probably not anymore, though HP/Compaq is still a top contender) by selling computers that are complete crap. That they're even competative shows that market forces have little to do with quality, but they're one of the biggest.

Bah... go off to class and people come in to steal your thunder! :p

But seriously, Waterkeep and Domici did a great job in responding, pretty much what I would have said with a few small exceptions.

I'm tempted to address the idea of consumers rejecting a product because of it's price, but I don't want to hijack the thread anymore than I have. :D

To save time, I'm just going to anwer to Domici, since he's the most philosophically offensive poster [to me, at least] in this new barrage. I took a nap, and now theres a ton of shit to deal with. I guess one of the drawbacks to being more or less the only Objectivist on this board is that I have to handle this entire thread, so meaningful replies may be slow in coming.

Thanks Katzistanza! :headbang:

No, post-Marxist socialism is about giving people control of their own destiny. Let's take a case study. Merry Maids.

An independent maid can make about $50 an hour cleaning houses. In a well-to-do urban environment she can get by simply by putting up flyers that read "cleaning woman available tel. (###)###-####.

Merry Maids is a franchise where they advertise heavily and get a large share of the market, but the maids aren't independent. They're waged employees. They make about $7.50 an hour. They can't compete on their own because Merry Maids advertizes heavily, and the middle class customers feel more comfortable interacting with a middle class businessman than a working class maid. Merry Maids teaches its employees not to disinfect. They are taught "if it looks clean, it is clean." Merry Maids is in every fashion worse than hiring an independent maid. The workers suffer, the customers end up with an inferior service.

Marxist communism says that the employees should kill their employer, because they can then go back to being independent maids without fear of his driving them out of business.
Yeah, kill your boss. Wonderful philosophy they've got there, I can really see that 'compassion' element sticking out now. Cute.

Post-Marxist socialism says that either the government should prohibit the employer from offering sub-subsistence wages, or the maids should get together, buy out the guy running the business, and own it themselves, hiring an administrative assistant to fill the functions of the employer they replaced. The government would only get involved if the employer refused every reasonable offer in order to arbitrate a deal, perhaps the formation of a limited liability company in which the workers have a joint controling interest, but the former employer still recieves dividends.
Except that an easier way to do it would be to allow the markets to set the wage, since they already do anyway. If every employer under the sun had no greater interest other than shafting his workers, every job would already be a minimum wage one. Right now I live in a country where you can earn over $10 an hour without a college degree. And our system is deficient in this regard....how?

In the free market system that you advocate, the maids get treated like objects.
I still have yet to see the logic that produces this conclusion: if that was suppose dot be it [above], don't mind if I laugh hysterically fir the next few minutes.

In a free market system, they're treated no better than their productiveness allows, and no worse than is morally acceptable.

In the Marxist system I'm not advocating, the employer is treated as harmful.

In the post-Marxist system that I do advocate, either the employer is forced to recognize the humanity of his employees.
Or....? I think you left part of this off. Also, please stop with this garbage that I don't know what a human is because I'm an Objectivist.

I've seen you argue before that one's possessions are an extension of oneself. In essence, you are extending personhood to objects.
Tell me, where in the phrase "possessions are an extention of the self" do the words "possessions define people" appear? Oh yeah: they don't. Nice try.

Just because I reject your position does not mean I don't understand it.
Excuse me, but I think your statements on the matter speak volumes as to your lack of understanding. I don't tell people they don't understand things merely because they disagree with me: ask Deleuze sometime. He understands what Objectivism is and what it means: he still disagrees with it, and that's fine.

You, however, have what appears to be a fantasically rudimentary knowledge of this philosophy, which is probably strictly limited to the arguments you've seen me make here.

But your job is not necessarily worth the income it brings you. Take the Merry Maids employer I mentioned above. He's essentially useless. If he vanished from the face of the Earth the maids could go on doing their work just fine. Yet he makes more money than all his workers put together.
Of course they could work, they'd just work for someone else. What's your point? Are you trying to say that no one should start up a business because it might turn him into a douchebag? I'm fully prepared to admit that cretins exist in corporate culture just as they exist in every other known aspect of human civilization, but that doesn't mean all of them are like this guy and it's certainly not justified to punish everyone who wants to turn $1 into $2 because there are people like this

The payment of a job is the function of a constant negotiation in which you may not take a direct role. Everything that the government does has an influence on those negotiations. e.g. Food is essentially priceless. You can't live without it. Yet the price of food won't even pay for the means by which to produce it without government agricultural subsidies. Government has to intervene, or else farmers (who have no training in economic managment or collective bargaining) end up getting ripped off and reduced to hired hands on the land that they used to own. They end up getting punished for being more productive as over-production reduces the value of their crops.
Ooooh, farm subsidies. US Agricultural policy disgusts me more than almost anything else in this country that I can name. Are you aware that this precious subsidy is currently being deployed to pay farmers not to grow food?

Farm bills are impossible to appropriate, because if we have a really good growing season, we have to buy up excess product and either destroy it or horde it, because its introduction to the market would drive its value down. Conversely, if we have a bad growing season, the effects are just as obvious: we have to pay disaster aid to the farmers, and we have to import more. Farm subsidies are some of the most counter-productive legislature I've ever seen. If Price fixing were applied to other areas of the market, you might pay like $30,000 for a 1910 Nash Rambler: a car with no a/c, no radio, no power windows and so forth.

When mechanization came around, farmers were happy that they could grow lots more food, but they weren't too happy with the fact that other farmers could do it too. They whined to the government, and got their way: now agricultural subsidies are such an ingrained practice that the notion of doing away with them would be political suicide.

These disposessed farmers end up driving the wages of other jobs down as they flood the work force looking for jobs more lucrative than that of farmhand.
Don't be ridiculous. Farmers are not poor people by any stretch of the imagination.

To save time, I'm just going to quote directly from my source, Parliament of Whores by P.J.O'Rourke [see, I can find sources that verify my point of view too! Isn't this fun?]:

There is one kind of interfering in private life that the federal government has been doing for much longer than it has been proscribing narcotics or hectoring poor people, and this is messing around with agriculture. The government began formulating agricultural policy in 1794, when the residents of western Pennsylvania started the Whiskey Rebellion in response to an excise tax on corn liquor. Teh agricultural policy formulated in 1794 was to shoot farmers. In this case, the federal governmenr may have had it right the first time.

Like that of most Americans of the present generation, my experience with agriculture is pretty much limited to the three-week experiment raising dead marijuana plants under a grow light in the closet of my off-campus apartment. I did, however, once help artificially inseminate a cow. And you can keep your comments to yourself--I was up at the front, holding the thing's head.

[a long story follows about the farmer in question and the equipment used for said insemination. I'll skip it since someone might try to read this while eating. It ends with him saying 'I'll never forget the look on that cow's face.']

The same look--and for the same reason--appeared on my own face when I began reading the 1990 omnibus bill. Every five years or so the U.S. Congress votes on a package of agricultural legislation that does to the taxpayer what Pete and George and I did to the cow.

The last farm bill [this is as of 1990--M] cost American taxpayers $100 billion in direct out-of-our-paycheck-into-the-feedbag costs and another %50 billion in higher prices we paid at the supermarket. This was the Food Security Act of 1985, which got its name from the fact that it left America's food supply about this secure: "Yes, officer, the stereo. tje TV and the coin collection are cone but, thank God, the refrigerator wasn't raided."

The new farm bill only cost about $50 billion, although there's no telling what any farm bill is really going to cost. The 1981 farm bill was budgeted at $12 billion and ended up costing $60 billion, and the 1985 bill was supposed to represent a substantial cut of 1981 allocations. You see, if the weather's bad and we have lots of droughts and freezes, we'll have to give disaster aid and crop-insurance payments to farmers, and the farm bill will end up costing us more. On the other hand, if the weather's good and we have plentiful harvests we'll have to buy up surplus commodities and pay the farmers to cut down on planting, and the farm bill will end up costing us more yet. And if--God forbid--the weather is good some of the time and bad some of the time--if, in other words, the weather is normal--then we can all just start backing towards the barn door and mooing for frozen bull sperm.

But all this money foes to poor farmers from sunup to sundown on millions and millions of farms across the nation, doesn't it?

No.

In the first place, there aren't millions and millions of farms in America. There are about two million if you use the very inclusive Bureau of Census definition of a farm as any place with $1000 or more annual gross sales of farm products. My off-campus apartment closet would have qualified if the grow lights hadn't blown the fuse box off the wall. There are, in fact, only about 314,000 full-time commercial farms in the US. These are farms that have gross annual sales of over $100,000. There are also the only farms where farm income exceeds income from nonfarm sources, such as factory jobs, retirement benefits, or sticking up 7-11 stores.

Nor are farmers, in general, poor. Farm-family income has exceeded average family income in America for more than twenty-fice years. And federal farm spending doesn't go to poor farmers anyway. The largest farms in America, those with gross receipts of more than $500,000 receive 60% of all price-support money.

So what are our Department of Agriculture tax dollars buying for us? A Department of Agriculture. The USDA has 106,000 employees, one for every three full-time farms in the country.

These 106,000 people would be more useful to the farm economy if we sent them out to hoe weeds. But they can't go; they're too busy doing things like administering the Federal Wool and Mohair program. According to the US General Accounting Office report to Congress on the 1990 farm bill, "The government established a wool and mohair price-support program in 1954... to encourage domestic wool production in the interest of national security." Really, it says that. I guess back in the fifties there was this military school of thought that held that in the event of a Soviet attack we would confuse and disorient the enemy by throwing blankets over their heads. Then, while they were punching each other in the dark and trying to figure out who turned the lights off, we'd have time to run into our missile silos and destroy Russia with our ICBMS. From 1955 to 1980, $1.1billion was spent on wool and mohair price supports, with 80 percent of that money going to a mere six thousand shepherds and (I guess) moherds.This is $146,400 per Bo Peep. And, let me tell you, she didn't lose those sheep. They're off at a boarding school in Switzerland.

Then there's the U.S. Honey program, instituted in 1952 to stabilize honey prices (you remember how the American economy was almost brought to its knees by wild swings in the price of honey) and to "maintain sufficient bee populations for pollinating food and fiber crops." The honey program spends $100 million a year on about twenty-one hundred beekeepers--more than $47,000 each. For that kind of money, hell, [i]I'll go sit in the flowers and wiggle around and get pollen all over my butt.

James Bovard, policy analyst for the libertarian Cato Institute and author of the book The Farm Fiasco, notes that between 1985 and 1989 government spending on rice farms was equal to $1 million for every full-time rice farmer in America and that the annual subsidy for each American dairy cow was between $600 and $700--greater than the per capita income of half the world's population.

Walter Williams, an economics professor at George Mason University, points out that since 1985 federally mandated attempts to boost citrus prices have resulted in the destruction (or use as cattle feed) of three billion oranges and two billion lemons (which is why we so rarely hear about a cow with scurvy).

And congressman Dick Armey, in an article for Policy Review entitled "Moscow on the Mississippi: America's Soviet-Style Farm Policy," says the 1985 farm bill paid farmers not to farm sixty-one million acres--an area equal to Ohio, Indiana, and half of Illonois--and that the amount we've spent on farm subsidies in the past ten years is enough to have bought all the farms in thirty-three states.

"Moscow on the Mississippi" is an apt phrase. US farm policy his coercive, collectivist, and centrally planned and has been since 1929, when that radical Herbert Hoover created the Federal Farm Board in an attempt to corner the commodities market and control farm prices.

The New Deal successor to the Federal Farm Board was the Commodity Credit Corporation, or CCC, one of the Roosevelt era's Goldilocks programs, so-called because it barged in on the taxpayer fifty years ago and it's still there. The CCC is empowered by its 1933 charter to "...undertake activities for the purpose of increasing production , stabilizing prices, and insuring adequate supplies; and to facilitate the efficient distribution of agricultural commodities." A more Brezhnevian set of instructions to a government agency is hard to imagine.

US farm policy is, along with North Korea and the Stanford liberal arts faculty, ont of the world's last outposts of anti-free market dogmatism. Congressman Kika de La Garza, who is the exasperatingly powerful chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, wrote in the Capitaol Hill newsletter, Roll Call, that, "most Americans believe the unique nature of agrivulture--the lengthy production cycle, dependency on the weather, susceptability to price swings, etc.--justifies a certain level of government involvement." But you can say the same thing about the unique nature of selling Mazda Miatas. Why isn't the government giving $50 billion to car dealerships?

A GAO repoert on federal dairy policies contains this sentence: "The federal government first developed dairy policies when low milk prices appeared to threadten the adequacy of the nation's milk supply." Which is insane. Everybody from whife-bartering savages to Michael Milken knows that low prices mean a surplus, not a shortage. Yet this statement appeared in a GAO report criticizing the federal dairy programs for not being "market oriented." Meanwhile, the dairy farmers themselves, through their lobbying organization, Dairymen, Inc., issue position papers that sound like extracts from Albanian newspaper editorials: "Dairymen enthusiastically supports a strong and flexible federal milk marketing order program. Such a program is essential for the maintenance of orderly marketing of milk in fluid and manufactured dairy product markets."

Thus, while America was fighting Commies all over the world, Communism grew apace in our back forty. American farm policy is exactly what, during the McCarthy era, people were jailed, fired, and blacklisted for advocating in this country--unless, of course, they were American farmers.

This being America, we haven't pursued Marxist goals with tanks, secret police, and gulag camps; we've used money. And the result has been a uniquely American totalitarian screw-up. Instead of terrible shortages, we've created gross overproduction. Instead of making people dirt poor, we've made them filthy rich.

As with anything that's had too much attention from the government, farm policy is a mess and a tangle, an imense dog's breakfast of programs, laws, and regulations. The farm policy briefing package prepared by the Library of Congress for US senators and representatives begins with a "Glossary of Agricultural Terms" forty pages long.

But farm policy, although it's complex, can be explained. What it can't be is believed. No cheating spouse, no teen with a wrecked family car, no mayor of Washington, DC, videotaped in flagrante delicto has ever come up with anything as far fetched as US farm policy.

To begin with, there is the concept of parity--the deep thought behind all od the USDA's price-and income-support measures. Parity is the idea that the price of farm goods ought to be the same, now and forever, in inflation-adjusted dollars, as the price of farm goods brought in the years 1910 through 1914. Parity was conceived in the 20's, when increased mechanization and better seeds and fertilizers were causing agricultural prices to fall. Farmers liked the fact that they could grow more stuff. But they didn't like the fact that other farmers could grow more stuff, too, and that all the stuff being grown was less rare and valuable. The farmers wanted the calendar turned back to those golden pre-World War days, when--as they remembered it--a peck of wheat was sold for a bushel of money, and every load of manure was pitched by a hayseed Vanderbilt.

The US government is part of a permanent frat pledge to every special interest in the nation--willing to undertake any task no matter how absurd or useless. So our government obliged the farmers, or tried to, and parity was born.

If we applied the logic of parity to automobiles instead of feed and grain, a typical economy car would cost forty grand. $43,987.50 is what a 1910 Nash Rambler would cost in 1990 dollars. And for that you got a car with thirty-four horsepower, no heat, not A/C, no tape deck or radio and no windows around the front seat. If farm parity were a guiding principle of human existence, we'd not only have lousy, high-priced economy cars, we'd have a total lack of civilization. Cheap, plentiful food is the precondition for human advancement. When there isn't enough food, everybody has to spend all his time getting fed and nobody has a minute to invent Law, architecture, or big clubs to hit cave bears on the head with. Agriculture prices have been falling, relative to the prices of other goods and services, not since the 1920s, but since the Paleolithic age. And it's a good thing. otherwise we wouldn't grow food, we'd be food.

The government has any number of ways on inflicting parity on taxpayers and food shoppers. For example, there's the "nonrecourse loan." This is a loan farmers can get from the government using their crop as collateral. But the government sets the value of that collateral not by the crop's price but by what the crop's ought to be in a dream world full of parity and happy farmers. Say wheat is selling for $3.50 a bushel, but the USDA thinks farm life would be a more fulfilling experience if the price were $4. So the USDA sets the "nonrecourse loan rate" at four bucks for every bushel of wheat they've got lying around. Then if America happens to suffer a terrible outbreak of toast weevils and the price of wheat goes up to $10 a bushel, farmers can pay back theur $4 loans, sell the wheat for $10 and bank the profits.

But if everybody in the United States suddenly goes on an all-meat diet and the price of wheat drops to fifteen cents, the farmers can blow off the loands, make the government eat the wheat, and not even get an ink smudge on their credit histories. It's an absolutely no-risk business transaction, like doing real estate deals with your dog. "Beach front? You don't want beach front, Fido. I've got some prime dumpside acreage, chicken bones and dead rats all over the place. I'll trade you straight up."

Or if the nonrecourse loan is too complicated for the farmer, the government has another program called "loan deficiency payments." In this program, the government pays the farmer not to take a nonrecourse loan.

The "convservation reserve program" is almost as simple. The government gives annual payments to the farmer in return for the farmer removing highly erodible land from production--as if erosion weren't doing that already. A farmer on the conservation reserve program will doubtless want to be on the "acerage conservation program," too. That way the government will pay him up to $3500 a year to practice soil conservation in general. This is like going into a Dairy Queen and giving the owner money to keep his ice cream freezers plugged in.

"Marketing orders" are used to keep farm prices high at the retail level. The growers of various commodities are encouraged to get together and fix the price for which their commodities will sell. In other industries, there's a name for people who do this: felons. Some marketing orders are enforced by "marketing quotas." Growers decide how much growing each grower can do. If shoeshine boys tried this, you'd only get one loafer polished during shine-business slumps.

During the mid-1980s the dairy industry had its own plan to limit production, the "whole herd buyout." Dairy farmers decided there was too much cheap milk at the supermarket. Hell, even homeless welfare babies were drinking moo juice. So the government bought and slaughtered 1.6 million dairy cows. How come the government never does anything like this with lawyers?

Farm-product bargains are also eliminatied by means of the "commoditiy import program." Our government gives foreign governments grants and loans to buy stuff grown in the US, stuff that would otherwise be a glut on the domestic market. I guess we should be thankful that similar programs have not been undertaken by the governments of Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru.

While some government programs are making farm products more expensive to buy, other programs are making farm products cheaper to produce. For example, farmers get cut-rate credit to the extent that the federal government now controls half of all farm debt. Farmers also get subsidized crop insurance. And, for those farmers who didn't feel like buying subsidized crop insurance but had a crop failure anyway, there are free disaster benefits.

This conflict between policies that send up prices and policies that drive prices down results in the need for a third category of policies that do nothing at all. There are famous programs that give farmers money for not farmning. In the "payment-in-kind program" the farmer is given the excess farm products that other farmers gew in return for not growing any of his own. In the "paid acreage diversion program" the more farming the farmer doesn't do, the more the government pays him. And in the best program of all, "0/92," the farmer does absolutely nothing and gets 92 percent of all the payments and benefits he could have possibly gotten from the largest crop he could have possibly grown.* A USDA scheme like this gives every government agency something to shoot for. With 0/92 as an inspiration, Health and Human Services will probably dream up a way for us taxpayers to catch clap from whores without getting laid.

Just when you think the farm issue can't get sillier, here comes Willie Nelson pounding on the gut-fiddle and adenoidaling away at Farm Aid. Wes, Willie and such thoroughly improbable acts as LL Cool J, Guns 'n Roses, Iggy Pop and Lou Reed (hey, there's a bunch of sheep in fishnet stockings out here, they've got drugs, and they say they're with the band) have raised a few more bucks for the farmers who just euchred Congress out of $50 billion.

There are farm families in need of charity, of course. But singling out farmers and getting all soggy-nosed and soak-eyed over theiir plight has less to do with facts than a romantic nostalgia for a pastoral ideal that never existed. Throughout history farm life has been brutish, dirty, and mostly stupid. Not that any of us would know. This country is so urbanized we think low-fat milk comes from cows on Nutri/System weight loss plans.

According to the Statistical Abstract of the United States, about 1.3 million people in America define themselves as farmers. But there are 4.1 million secretaries. These secrataries are poorly paid, hold jobs that provide little satisfation or chance for advancement, are frequently working mothers and often the sole support of their families. Where's the "Lend a Short Hand" concert for them? Where are the famous ode-yodelers singing "Momma Was a Hard-Typing Gal?" Why'd farmers get cinematic encomiums like The River, Country, and Places in the Heart while secretaries got nothing but Nine to Five?

Farming has always carried emotional freight. Thomas Jefferson, caught in a moment of rare idocy arguing against the industrialization of the United States said, "Those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God... whose breasts He has made a peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue/" This, but the way, from a gentleman farmer who owned two hundred slaves and kept at least one of them as his mistress.

The farm lobby makes good use of such lofty forms of nonsense and, also less lofty forms of nonsense, such as congressmen. For instance, sugar growers donate about half a million dollars a year to congressional election campaigns, and the dairy industry donates $2 million. Even though only 46 out of 435 congressional districts are controlled by farm votes, farmers have gained heavy leverage on Capitol Hill by combining rhetoric, ready money and a talent for political logrolling that dates back to the Consitutional Convention, when southern farmers managed to get slaves counted as three fifths of a voter without letting any slaves do three fifths of the voting. As a result of this disproportionate influence, 25 percent of the net income US farmers receive is in the form of direct cash payments from the government. The only other businessmen who put this kind of lip clamp on the public teat are defense contractors. At least when we give billions to defense contractors, we get something back for it, Star Wars or something. Maybe we don't need Star Wars, maybe it doesn't work, but at least the defense contractors were thinking of us. Themade, you know, a gesture. But we give billiions to farmers and don't even get a basket of zucchini on the front porch.

Our that-ain't-hay farm policy is useless. Even Wille Nelson acknowwledges that four hundred thousand small farms have gone out of business since he began giving his Farm Aid concerts, and I don't think we can blame all four hundred thousand on Willie's awful music. A 1988 Government Accounting Office report concluded that one quarter of the bankruptcies amoung Farmers Home Administration borrowers were the result not of any credit crunch, but an excess of cheap, subsidized loans.

Agricultural economist Clifton B. Lauttrel estimates that an old-fashioned money-vomiting Great Society stylr welfare system to keep needy farmers in business would cost only $4 billion a year, less than half what current programs cost.

I went to see Pete, the dairy farmer who'd helped my friend George get his cow pregnant. Pete's family has been dairy farming in New England all this centurt, and dairy farmers, as a group, have been on the receiving end of great federal largess--on the order of $6 to $7 billion a year. Pete, however, had just sold his cows and was subdividing his land to build vacation homes. I had a very short interview with Pete.

Me: As the result of price supports, product purchases, marketing orders and other federal dairy programs, how much better off are local dairy farmers?

Pete: There are only two local dairy farmers left.

Me: Are they better off?

Pete: Nope.

US farm policy, besides not doing what it's supposed to do, does do what it isn't supposed to do, and lots of it--the law of unintended consequences being one piece of legislation Congress awlays passes, Many farm-program payments are doled out according to an 'acreage base.' This is the amount of land on a farm that's planted in a particular crop. In order to protect their acreage base and continue getting government payoffs, the farmers are forced to practice "monocropping"--planting the same thing every year instead of rotating crops to replentish soil nutrients. Monocropping requires more chemical fertilizers, which polute ground water, and more pesticides and weed killers, which cause severe side effects, such as Meryl Streep appearing in front of congressional committees to complain about what's in her food.

The acreage-base system also discourages experimentation with new crops, such as canola (vegertable oil) and kenafe (paper pulp), both of which show enormous potential as dinnertime child disciplinary threats. ("No TV until you finish your canola.")

Other farm-program benefits, such as "deficiency payments" are paid on the basis of yield rather than acreage. The more you grow, the more you get paid. Yield-based deficiency payments for feed corn, combined with disaster payments based on yield projections, encourage farmers in drought areas to plant the highest yielding varieties of corn rather than the varieties that are most drought resistant. Meanwhile, wind erosion blows the top three inches off North Dakota into downtown Duluth.

Farm programs even make American foriegn policy more screwed up than it is already--not an easy thing to do. The USDA sugar program spends a quarter of a million dollars per year per American sugar grower. This to keep the sugar industry healthy in a climate phenominally unsuited to producing sugar. These subsidies and the sugar-import quota that goes with them cost sugar-cane growing US allies such as the Philippines more than $800 million per year in lost revenues. That's $319 million more than we pay the Philippines to rent our military bases there.

And while the USDA is spending $10 billion a year to increase farm income, the same government agency is spending $20 million to make food affordable to poor people through the Food Stamp program. A moron, and imbecile, an American high-school student can see there's something wrong with this equation. Just give the $10 billion to the poor people and let them buy their own damn food from the farmers.

I spent two and a half years examining the American political process. All that time i was looking for a straightforward issue. But everything I investigated--election campaigns, the budget, lawmaking, the court system, bureaucracy, social policy--turned out to be more complicated than I had thought. There were always angles I hadn't considered, aspects I hadn't weighed, complexities I'd never dreamed of. Until I got to agriculture. Here at least is a simple problem with a simple solution. Drag the omnibus farm bill behind the barn, and kill it with an ax.

For the record, Domici, that is how you cite a source.

A federal government that keeps the prices of food high enough to support the costs of agriculture keeps the farm system afloat. Because our government doesn't do that very much those farms are getting bought out by factory farming companies.
See above. I'll be impressed if you stick with the whole thing. I don't agree with PJ on everything of course, but the meat and bones of his discourse on Agricultural policy is pretty apt.

You might see some great moral value in all of this mis-managed economy, but all I see is a disaster that results from catering to the pride and miserliness of spoiled self-centered individuals. I hesitate to say citizen, because that implies some appreciation for the cause and effect rules in an integrated economy.
I'm not catering to the 'pride and miserliness of spoiled self-centered individuals,' I'm catering to consistency and noncontradiction. If you can't see it in farm policy by now, I've probably wasted the last 45 minutes of my life.

No, it's laughably conservative of me. Conservatives say it all the time, and I laugh at them. In order for a central government to do things like regulate trade between states (so you don't have to pay huge tarriffs) or manage an army (so you don't have to engage in inefficient, locally managed, military maneuvers) it's going to cost money. They cost whatever they cost, not whatever you're willing to pay, and you end up paying less by having the government do it than by trying to do it yourself. It's part of the devision of labor inherent to an integrated economy.
Guess what? I already know that things cost money: contrary to apprently popular belief, I actually have something of an understanding about how money works and whay you're supposed to get for it. I'm saying that given my contributions, I'm getting a rather shitty return on the 'services' [mostly for other people] that I'm paying for.

You equate taxes to slavery, which is retarded.
No, theft. Those orbs in front of your skull are called "eyes" and along with a properly functioning brain they are perfectly able to notice both the syntaxial and literal differences of the terms "slavery" and "theft."

I equate taxes to club membership. If you believe that membership in the club is worth everything you get out of it after you pay your dues, then the dues are paid voluntarily (hence the slavery analogy you've used in the past is retarded). The more money a club makes in dues, the more services it can offer its members. As long as those dues are low enough that everyone can join and have it be worth their while (i.e. benifits of membership > membership dues) then it's a fair deal. If I joined a local gun club and then didn't pay my membership dues I don't think they'd be too happy if I continued to show up at their rifle range for target practice, they'd tell me to get the hell out. The same is true of taxes.
Except that no one will throw me in jail if I don't join a country club.What a ridiculous example.

*My uncle told me a story about a guy who set up a 'farm' on a giant outcropping of copper in Georgia: nothing could ever possibly grow on it but the government gave him subsidy money anyway because he was ostensibly trying to do something with it. He wasn't though: in the end it turns out he jsut set it up for the subsidy money in the first place.

Why don't you google it, or check Amazon. I already told you it's a book. A famous and well sourced one written by an evolutionary biologist who ended up devoting 30 years to studying the formation of societies all over the world.
And this makes him automatically correct in assuming that the majority of Montan's population works 3 jobs.... how? My examples about not knowing what the source is were deliberately ridiculous: of course I know it's a book, but you fail to say specifically just what it's supposed to be about and how it makes the Montana three jobs connection. You'll notice that when I cite written sources [as above] I have the diligence to actually come out and say what the author said and I show the reasoning behind it.

It's a strategy you might want to look into sometime.

It's funny that you'd accuse me of criticizing objectivism by citing fiction, since the major supporting text for objectivism is a work of fiction by Ayn Rand.
If I were using fiction to support my examples in the real world, I would be trying to tell you that Mexico nationalized the Rio Norte line and Fransisco d'Anconia was buying lots of land in Mexico for use as copper mines.

Furthermore, most of Rand's work was actually nonfiction. Try again.

Perhaps you should actually try to learn a little before you spout off instead of using your ignorance like a shield to protect yourself from unwelcome evidence of how incorrect you are.
Cute. I still have yet to see this evidence: apparently I'm supposed to take your word for it because it's written in a book somewhere. Supposedly. How about trying to show me this 'unwelcome evidence' as opposed to just sort of mentioning it in passing and then condemning me for not relying on the written word of a total stranger? As mentioned already, in the rare instances where I cite text, I actually show you the text and it's appropriate context.

And the philosophies of Hobbes and Rand fall on their own merits. Arguments on economic matters and political ones were propogated in ancient Rome. Then those arguments died out because people read them and said "fat lot of good this did Rome." And eventually people forgot that these arguments were ever made. Then Ayn Rand showed up and made them again, and everyone thought it was novel.
Actually, Rand's philosophy is very little like any other philosophy ever devised in the history of mankind. To suggest that she's parroting the works of ancient philosophers is laughable at best, seeing as a great many of them are condemned rather vigorously in her essays.

I pointed out the motivation behind her arguments so that anyone reading it who said to themselves "how could anyone be so mean spirited as to think that this is a good philosophy or so stupid as to think that it's a sensible philosophy" can then look at her background and see that an otherwise reasonable person could be moved to those sentiments in her circumstances.
As usual, this does nothing to answer to my accusations, and in fact is really jsut a rather flowery restatement of your original premise. To recap:

You said, or at least implied that Objectivism was invalid because the personal experiences of its creator led her to certain beliefs.

I replied that one's upbringing does not make them any more or less right on any issue, especially philosophically.

You then replied that Objectivism led Rand to certain conclusions and was thus invalid. See the problem?

Her philosophy doesn't even make a prima facie case for itself. I've argued against the philosophy more than it deserves, the bio was merely by way of explanation.
OK, then what are you still doing here? If I'm undeserving of your time, what's this all about? Seems like you put a lot of time into this.

A. They can always temporarily lower their prices to drive out the competition, and they can lower their prices to below cost feeding off of accumulated capital. Once upstart businesses get driven out of business, they can't even start up again when the monopoly jacks its prices back up because they're still in debt from their investment in their last attempt.
And this is a sustainable policy... how? I don't recall making the case for allowing price gouging. The kicker here is that if said product is always at "monopoly price," new entries into the market will be ceaseless unless the price really isn't that ridiculous to begin with, which is sometimes the case. Basically this amounts to the viewpoint that we'll put up with being ripped off for a certain amount of time, every time, and that every new entry into said business area will invariably fail. Color me skeptical.

B. Once a company controls the majority of the cereal (for example) market they can either buy up the cereal producers, or they can demand exclusive contracts. So even if someone wants to sell the same goods for less, they can't find them to sell. e.g. Sirius satellite carried the entire Air America line up, XM only carried select shows, but they offered more money to the Air America corporation on the condition that they no longer sell their content to Sirius. Sirius was more competative in terms of real service (they carried the entire line up) but still lost out to a more well established market player.
Yeah, and that's the way things happen sometimes. But I don't see how this makes them able to charge an arm and a leg for what would otherwise be relatively cheap products. I don't particularly agree with all of this either [I don't think it should be within a company's pervue to tell another company to whom they can sell their shit] but it's less offensive to me than using my money to scrutinize every damn company under the sun because a few of them happen to be operating unscrupulously.

Implicit in this statement is that market dominance is always the result of being the best. Compaq became the biggest computer manufacturer (I haven't kept up with the market, it's probably not anymore, though HP/Compaq is still a top contender) by selling computers that are complete crap. That they're even competative shows that market forces have little to do with quality, but they're one of the biggest.
And people still buy them anyway. I personally avoid Compaq's like the plague, but they must be doing something for somebody, since they move a lot of units.

And taxes aren't theft. If you don't want to be taxed, then go somewhere where there aren't any taxes. Some deserted island that can support single person agriculture
Please point out where I said taxes are theft. I think my post strongly says that forced charity (welfare, income redistribution) is theft.

Taxes are a necessary part of society. We're talking about what they are used for. See the difference?

Nikitas, I think with all due respect you're forgetting the fact that not even a monopoly can set its prices arbitrarily. If they start charging $25 for a candy bar or a box of cereal, it will be remarkably easy to undercut them and establish a competitive presence.

Putting all of your competitors out of business isn't 'putting up barriers to free market,' it's just kicking ass and taking names at what you happen to do. I'll grant that new entries to the market can be difficult with a competent foe, but in a free country it should never be impossible.

I'm not saying I want to live in a world where every store is a Wal-Mart and every computer is a Gateway [eww Gateway]. What I am saying, is I don't want to live in a world where they are liable to be punished for no better reason than they're the best at what they do.

But many a time a monopoly gets were it is by using shady business practices (out sourceing to areas where child labor is legal, or places where people are forced into sweetshops by the government), thus forcing other companies to do the same, or be unable to succeed?

I suppose my problem is that, though such things are illegal in this country, companies like Nike and Mal-Mart do such things, forcing other companies out of business because they are unwilling to resort to such prectices. Surely, products sold in this country should be held to the same standard as those made here, to put an end to such practices?

Yeah, kill your boss. Wonderful philosophy they've got there, I can really see that 'compassion' element sticking out now. Cute.

Another thing I like is the callous way they treat the consumer in this situation (which, in aggregate, are the workers they vow to defend), by tossing out all of the benefits that Domici admitted the business provided.

But since the person hiring the maids are probably somebody else's boss, I guess they really won't have to worry about treating them well anyway.

But many a time a monopoly gets were it is by using shady business practices (out sourceing to areas where child labor is legal, or places where people are forced into sweetshops by the government), thus forcing other companies to do the same, or be unable to succeed?
I don't happen to think that trying to deuct from your single largest expense [payroll] is in and of itself a 'shady' thing to do: corporations will always seek cheaper labor wherever they can. Truth be told, it's really a sad thing that most of these sweatshop employees are probably better off than they would be without Nike or Wal-Mart around. If these companies pay something that looks ridiculously low to us, like say $.50 on the hour, we have to remember that they're still paying out this figure in American dollars which is like gold to these people.

I wonder why.

I suppose my problem is that, though such things are illegal in this country, companies like Nike and Mal-Mart do such things, forcing other companies out of business because they are unwilling to resort to such prectices. Surely, products sold in this country should be held to the same standard as those made here, to put an end to such practices?
Unfortunately, the policies of other countries are not things which I feel should be within our pervue to dictate. And when we start holding objects or concepts to the same standard in any case, be it economic or philosophical, let me know. I think they should be held to the same standard here but with exchange rates being what they are I don't think any company on this planet will ever be able to serve a meaningful amount of people when it has to pay every worker 5 an hour USD. If we paid these workers that kind of wage, it would have the potential to seriously destabilize their economy by exacerbating an already appalling inflation situation [hey, that's kinda catchy!].

Melkor Unchained,

I want to respond to the monopoly thing because I'm still certain that you are mistaken.

I also want to respond to this,

Truth be told, it's really a sad thing that most of these sweatshop employees are probably better off than they would be without Nike or Wal-Mart around.

because it is a false deduction commonly made by free-market proponents.

But I know I shouldn't because that's hijacking and... well you know what I'm waiting for Melkor :D




Note to self: It's not wise to annoy a moderator.

as the thread starter, I give you permission to hijack this thread and continue with your monopoly debate, I wanna see where this goes

I want to respond to the monopoly thing because I'm still certain that you are mistaken.
Looking back over the most recent posts, I think the monopoly issue is being more or less covered. I may have been hasty to assume when you stated that Domici and Waterkeep responded much like you would have that I had already [presumably] answered to your concerns, as I do make it a point to answer every word my opponents write.

I also want to respond to this, because it is a false deduction commonly made by free-market proponents.
Go ahead.

But I know I shouldn't because that's hijacking and... well you know what I'm waiting for Melkor :D
About that...has your computer got a mic?

About the sweetshops arguement:

I see it as the government's job to punish those in it's jurisdiction for causing suffering, with such things as unsafe factories, and conditions such as workers having to paint toys in very small quarters with no ventilation, and as a result suffer brain damage from toxic fumes. To say nothing of the fact that, since it is so profitable to the countries it take place in, governments often force farmers to work in the sweatshops.

sorry for my lack of elequence tonight, it's 2:30 am here and I have had quite a long day

Well then I think I will post a brief responce, but I will have to do it tomorrow as it's 1:25am here and I think I should start my class preparation already.

And yeah I do have a mic. I take it your thinking about an internet convo over reconstructing that old post, that works for me.

About the sweetshops arguement:

I see it as the government's job to punish those in it's jurisdiction for causing suffering, with such things as unsafe factories, and conditions such as workers having to paint toys in very small quarters with no ventilation, and as a result suffer brain damage from toxic fumes. To say nothing of the fact that, since it is so profitable to the countries it take place in, governments often force farmers to work in the sweatshops.
Agreed. If we're going to talk about holding these things to an equal standard, we have to be prepared to put the blame where it belongs. I think many of these factories could and should be easily modernized.

There's actually a pretty good reason why those factories are so shoddy: in most countries companies become afraid that the government in question will nationalize the structure[!] a right which many countries have been known to reserve. As a result, they don't want to lose an investment by spending a lot of money on these places if they don't have to. I would tend to think that some agreement would need to be made and adhered to regarding property rights before anyone will be interested in solving this problem.

I'm sure from a production standpoint it might actually be more profitable to outfit these workers with the same amenities they enjoy in the States: labor is still used here in part because our equipment and infrastructure are vastly superior to almost anyone else's. Our production capacity is ridiculous because we've got so much badass hardware and a lot of room to use it. I'm sure even the previous generation's worth of hand-me downs would be a vast improvement for factory structure and operation if the companies thought they could get away with it.

It's a vicious cycle. Business restrictions drive jobs out of the country to begin with, and once we start finding out where all the shitty jobs ended up, we get all angry about it. As usual, another issue is a deviant of the same logic: the idea that a goverment should be able to nationalize a business for the 'greater good.' When you do things like this, it makes foreign investors very skittish. Part of the reason the US has been successful in trade is because we don't do this.

Well then I think I will post a brief responce, but I will have to do it tomorrow as it's 1:25am here and I think I should start my class preparation already.

And yeah I do have a mic. I take it your thinking about an internet convo over reconstructing that old post, that works for me.
Let me know when's a good time and I'll set it up. I could type it out but after that colossal farm subsidy rant [I couldn't resist--it's one of my touchiest issues] my fingers are about to fall off. A lot of what I have to say has already been said before, so I can direct you to my source literature, from which I reserve the right to quote from liberally.