Gary Fisher

@Michael Yes, I understand that things are different in war time. My question is, if you were the government of Objectivist Australia, and you were at war with the US, how would you answer the questions in my previous post? I'm not asking for quick and easy principles so that no one needs to ever think. Obviously, policies need to change with the circumstance. But I'm asking you what you think should happen. You have to make plans for all possible contingencies ahead of time. You can't hope to come with a plan for defense on the spot. Sun-Tzu said "Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."

@Francisco Ferrer I don't buy the economic calculation argument at all. For one thing, we know from computer science that anything a multitude of computers can do, a single computer can do just as well. Secondly, their argument depends on the idea that a rational allocation of resources amounts to a distribution of goods that maximizes consumer "well-being". There is no such thing as "well-being" in an objective sense. It is a fictitious abstraction invented by economists as a catch-all for all possible specific human motivations. There is no way to measure it at all. Thus, it is not possible to rationally conclude that the Soviet economy was objectively "inefficient". We can only measure the success of any endeavor by asking whether or not we achieved our stated goals. From the point of view of the planners in the Soviet economy, their plans were mostly successful. It's also important to realize just how much centralized planning goes on in an advanced capitalist economy like ours. Just considering military expenditures alone is pretty staggering. First, the White House has to outline its military goals. Then the generals have to figure out how to implement those goals. Then they have to meet up with representatives from just about every industry there is in order to coordinate production and negotiate contracts to ensure that they have what they need to do what they do. The private sector does a lot of centralized planning in its own spheres as well. Along the way, a mind-boggling amount of factors have to be calculated by analysts and fancy super-computers, rather than markets. That's why both the government and private sector employ so many of them. At no point does the "well-being" of consumers come into the equation. It just can't. There's no way to measure it.

And no, I've never read Tragedy and Hope by Quigley.

@Michael I don't think you've answered my questions, really. Again, would your people still be allowed to trade with our country if we went to war? What would happen to the property of our citizens in your country? Would your citizens be allowed to sell weapons to countries that are allied with the US, but that have remained neutral in the conflict, and that sold weapons to the US?I think these are important questions of foreign policy that need to be answered.

@Wolf DeVoon The Soviet Union was actually quite successful, to an extent. They managed to industrialize very quickly and successfully kept Western Powers out of Eastern Europe. What ultimately did them in was the lack of the critical component of free enterprise. Without that, business (in the form of a high ranking position in the bureaucracy) was just a privilege that the state bestowed upon a party member in exchange for his loyalty to the current regime. It wouldn't make sense for them to invest any value generated from the activity of the economy, since it all belonged to the state anyway, and how much of the value you made you got back depended on how much the party leadership liked you rather than how well your little sector of the economy actually performed.

@Michael You allow free trade by default? I see. That's fine. Are American investors allowed to freely buy property in Objectivist Australia? Suppose our two countries were to go to war at some point. Would people in your country still be allowed to trade with us? What would happen to the property of our citizens in your country?

@Michael I think I've already argued it in one of my previous posts, but here it is again. Let's do a little roleplay to really illustrate how geopolitics works. That's how it was initially explained to me, and it would be more interesting than a long and dry argument about this, that, and the other thing. Say that Australia transforms unimpeded and unhindered into a pure laissez-faire form of government and economy. Let's also assume that it has an abundant population and natural resources. I will also be generous and grant that it can produce any product that any other country can but cheaper. You will represent the government of Objectivist Australia. That way you can have full control over the types of policies you would like to see in our hypothetical world. I will represent the US government. So Mr. Kelly of Objectivist Australia, would you like to accept a free-trade agreement between our two countries?

@Selene Executive exemptions are legal so long as the Supreme Court doesn't rule them unconstitutional. And yes, it is legal for a business or conglomerate to get a subsidy from the federal government. What's with the personal questions. I don't feel comfortable giving out too much information on the internet. Let's just say it was a top school in the country.

@Selene Nobody gets exempt from the law. One can only be exempt from this or that regulation, but those exemptions have to be signed into law. The way I see it, things that are not against the law are legal.

@Michael I agree with you on rights. Again, I just don't believe that it is practically possible for pure laissez-faire to actually exist. Individual rights can only exist when they are protected by a strong state as much as possible. I don't support confiscating money from some people to give it to others for its own sake. I never argued or meant to imply that unregulated markets and free enterprise can't work at all. They certainly can. However, my argument is that an unregulated pure laissez-faire economy cannot compete with a government subsidized and protected foreign economy.

@Michael So am I correct in thinking that you want to amend the constitution in order to implement pure laissez-faire capitalism? (making lobbying and the like irrelevant) Is there any particular reason why you think it's wrong?

@Selene Lobbying is bribery only when you influence a politician to do something illegal. Nobody should do that. Lobbying politicians to do something that is actually in the scope of their power is just an extension of free speech.

@Michael I don't understand your grief with lobbying. Essentially, it's the same thing as exercising free speech or petitioning the government. I can't think of any business of a respectable size in America that doesn't engage in some degree of lobbying either the federal or local governments. If this is "crony capitalism", and if it is incompatible with freedom, then America was never capitalist or free. I strongly disagree with this view. Lobbying is just one method by which the people make their will known to their representatives (so called, because their job is to represent their constituents). I honestly don't see how you can expect politicians to govern well if the people aren't allowed to tell them where they stand on certain issues. Since you seem to take an issue with all this "brown-nosing" and "toadying", what is your solution to this alleged problem? I think I understand precisely your conception of individual rights. I just don't agree that the sort of restrictions on government that you would like to have are practically possible. As I argued in an earlier post, if the country adopted a full laissez-faire system it would result in an economic catastrophe that the country might never recover from. First, the EU, China, and Russia would force our domestic businesses into bankruptcy by outcompeting our products with lower prices enabled by their state subsidized industries. Once each American business goes bankrupt, they'll buy up the remains at extremely low prices. They will then dismantle our military and carve up our country like a cake.

@MichaelI don't understand your grief with lobbying. Essentially, it's the same thing as exercising free speech or petitioning the government. I can't think of any business of a respectable size in America that doesn't engage in some degree of lobbying either the federal or local governments. If this is "crony capitalism", and if it is incompatible with freedom, then America was never capitalist or free. I strongly disagree with this view.Lobbying is just one method by which the people make their will known to their representatives (so called, because their job is to represent their constituents). I honestly don't see how you can expect politicians to govern well if the people aren't allowed to tell them where they stand on certain issues.Since you seem to take an issue with all this "brown-nosing" and "toadying", what is your solution to this alleged problem? I think I understand precisely your conception of individual rights. I just don't agree that the sort of restrictions on government that you would like to have are practically possible. As I argued in an earlier post, if the country adopted a full laissez-faire system it would result in an economic catastrophe that the country might never recover from. First, the EU, China, and Russia would force our domestic businesses into bankruptcy by outcompeting our products with lower prices enabled by their state subsidized industries. Once each American business goes bankrupt, they'll buy up the remains at extremely low prices. They will then dismantle our military and carve up our country like a cake.

@Michael We're not "landed gentry", we're the producers. I don't see how you can avoid a tyranny of the majority unless you take matters into your own hands and lobby politicians to oppose legislation which robs the rich to give to the poor or that undermines this country's national security. Are you saying that the wealthy shouldn't be allowed to lobby politicians and organize in order to represent their interests in government? If you're not, then you support the exact same kind of self-government that I do. Individual rights? I consider individual rights to go hand in hand with property rights. Once you allow that the products of a man's mind and labor are his own, everything else follows. I don't see how anything I advocate is at all at odds with individual rights.

Thank you Stephen. I couldn't have said it better myself.

@Michael I think we can both agree that slaveholders did not respect the rights of their slaves. What you call "rule by an elite class", the founders and I would call "self-government". If you consider self-government a form of tyranny, and rule by the majority is also tyranny, then there is only tyranny. Probably a lot of things. But I can't fit all of them into a single post in a reasonable amount of time.

@MichaelI don't believe anything except compulsory taxation will work. In the Middle Ages, Kings had to go around their kingdom and ask lords for money to fund their wars. Lords were only obligated to provide levies, but not money. They were especially reluctant to pay taxes during peace time, and come war time, there often wouldn't be enough money to pay for the provision of the army. Kings either had to make taxation compulsory or else shoulder the entire burden of defending the country and pay for it out of their own pockets. I wouldn't use the word "rule". If freedom consists in a republican form of government and respect for private property, then only those who own property can protect freedom.If you give control of the government over to the majority, guess what's the first thing to go.

@Michael I don't know if you're well-born or not. Basically, it's just someone who is upper-class.

@Selene Well what's the alternative?

@Michael I mean "we" as in all of us who are "well-born". Well, like I said, if it ever got to the point where government was controlled by the majority I would probably leave the country long before then, regardless of their tax policies. If today, a bill was introduced into Congress to eliminate taxes, I would definitely oppose it. An underfunded government would not be able to do a lot of the things that are necessary for the preservation of capitalism in America.

@Selene Economics is not that simple. If you tax people at 0%, you have no budget to work with, and if you tax people at 100%, then you have no economy to speak of. The right amount of taxation is in between these two extremes.

@MichaelConsidering that businessmen are the producers in this society and considering how much we pay in taxes, I think we should get to decide how this country is run. We can't do that with other people's money, because other people don't have any money, lol. There are already many safeguards in place to prevent a seizure of the state by the majority. If things have gotten to the point where their plan has already succeeded, I would have left the country long ago.

@Michael Thanks for the reading material. It's precisely Rand's individualist ethics and defense of capitalism that I find to be the most valuable aspect of her philosophy.

@Brant Gaede I have stated upfront that I am not an objectivist in my intro post. If it is your personal belief that I'm trolling simply because I hold some views contrary to your own, that's fine. We can agree to disagree. However, I think it's a bit disingenuous of you to attack my argument (and me personally) while not extending me the courtesy of doing the same for you. As for myself, I think it's possible for people to respectfully disagree with each other, even when it comes to our most deeply held and dear convictions.