Libertarians Need Objectivism

[Brant Gaede]

So far according to Shayne I'm a punk, Randroid and hypocrite. I may have forgotten some others. I think the only thing I've called him is an engineer.

--Brant

I just wanna be me--who else can I be but who I am?

[sjw]

She took pride in the appellation. It's what she made of it. No one is going to effectively take it away from her. The term may have multiple senses but it makes no sense to deny her all senses.

--Brant

She can have all but the "lover of truth/wisdom" sense.

Why is it tolerable that (say) Roy Childs brings up legitimate points and she dismisses him as "concrete bound" without facing his argument? In my book it's shameful behavior on Rand's part and is completely anti-philosophical. No actual philosopher would act that way.

Shayne

- Libertarianism doesn't need Objectivism, Objectivism and Libertarianism both need Reason.

[Brant Gaede]

She took pride in the appellation. It's what she made of it. No one is going to effectively take it away from her. The term may have multiple senses but it makes no sense to deny her all senses.

--Brant

She can have all but the "lover of truth/wisdom" sense.

Why is it tolerable that (say) Roy Childs brings up legitimate points and she dismisses him as "concrete bound" without facing his argument? In my book it's shameful behavior on Rand's part and is completely anti-philosophical. No actual philosopher would act that way.

Shayne

- Libertarianism doesn't need Objectivism, Objectivism and Libertarianism both need Reason.

You won't let go of your bone, will you? In only a few sentences you insist on contradicting yourself. Instead of "actual" you could have said "proper."

--Brant

actually, she was

[sjw]

You won't let go of your bone, will you?

...he says, not letting go of his bone.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Bow wow!

--Brant

exposed--oops!--there goes the bone!

[Xray]

I'm not familiar with the other companies mentioned in the article, but Allianz is one of the biggest companies in the world.

Munich Re (another firm mentioned there) is one of the world's leading reinsurance companies.

[Xray]

There is no difference whatsoever between us humans and the apes and ducks regarding the biological root of the impulse which is often called "greed".

But as opposed to animals, we humans don't have strictly determined rules anymore as to who is to get the lion's share. ... In case of objections to using the term greedy here: which other term could one use instead? TIA for suggestions.

We do not have a good vocabulary. Egoism versus egotism is about as far as it goes. I usually take "greed" to mean short-sighted selfishness, rather than rational self-interest.

Here is an example from John Stossel's program, "Greed." He had four people around a bowl of money and told them they could take as much as they wanted and he would match whatever was left until the bowl was empty. Twice the people grabbed all they could emptying the bowl right away. You don't see this part but I am pretty sure that someone hit them on head with a board, got their attention, and explained the rules again. The third time, they got it, taking out only enough to let the pile grow faster than they depleted it, each watching the others while being watched.

That's quite an illustrative example, and I think the "short-sighted selfishness" which wants instant gratification, is indeed an essential element of greed.

We are much better off than animals by virtue of our ability to reason. We only need to use it. The marketplace does reward people properly and in proportion to their service to others. But that marketplace must be free and open, not under political control.

In a free and open marketplace, what would a rationally selfish entrepreneur do if faced with the opportunity to make huge profits from goods manufactured in third world sweat shops?

Suppose the entrepreneur declines to engage in this kind of business but his/her competitors do?

What if the pressure to succeed in a free capitalist market substantially conflicts with an individual's ethical principles?

Edited June 29, 2011 by Xray

[sjw]

‎"It is not altogether a rare thing that those very pioneers who have not hesitated to clear new paths for themselves and their followers by boldly rejecting outworn traditions and ways of thinking should yet shrink sometimes from all that is involved in the rigid application of their own principles. When this is so, it remains for those who come after to endeavor to put the matter right."--Ludwig von Mises

[Brant Gaede]

In a free and open marketplace, what would a rationally selfish entrepreneur do if faced with the opportunity to make huge profits from goods manufactured in third world sweat shops?

Suppose s/he declines to engage in this kind of business but his competitors do?

What if the pressure to succeed in a free capitalist market substantially conflicts with an individual's ethical principles?

India has endured generations of socialism and you complain about the victims of socialism just now getting off the floor as actually being victims of capitalism? I read that 70 percent of an average Indian's income goes for food. Might you redirect your focus to the US government causing 40 percent of the US corn crop to be put into gas tanks driving up basic food commodity prices?

--Brant

[sjw]

In a free and open marketplace, what would a rationally selfish entrepreneur do if faced with the opportunity to make huge profits from goods manufactured in third world sweat shops?

Suppose s/he declines to engage in this kind of business but his competitors do?

What if the pressure to succeed in a free capitalist market substantially conflicts with an individual's ethical principles?

India has endured generations of socialism and you complain about the victims of socialism just now getting off the floor as actually being victims of capitalism? I read that 70 percent of an average Indian's income goes for food. Might you redirect your focus to the US government causing 40 percent of the US corn crop to be put into gas tanks driving up basic food commodity prices?

--Brant

Also I read something about companies like Monsato in effect banning farmers in countries like India from using their own seed. Instead they pay massive fees to Monsato. The root of the evil here is in a form of tyranny Ayn Rand not only supported, but in doing so also mocked the plight of those innocents who were ground up by it: The patent system. (See her vicious statements about the property rights of the second inventor in her essay on patents). Now, given their fundamental disconnect from reality, Objectivists may think any errors of Ayn Rand's here are insignificant, but the fact is that people are starving to death because of this and she was all for it. It is things like this that make it impossible for a sane, moral person to be an Objectivist.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

In a free and open marketplace, what would a rationally selfish entrepreneur do if faced with the opportunity to make huge profits from goods manufactured in third world sweat shops?

Suppose s/he declines to engage in this kind of business but his competitors do?

What if the pressure to succeed in a free capitalist market substantially conflicts with an individual's ethical principles?

India has endured generations of socialism and you complain about the victims of socialism just now getting off the floor as actually being victims of capitalism? I read that 70 percent of an average Indian's income goes for food. Might you redirect your focus to the US government causing 40 percent of the US corn crop to be put into gas tanks driving up basic food commodity prices?

--Brant

Also I read something about companies like Monsato in effect banning farmers in countries like India from using their own seed. Instead they pay massive fees to Monsato. The root of the evil here is in a form of tyranny Ayn Rand not only supported, but in doing so also mocked the plight of those innocents who were ground up by it: The patent system. (See her vicious statements about the property rights of the second inventor in her essay on patents). Now, given their fundamental disconnect from reality, Objectivists may think any errors of Ayn Rand's here are insignificant, but the fact is that people are starving to death because of this and she was all for it. It is things like this that make it impossible for a sane, moral person to be an Objectivist.

Shayne

Addressing the issue of copyrights and patents also encompasses the relationship of other types of property to the state. These are basically contractual rights. I own a car free and clear by virtue of the contract I made with the seller several years ago. Someone steals it. He took it without a contract with me making it a criminal matter. Initiation of force. Now patent law. I get a patent. I make a contract with the government to create this property (as a property, not a physical something which is already invented). The government says it's mine for X number of years. But the government produced nothing. Contract doesn't make property, contract transfers it.

I haven't yet thought this matter through, though. I don't have time to research and comment on Monsanto. I wasn't aware people were starving because of it. Maybe the opposite? Long term it may be doing the most bad by destroying the genetic diversity of basic grain crops. I don't know.

I think your conclusion is over-reaching because so far at least to me your foundation for criticizing Rand and Objectivism is too tenuous. But let's just say you are right. Then we can argue whether you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I can't see how any argument that is reduced to a moral issue isn't also reduced to an ad hominem which means using morality as a weapon. This chokes off thinking about the ideas being discussed. Of course, Rand was all about just that, which is another matter.

I can't get into much of a discussion with you on this. No time except for off the cuff, reactive thinking.

--Brant

[sjw]

I think your conclusion is over-reaching because so far at least to me your foundation for criticizing Rand and Objectivism is too tenuous. But let's just say you are right. Then we can argue whether you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

...

I can't get into much of a discussion with you on this. No time except for off the cuff, reactive thinking.

--Brant

I don't mean to pick on you for this, because in my experience all Objectivists -- without exception -- respond in this same intellectually-enfeebled manner regarding Ayn Rand and patents. "I'm not the expert, who am I to know" or "It's a complicated issue, blah blah..." is about all they can say.

But it's not complicated. Patents are a very simple issue. The only problem people have with it stems from brainwashing; there does not exist a coherent argument for patents, and burden of proof clearly lies with the advocate of them. The only complication is: Ayn Rand was not only wrong about something very important, but she actually encouraged evil in the world. And that's impossible for an Objectivist to swallow. Once they do, they're no longer an Objectivist.

I can't see how any argument that is reduced to a moral issue isn't also reduced to an ad hominem which means using morality as a weapon.

Now I will pick on you for this. This is 100% pure Nazi logic. Only evil slinks away from justice.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

I think your conclusion is over-reaching because so far at least to me your foundation for criticizing Rand and Objectivism is too tenuous. But let's just say you are right. Then we can argue whether you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

...

I can't get into much of a discussion with you on this. No time except for off the cuff, reactive thinking.

--Brant

I don't mean to pick on you for this, because in my experience all Objectivists -- without exception -- respond in this same intellectually-enfeebled manner regarding Ayn Rand and patents. "I'm not the expert, who am I to know" or "It's a complicated issue, blah blah..." is about all they can say.

But it's not complicated. Patents are a very simple issue. The only problem people have with it stems from brainwashing; there does not exist a coherent argument for patents, and burden of proof clearly lies with the advocate of them. The only complication is: Ayn Rand was not only wrong about something very important, but she actually encouraged evil in the world. And that's impossible for an Objectivist to swallow. Once they do, they're no longer an Objectivist.

I can't see how any argument that is reduced to a moral issue isn't also reduced to an ad hominem which means using morality as a weapon.

Now I will pick on you for this. This is 100% pure Nazi logic. Only evil slinks away from justice.

Shayne

It's the basis for rational discussion, which you just spiked. I didn't say it was across the board something not to be done, but it would be in the context of the end result of an argument or discussion not the discussion itself. Having reached that endpoint you reach back morally to those who haven't yet got that far, proactively bitch-slapping us.

--Brant

[sjw]

It's the basis for rational discussion, which you just spiked. I didn't say it was across the board something not to be done, but it would be in the context of the end result of an argument or discussion not the discussion itself. Having reached that endpoint you reach back morally to those who haven't yet got that far, proactively bitch-slapping us.

--Brant

Translation: You demand that I chain my moral evaluations until you "catch up."

I don't agree. Habitually chaining your moral evaluations on the grounds that the other party might simply be confused is a recipe for evil to surreptitiously take advantage of the morally-agnostic situation created thereby. And yes this is an area were I basically agree with Ayn Rand.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

It's the basis for rational discussion, which you just spiked. I didn't say it was across the board something not to be done, but it would be in the context of the end result of an argument or discussion not the discussion itself. Having reached that endpoint you reach back morally to those who haven't yet got that far, proactively bitch-slapping us.

--Brant

Translation: You demand that I chain my moral evaluations until you "catch up."

I don't agree. Habitually chaining your moral evaluations on the grounds that the other party might simply be confused is a recipe for evil to surreptitiously take advantage of the morally-agnostic situation created thereby. And yes this is an area were I basically agree with Ayn Rand.

Shayne

But we are particularly talking about patents and copyrights. Pretty much an Objectivist given and contra you, as you've pointed out to say the least. I hadn't reread the article on patents for decades until today. In your book you mix up this issue with City States and I've not yet my brain around that either. I read once decades ago that Leonard Peikoff thought the ideal sized society was the City-State--but this was third-hand--so there may be a base of commonality there on the practical political level. Then there's the matter of corporations, which by their nature as quasi-political entities seem to be essentially fascistic.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Changing one's moral evaluation is not the same thing as withholding it from a discussion, which may or may not be appropriate. In any case I don't think Rand's views on patents has affected patent law in the least nor do I think they would have if they had been like yours from the beginning.

--Brant

[Xray]

Also I read something about companies like Monsato in effect banning farmers in countries like India from using their own seed. Instead they pay massive fees to Monsato.

Wouldn't this be a clear violation of the Objectivist 'non-initation of coercion' principle?

Ayn Rand: "The initiation of coercion and force is immoral."

http://mol.redbarn.org/objectivism/writing/RobertBidinotto/ContradictionInAnarchism.html

But if capitalism is to be "full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated and laissez-faire" (Rand, TVOS, p. 37), what happens in Capitalist Utopia if uncontrolled and unregulated capitalists behave like Monsanto?

Edited July 1, 2011 by Xray

[Selene]

Also I read something about companies like Monsato in effect banning farmers in countries like India from using their own seed. Instead they pay massive fees to Monsato.

Wouldn't this be a clear violation the Objectivist 'non-initation of coercion' principle?

Ayn Rand: "The initiation of coercion and force is immoral."

http://mol.redbarn.o...nAnarchism.html

But if capitalism is to be "full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated and laissez-faire" (Rand, TVOS, p. 37), what happens in Capitalist Utopia if uncontrolled and unregulated capitalists behave like Monsanto?

Angela:

Let me introduce you to intellectually deposing Shayne:

1) "I read something about..." - Please provide a link.

2) "...in effect, banning farmers in countries like India from using their own seed." - How was the ban enforced? Did the Indian government seize their assets? In what specific manner did the Indian government "ban" the individual farmer from "using" his own seed?

3) Sounds like there was some form of State force involved? Correct?

Adam

always willing to help you on the path to truth

[sjw]

Let me introduce you to intellectually deposing Shayne:

1) "I read something about..." - Please provide a link.

Adam,

Here's your link: http://justfuckinggoogleit.com

Shayne

[sjw]

Also I read something about companies like Monsato in effect banning farmers in countries like India from using their own seed. Instead they pay massive fees to Monsato.

Wouldn't this be a clear violation the Objectivist 'non-initation of coercion' principle?

Ayn Rand does not practice this principle consistently, she just says she does.

But if capitalism is to be "full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated and laissez-faire" (Rand, TVOS, p. 37), what happens in Capitalist Utopia if uncontrolled and unregulated capitalists behave like Monsanto?

Monsato only has its power to drive through corrupt banking practices and the patent system. I would argue that Ayn Rand was, in effect, for both, but in any case she was clearly for the latter.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html

Shayne

[Selene]

Some critical points:

But GM salesmen and government officials had promised farmers that these were 'magic seeds' - with better crops that would be free from parasites and insects.

<<<<Point one - government fraud in bed with crony socialism/capitalism never works out for the individual citizen

Indeed, in a bid to promote the uptake of GM seeds, traditional varieties were banned from many government seed banks.

<<<<Point two - Now this is an astounding sentence - "promote" ???? government thuggery is not promotion.

The authorities had a vested interest in promoting this new biotechnology. Desperate to escape the grinding poverty of the post-independence years, the Indian government had agreed to allow new bio-tech giants, such as the U.S. market-leader Monsanto, to sell their new seed creations.

In return for allowing western companies access to the second most populated country in the world, with more than one billion people, India was granted International Monetary Fund loans in the Eighties and Nineties, helping to launch an economic revolution.

But while cities such as Mumbai and Delhi have boomed, the farmers' lives have slid back into the dark ages.

Though areas of India planted with GM seeds have doubled in two years - up to 17 million acres - many farmers have found there is a terrible price to be paid.

Far from being 'magic seeds',

GM pest-proof 'breeds' of cotton

have been devastated by bollworms, a voracious parasite.

<<<<Point three - fraudulent statements by corrupt officials

Nor were the farmers told that

these seeds require double the amount of water.

This has proved a matter of life and death.

<<<<Point four - more fraud?

With rains failing for the past two years, many GM crops have simply withered and died, leaving the farmers with crippling debts and no means of paying them off.

Having taken loans from traditional money lenders at extortionate rates, hundreds of thousands of small farmers have faced losing their land as the expensive seeds fail, while those who could struggle on faced a fresh crisis.

When crops failed in the past, farmers could still save seeds and replant them the following year.

But with GM seeds they cannot do this. That's because GM seeds contain so- called 'terminator technology', meaning that they have been genetically modified so that the resulting crops do not produce viable seeds of their own.

<<<<Point five-this appears to be potentially criminal and requires more government fraud, corruption and protection.

As a result, farmers have to buy new seeds each year at the same punitive prices. For some, that means the difference between life and death.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html#ixzz1QshApwRw

It is amazing, while I was responding to this, I was on the phone with a exceptionally intelligent Indian architect who is our friend. He confirms the basic facts of the article. He spends about four months a year in India. He has an apartment/condo there, as well as family.

He is always awed that I went to NBI.

Adam