galtgulch Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 (edited) I wonder if Objectivists have come to grips with Lysander Spooner's objections which are spelled out in his essay.Would they be resolved if each or most citizens did indeed read the Constitution as a coming of age tradition and then did sign a copy of the Constitution in a ceremony in which they became signatories of the Constitution with the acquisition of certain rights such as the right to vote and enter the military? (I think the militia would be open to children of any age)Simply google Lysander Spooner and find many sites where his works can be found such as:www.lysanderspooner.orggulchwww.campaignforliberty.com 21Feb 104244; 22Feb 11AM 104347, Noon 104350; 23feb 11AM 104471; 24FEB 5PM 104676 Edited February 24, 2009 by galtgulch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I wonder if Objectivists have come to grips with Lysander Spooner's objections which are spelled out in his essay.Would they be resolved if each or most citizens did indeed read the Constitution as a coming of age tradition and then did sign a copy of the Constitution in a ceremony in which they became signatories of the Constitution with the acquisition of certain rights such as the right to vote and enter the military? (I think the militia would be open to children of any age)Simply google Lysander Spooner and find many sites where his works can be found such as:www.lysanderspooner.orggulchwww.campaignforliberty.com 21Feb 104244I will make it simple for you. No government = no tax = no first class military = we are dead.We need a military capable of launching missiles and bombing the shit out of anyone who attacks us. Taking our muskets down from the wall and marching as Minute Men to Lexington Green will no longer cut it. We need missiles, planes, major warships, tanks, bombs and megatons and the necessary logistics to stay alive as a nation in this world. Arming every able bodied person with an rpg, an assult rifle and a shitload of ammo will not do it. Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galtgulch Posted February 21, 2009 Author Share Posted February 21, 2009 (edited) I wonder if Objectivists have come to grips with Lysander Spooner's objections which are spelled out in his essay.Would they be resolved if each or most citizens did indeed read the Constitution as a coming of age tradition and then did sign a copy of the Constitution in a ceremony in which they became signatories of the Constitution with the acquisition of certain rights such as the right to vote and enter the military? (I think the militia would be open to children of any age)Simply google Lysander Spooner and find many sites where his works can be found such as:www.lysanderspooner.orggulchwww.campaignforliberty.com 21Feb 104244I will make it simple for you. No government = no tax = no first class military = we are dead.We need a military capable of launching missiles and bombing the shit out of anyone who attacks us. Taking our muskets down from the wall and marching as Minute Men to Lexington Green will no longer cut it. We need missiles, planes, major warships, tanks, bombs and megatons and the necessary logistics to stay alive as a nation in this world. Arming every able bodied person with an rpg, an assult rifle and a shitload of ammo will not do it. Ba'al ChatzafBa'al, Thanks for the serious response. Do you really think LS meant there should be no govt at all? I think he just meant that we should all sign the contract anew. His point is that the guys who signed it are long dead. The implication to me is that for the Constitution to be a meaningful, valid contract that each individual who is willing to live under it should sign it. Works for me. I think that if we ever did it right, abolished the Federal Reserve Bank and the income tax, brought the troops home from most of the bases all over the world, got rid of the antitrust laws, forbid unions from using force, enabled private schools and abolished compulsory education laws, restored child labor, you know the free market, that the rest of the world would scramble to emulate us. I would keep the military with the bombs but I think the militia is quaint.www.campaignforliberty.com 21Feb 104254gulch Edited February 21, 2009 by galtgulch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I think that if we ever did it right, abolished the Federal Reserve Bank and the income tax, brought the troops home from most of the bases all over the world, got rid of the antitrust laws, forbid unions from using force, enabled private schools and abolished compulsory education laws, restored child labor, you know the free market, that the rest of the world would scramble to emulate us. I would keep the military with the bombs but I think the militia is quaint.www.campaignforliberty.com 21Feb 104254gulchYou want to restore child labour, I guess you don't mean like forcing children to do coal mining for 12 hours a day like they did in the 1800's?? And what is wrong with anti-trust laws? When a corporation gets so big that it can control the market you longer have a free-market system so Objectivism should support anti-trust laws, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galtgulch Posted February 21, 2009 Author Share Posted February 21, 2009 (edited) I think that if we ever did it right, abolished the Federal Reserve Bank and the income tax, brought the troops home from most of the bases all over the world, got rid of the antitrust laws, forbid unions from using force, enabled private schools and abolished compulsory education laws, restored child labor, you know the free market, that the rest of the world would scramble to emulate us. I would keep the military with the bombs but I think the militia is quaint.www.campaignforliberty.com 21Feb 104254gulchYou want to restore child labour, I guess you don't mean like forcing children to do coal mining for 12 hours a day like they did in the 1800's?? And what is wrong with anti-trust laws? When a corporation gets so big that it can control the market you longer have a free-market system so Objectivism should support anti-trust laws, IMO.Gen sem,Of course I don't mean that children should be "forced" which includes the freedom not to be compelled to attend a govt "school." I remember needing to get "working papers" in order to get a job when I was a teenager.I threw in the comment about child labor as a teaser.But regarding the antitrust laws it is evident that you haven't read Ayn Rand's articles on them in the very first issue of The Objectivist Newsletter. She also recommended Dominic Armentano's The Myths of Antitrust."When a corporation gets so big that it can control the market you longer have a free-market system" Like GM?It is only when the govt forbids and prevents entry into a market that you have a "coercive monopoly."Excellent articles on the subject in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal: America's Persecuted Minority: Big Business by Ayn Rand and Antitrust by Alan Greenspan!In a free market a company which acquires a large market share can only do so by satisfying the desires of the customers. Only the likes of the U.S Postal Service can keep out competitors. Occupational licensing also is govt's way of limiting entry into the market.There are whole books on the subject. Armentano is very lucid and worth reading. Rand points out that there are antitrust regulations which forbid a company from selling its products at the same price, at a lower price, or at a higher price than its competitors. Gotcha!www.campaignforliberty.com 104260, Noon 104274gulch Edited February 21, 2009 by galtgulch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I think that if we ever did it right, abolished the Federal Reserve Bank and the income tax, brought the troops home from most of the bases all over the world, got rid of the antitrust laws, forbid unions from using force, enabled private schools and abolished compulsory education laws, restored child labor, you know the free market, that the rest of the world would scramble to emulate us. I would keep the military with the bombs but I think the militia is quaint.www.campaignforliberty.com 21Feb 104254gulchYou want to restore child labour, I guess you don't mean like forcing children to do coal mining for 12 hours a day like they did in the 1800's?? And what is wrong with anti-trust laws? When a corporation gets so big that it can control the market you longer have a free-market system so Objectivism should support anti-trust laws, IMO.Let's see: You posit private force--so stated--should be replaced and/or countered with public force and that the later is morally superior to the former. Child labor is worse in India than just about anywhere else. This is a country bathed in socialism for generations. Socialism is public force injected into economic relationships dominating and thwarting what you refer to as force in private dealings. But the public force is real force as with police powers. True private force is a criminal with a gun. I don't think the specter of naked children crawling around mines dragging bags of coal through narrow passages is a worthy object of North American parental 21st century fear. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Gen sem,Of course I don't mean that children should be "forced" which includes the freedom not to be compelled to attend a govt "school." I remember needing to get "working papers" in order to get a job when I was a teenager.I threw in the comment about child labor as a teaser.But regarding the antitrust laws it is evident that you haven't read Ayn Rand's articles on them in the very first issue of The Objectivist Newsletter. She also recommended Dominic Armentano's The Myths of Antitrust."When a corporation gets so big that it can control the market you longer have a free-market system" Like GM?It is only when the govt forbids and prevents entry into a market that you have a "coercive monopoly."Excellent articles on the subject in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal: America's Persecuted Minority: Big Business by Ayn Rand and Antitrust by Alan Greenspan!In a free market a company which acquires a large market share can only do so by satisfying the desires of the customers. Only the likes of the U.S Postal Service can keep out competitors. Occupational licensing also is govt's way of limiting entry into the market.There are whole books on the subject. Armentano is very lucid and worth reading. Rand points out that there are antitrust regulations which forbid a company from selling its products at the same price, at a lower price, or at a higher price than its competitors. Gotcha!www.campaignforliberty.com 104260gulchWhat do you call it when a large corporation opens a store next to a small mom and pop shop and begins selling at below cost the same products and forces them out of business? Is this a free market system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I think Objectivism restricts the meaning of 'force' to using physical force but most of the time we are forced into certain things by much more subtle mechanisms. When people are left to practice true laissez-faire economics they will "force" all kinds of things on each other and some of them lead to destruction of their livelihood and all the corresponding social problems that result. This is the very thing many people left the British Isles and came to America to escape in the first place. A society where there are large discrepancies between the wealth of the few and the many is doomed to periodic breakdowns and this is what the American Dream was founded on - the idea that anyone could have a respectable living and self-respect, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galtgulch Posted February 21, 2009 Author Share Posted February 21, 2009 www.campaignforliberty.com 104260gulchWhat do you call it when a large corporation opens a store next to a small mom and pop shop and begins selling at below cost the same products and forces them out of business? Is this a free market system?How about a blacksmith making a living replacing horseshoes finding suddenly that people are buying those newfangled automobiles?Ayn Rand wrote an article on the Divine Right of StagnationIf people choose to go to the WalMart rather than the Mom and Pop, so be it! The choice is in the hands of the consumer, who starts out as a producer, worker to earn the money he or she will then get to decide how to spend, on what and to whom or from whom?And your system does what to make your dream come true?www.campaignforliberty.com 104270gulch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 How about a blacksmith making a living replacing horseshoes finding suddenly that people are buying those newfangled automobiles?Ayn Rand wrote an article on the Divine Right of StagnationIf people choose to go to the WalMart rather than the Mom and Pop, so be it! The choice is in the hands of the consumer, who starts out as a producer, worker to earn the money he or she will then get to decide how to spend, on what and to whom or from whom?And your system does what to make your dream come true?www.campaignforliberty.com 104270gulchBut their choices are limited without them knowing it, so it isn't really a true choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 (edited) I think Objectivism restricts the meaning of 'force' to using physical force but most of the time we are forced into certain things by much more subtle mechanisms. When people are left to practice true laissez-faire economics they will "force" all kinds of things on each other and some of them lead to destruction of their livelihood and all the corresponding social problems that result. This is the very thing many people left the British Isles and came to America to escape in the first place. A society where there are large discrepancies between the wealth of the few and the many is doomed to periodic breakdowns and this is what the American Dream was founded on - the idea that anyone could have a respectable living and self-respect, IMO."force" is not force. When conditions change, people must alter their activities accordingly. If the blacksmith, whose trade has been rendered obsolete by automobiles does not adapt and become a car mechanic or something else, then too bad for him Why should those who adapt to the changing conditions of the economy and technology be penalized because some are inflexible, backward or lazy? The "force" of the market place is the consequence of voluntary and mutual arrangements between people and people have the right to initiate changes in the world (generally improvement) and to make accommodations appropriate to such changes. If it were otherwise we should all still be living in caves and eating raw bear meat. By the way no one has the right to prosperity. It must be earned. The only thing that one can demand is that no forceful barrier to prosperity be placed in their way. As John Galt said in -Atlas Shrugged- "get the hell out of my way". Ba'al Chatzaf Edited February 21, 2009 by BaalChatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backlighting Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Geb Sem "What do you call it when a large corporation opens a store next to a small mom and pop shop and begins selling at below cost the same products and forces them out of business?"I call it better selection of products at lower prices. Better for consumers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 But their choices are limited without them knowing it, so it isn't really a true choice.True choice doe NOT mean equality of probability for all choices. It means given a set of alternatives ( and more than one in the set) one can chose from the set. In the case of the blacksmith the activities of others have altered the choice set. But the blacksmith still has several possibilities that he can persue. Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 What about when a large corporation stifles technological innovation to protect it's short term interests? What happens to consumer choice then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 What about when a large corporation stifles technological innovation to protect it's short term interests? What happens to consumer choice then?This cannot happen nor has it happened over the long run. If a corporation acts legally and does not initiate physical force there is no way for it to stop individuals from inventing stuff. You will notice that the buying public has enjoyed an ever increasing array of goods and services produced by improving technology and science. This scenario of Evil Corporations impeding technological progress is a Left Wing Boogeyman.There is nothing to stop an individual from making an electric car for himself if he has the technological know-how. Computers far better than those produced by IBM (a typical "evil" mega-corp) were produced in garages by scruffy enterprising young people. You will notice that IBM did not win the race to produce desk top and lap top computers. The Japanese companies did an end run around loss aversive American corporations. That is why you can get cheap Japanese made T.V.s, computers and automobiles. G.M. is now in its death throes. There is an "evil" mega-corp that got its just deserts. Forget the Boogeyman. It is a nightmare composed by obese Michael Moore types. Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I'm afraid I do believe in Evil Corporations despite what you say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 G.S."...a large corporation stifles technological innovation..." define stifles please and large, e.g., >X,<y. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I'm afraid I do believe in Evil Corporations despite what you say.That is o.k GS. it is just about what I expect from a follower of The Count. Don't let facts confuse you too much. Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 That is o.k GS. it is just about what I expect from a follower of The Count. Don't let facts confuse you too much. Ba'al ChatzafI don't let YOU confuse me too much, vastly different from the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 How about a blacksmith making a living replacing horseshoes finding suddenly that people are buying those newfangled automobiles?Ayn Rand wrote an article on the Divine Right of StagnationIf people choose to go to the WalMart rather than the Mom and Pop, so be it! The choice is in the hands of the consumer, who starts out as a producer, worker to earn the money he or she will then get to decide how to spend, on what and to whom or from whom?And your system does what to make your dream come true?www.campaignforliberty.com 104270gulchBut their choices are limited without them knowing it, so it isn't really a true choice.If they don't know it how do you? Or, if you know it, why can't they?--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 (edited) What about when a large corporation stifles technological innovation to protect it's short term interests? What happens to consumer choice then?Where is the consumer choice when Galt withholds his motor from the world?--Brant Edited February 21, 2009 by Brant Gaede Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I'm afraid I do believe in Evil Corporations despite what you say.Do you also believe in corporations that aren't evil?--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I believe in the saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely. This applies to large corporations as well as governments. I believe when governments and corporations get too large and powerful they begin to have a harmful effect on the culture because they seem to take on an aspect that is beyond the control of the individuals making up said entities - you can have good people in bad systems. It seems to be something that afflicts humans that maybe there is a limit to how large an organization can be before it becomes unwieldy. Microsoft is as good an example as any - they have done little in the way of innovation and much to hinder it in the world of operating systems and software because they abused their virtual monopoly of the market place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidMcK Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 (edited) The power to produce is very different from the power to destroy. Obviously; But what other power does a corporation have (in a lassez faire society) but the power to produce, and what other power does a state have except the power to destroy? Edited February 21, 2009 by DavidMcK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Microsoft has been in bed with the government since the beginning.The invasive ads were annoying, so this led people to conclude that Microsoft held a near-monopoly due to aggressive marketing. There were several factors and government protection was one of them. A great operating system for the general population level of use was another, but without the government, I think the market would have sunk it when the browser issue with Netscape started.Many Objectivists have ignored Microsoft's involvement with the government as they held Microsoft up as a pristine example of capitalism at its best. This has always made me marvel.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now