Bryce

http://jalopnik.com/5493693/america-you-brought-the-toyota-hoax-on-yourself If you haven't been following this drama at Toyota (since September), follow the links in the article. The author almost hit the point. Akio Toyoda wrongly apologized for his company a few months ago, paving the way for this debacle that may cost the company more than $5 billion. His company has issued a series of recalls since September to add "safety devices" - essentially idiot-proofing - to a few million vehicles with floor mats that could cause unintended acceleration. That, after a California Highway Patrol officer and three of his family members died riding in a Lexus with non-OEM floor mats that caught the gas pedal. Then in January a woman experienced unintentional acceleration in her Toyota Avalon that was not caused by a floor mat, sparking the controversy and recalls the company is suffering today. Dozens of Prius, not Avalon, drivers have since come out of the woodwork to complain about similar issues. But the NHTSA and Toyota can't come up with a fix. All that Toyoda can do now is apologize more deeply. The unreported issue is that Toyota doesn't have a problem to fix. And scammers like Jim Sikes are the least of the problem. It's the altruistic motives of regulators, Toyota's unwillingness to identify the market as dumb, and most importantly, the willful ignorance of Toyota's customers. Now, several groups are fighting to merge so they can form a class action lawsuit against Toyota, while others argue that they are due full refunds for their unsafe vehicles and are scared of their cars. One woman who testified before congress claimed that she had "nightmares" about her Lexus. Other problems include decreasing resale values, higher incentives to maintain sales, and a costly public relations ad campaign. The company will be put in an even more subordinate position to it's customers if it wants to survive. Toyota reaped what it sowed, though. It capitalized on a market that was eager to spend thousands to save hundreds on fuel and had grown naively afraid of Detroit iron. But one ideal ties all of these incidents and repercussions together: a sense of entitlement.

So, when Johnny Carson left he left for good. When Jay Leno left, he left for an earlier slot. Were Johnny Carson leading to Jay Leno, would Jay Leno have been in the same predicament? Somebody at NBC didn't think this through.

You - some of the posters in this thread - are too optimistic about what the public will accept. Obama and his ideology together are a response to Bush. The response to Obama, in whatever form it takes, will be even worse. In sixty years, when I'm mired in a socialist utopia, I may look on Obama more favorably. Whatever notion of market economy he still holds today will not be held by the leaders of tomorrow. So, what I meant was those who want socialized medicine won't care about televised debates and those who don't are a political minority. And after the legislation is passed, the squawking about who got to see it won't matter. You know, an apologist would say (or think) that, after all, a few lies are forgivable in respect to how much of a benefit this is to us all.

I'm leaving in a few hours so I figured I'd check this again. Thanks for the tips! I'm not going to Death Valley (yet). Though I want to visit Los Angeles this summer. And is that picture on the internet?

You can't damn her for hypocrisy, yet. She could be willing to sacrifice one of them for the state.

You are absolutely correct that governments are formed of men. Good governments are governments of men, not of institutionalized authority. However, I don't necessarily agree that it follows governments create a collectivist effect. The corollary to your premise here is that all efforts between men result in collectivism, and that is simply not true. There is nothing especially different about a government and a family, a government and a corporation, a government and a contract, a government and men doing stuff together... At least, this is how I believe Objectivism views a government. The benefits of a government, other than those previously listed, are that individual behaviors that deviate from norms (a sudden emotional desire to kill someone) are harnessed by the effort of other men. In this way, sudden individual arbitrary impulses do not hijack and destroy the system. In essence, men form an agreement to come to each other's aid when they are dealing with trouble related to infringment of rights. This is quite awesome if you ask me. A big step up from mere tribalism. However, I like your thoughts, and I like the way you see things. Your ideas are generally true for what governments have done historically. The difference is that Objectivism strives to describe how a government can and should operate. You must stop deferring your logic to your perception of Objectivism to understand my point. Your life should not be about what Ayn Rand would do and should be about what you will do. Advocates of government rely on the "that's just the way things are" concept. If some men are always going to thieve or assault (or whatever) other men, don't write a code of morality against their seemingly amoral actions. Because as soon as you accept that it's going to happen you give it sanction. So deal with threats to you individually and not deliberately as a collective. Others may aide you, too, but not under an arbitrary banner of moral obligation or collective virtue. They'll help out of rational self interest. And if they don't, you nor anyone else holds authority to make them.

I believe they exist.

Thanks for the suggestions; I'm going to take up a lot! And hit me with others, if you got 'em.

Her ideas are bad for any market whose condition relies on government intervention for improvement.

I received a trip to Las Vegas after winning a November sales competition. I'm going for three days (possibly four) in January, alone and for my first time, and I will stay at the Riviera Hotel and Casino. My itinerary is to try In-N-Out Burger, wander The Strip, and play Texas Hold'em. Any recommendations?

Christopher and Michael, Government is not only an issue in "perfection", it's contradictory. Governments are formed by men - not a man - on pretexts of security. And the premise is always collectivist so the causal effect is always more collectivism. It is therefore not open to correction (limitation): Men who create or support their government rely on it, so they will not allow it to be curtailed to uselessness. That, in turn, means that everyone will get (or will be forced to accept) more than just an unbiased judicial system or police. They will get regulation, social contracts, welfare, and much more.

Rand's view of government doesn't matter. Free trade does not involve a government, so disputes ought to be settled as necessary instead of by a swath of arbitrary legalese. If, in a reality with free trade, I am to violate a contract, I should acknowledge the offended party's interests. If I don't, the offended party should seek remuneration. Rand may not have understood that government serves only as an excuse for men to not think.

The firefighters (and police) in your scenario could exist only in a governmental capacity. A privately-owned fire department, however, could not succumb to corruption because it's profitability - the means of it's inception and ability to exist - would be shuttered if it hired or sponsored arsonists. Indeed, it's would-be arsonists would risk being murdered by the selfish owners of the property the department had targeted. Also, rational firemen might be paid an advance against a potential fire. So their ability to triage might be based upon contractual agreements rather than whim. Men are born free but they decide to adhere to the rules of others. I may do as I wish, though usually not without certain reprisal. So remember that, in a reality of a recently-dismantled government, only we altruistic or fearful men bare corruption. The man who lives for himself won't, even if he dies trying.

Rhetorically, are you offended because Google didn't celebrate it on it's homepage? Or are you offended because Google celebrated Sesame Street instead? Regardless of your answer, what's for you to feel offended over?

I didn't mean to emphasize striking and I apologize for not being clear. I wanted to know if a man like Howard Roark or John Galt lived. But I have my answer. And, Selene, yes. Michael, I understand that after disobedience violence remains the response.

Before this discussion goes down a different avenue, I want to establish that I'm only interested in your ability to live without becoming a sacrifice (or part of one). I want to know who among you live as heroically as a striker (without striking) and how.

Thank you for the responses - and I don't have spousal issues, I just asked for context - but I understand now that I was vague. In this instance of capitulation, I'm referring to falsely admitting guilt in any form (lying, paying, losing property, or otherwise). I capitulate in every transaction as a requisite of employment, either for sales or "customer service", while my other capitulations (really, alms and protection monies) go to the state. I'm unwilling to stand for reason when confronted by irrationality because I'm afraid of being unemployed or going to prison (or being shot). But shouldn't I be willing to defend my life regardless of the obscurity of any issue that threatens it? If not, why? "Give him an inch and he'll take a mile."

How do you - in the literal, not general, definition of "you" - live rationally? Or, if you capitulate to a spouse, in business, or to the state, how do you live with yourself?

I'm a salesman of product purchased only on whims (and my hard-closes). Gary Cooper impeccably portrays a 40 year-old Howard Roark. But I don't appreciate that much of the story was not included. Bryce: Nice. Clear. Concise. I agree. Are you familiar with the Sandler Selling System? Adam No, what is it?

I'm a salesman of product purchased only on whims (and my hard-closes). Gary Cooper impeccably portrays middle-aged Howard Roark. But I don't appreciate that much of the story was not included.

I'm 24 and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, The Virtue of Selfishness, Philosophy: Who Needs It, and part-way through The Fountainhead, though I've seen the movie.

My name is Bryce. I was introduced to Atlas Shrugged (and Ayn Rand) almost two years ago after winning a gift card to Borders. I bought her book on a whim, knowing that it was about altruism versus egoism, expecting that she was a feminist. And I guessed that the ending held some campy, "why can't we all just get along" moral. But I was wrong. I'm here to ask you Objectivists a question that I can't rationalize. But I want to introduce myself before posting it.