Drawing a line.
Posted by Laddius_Maximus 11 years ago to Business
So as I understand it, Ayn Rand advocated small government and having them stay completely out of business. Laissez-faire? Or do I have the wrong idea. This would foster more competition and bring down prices for all. But doesn't this idea only work if the corporations are ethical? If they always do the right thing? I don't mean social ethics but in terms of not polluting the environment,(BP) or making food that makes us sick. (monsanto) How do you make sure these companies operate as they are supposed to? I know I'm not phrasing this question correctly because I feel government should shrink and get the hell out of the way, but where does the line get drawn? Where does regulation and oversight become infringement and collusion?
Hmmm...sounds like a huge stretch. The algorithm for making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich has a more complex flowchart than what you are providing.
I would suggest you provide details and the flow from the point a company makes an "unethical" (define your version of ethics first) decision and how that tracks to its inability to survive.
The definition of ethics you are purporting in Ayn Rand's world logically leads Objectivists right back to the subjectivism they are often (not always) seeking to avoid. Here is the false premise you are using: you are making the assumption that the collective ethics of those involved in competing would somehow be rather homogenous, when in fact, they could swing from moment to moment, depending on what that company's values dictate moment to moment; and you absolutely cannot argue that a company's value cannot change.
At the end (and I am not saying from where this would originate), you need a set of rules that doesn't deviate and that would only come from a source external to those required to abide by them, else they could easily change based on values of the players.
Okay, I doubt ethics comes into this particular situation but the same principle applies. Do a sh** job, don't expect to keep customers. I strive to be the best, which is why I have customers. :)
Plus I'm inventive. I do a thorough job in half the time. :)
I think the failure of capitalism to be realized as the most amazing economic structure ever has nothing to do with whether or not big business is ethical, but instead, capitalism fails when there is an absence of consumer-driven action to put money in what truly has value. Do we complain about the evils of a big name oil company while filling up our gas tanks and buying their products at their stations? Whatever gave us the idea that it is our duty or responsibility to make a company ethical? Doesn’t it make more sense to go out and find an ethical company to begin with and spend our time and money with and on them? The problem with us, the consumers, is that we lack the determination to do whatever is necessary to spend every dollar wisely. Instead, we spend easy and complain, allowing our government (which is looking for it’s own customers to exploit) to have an excuse to step in. We can make more ethical companies competitive and powerful by valuing them with our business. I believe in getting selfish. Get your dollar’s worth every time.
One of the most epitomized and uplifting legacies of the african-american struggle prior to the Civil War was Harriet Tubman, who risk her life by traveling back into the southern states thirteen times to rescue over seventy slaves. In recent years, through scholarly research, it has been learned every slave she was involved with rescuing was related to her. Does that make her efforts any less heroic? First, she freed herself, then she helped free the slaves that mattered to her. She was selfishly motivated.
Let's look at an often vilified group of people called Christians. They are vilified primarily because they assert they have the Truth and either you follow it or there is literal hell to pay. Simple enough.
They assert there is a personal God that communicated all we need to know about Him, and man's relation to Him, in a book called the Bible. They also assert the highest command is to love (love defined by God in the Bible, not man's definition) that God with everything a man can offer from his external and internal being. And, say you become a Christian as prescribed in the Bible, then there are additional commands which emphasize considering other more important than yourself, servant leadership, etc......(you get the drift).
Now, you have to decide what you will do about the Christian assertions, same as you do about many other religions who have assertions, assuming you become aware of them. The question is: are your decisions about Christianity motivated out of anything than what is the relation of that decision to yourself? You may think you are making a decision to please God; however, what if God is pleased by your decision to following His Son Jesus Christ? Isn't being saved from an eternity in fiery hell a selfish decision to believe in Christ? What about when you decide to love your neighbor as yourself? Are you not motivated by the rewards God has for you in heaven for helping your neighbor as one of His children? The Christian God knows that man is a selfish being and that is why there are promises of rewards for all who following Him, and it is in man's nature to offer the same to our children, as well as discipline them when they are out of line (whatever that discipline may look like).
I say all this to state that Ms.Rand didn't happen onto a novel concept of selfishness, but of course it was highly unpopular to state what everyone already does. Unfortunate, few are honest enough with themselves to admit they are selfish about every decision.
Mysticism is a blind alley where reason is abandoned. :)
O.A.
On another note, I think there is a difference between selfishness and self-interest. The dictionary defines selfishness as "concerned chiefly or only with yourself and your advantage to the exclusion of others." Self-interest is defined similarly as one's personal interest or advantage, esp. when pursued without regard for others.
I would change the self-interest definition to be only that which one wants to do, but it isn't necessarily to the exclusion of the interest or consideration of others. We can often change what we want to do based on what others want once we become aware of their interests.
This is a key concept I was seeking to open up above. You have no idea what will motivate a change in your values from moment to moment; whether you are looking for it or not.
I say all this to point out that society can never survive in perpetuity when values are never aligned with a perfect standard. It simply becomes every man for himself and mob rule from time to time and guerilla warfare when necessary.
"I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent." This is from The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. II, No. 17 May 21, 1973, "The Missing Link--Part II."
This as noted was what she had to say in 1973. Who knows what she might say today?
For myself, Evolution is a “theory” but it is one based on science, not mysticism. It is clear that breeding, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc. have produced changes in species. Man has been manipulating and changing through his own actions mankind, beasts and plants. I therefore give it the credence due. Do you believe you have a more plausible theory, set upon firmer footing?
Self-interest is my preference, but in this context I am fine with Selfishness as Rand defined it in TVOS.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfis...
Definitions vary; for instance my Webster’s New World Dictionary (1984) lists two definitions for self-interest. The 1st is simply “one’s own interest or advantage.” 2nd an exaggerated regard for this, esp. when at the expense of others. Clearly they made a distinction.
For “Selfish” it also lists two definitions. 1. too much concerned with one’s own welfare or interests and having little or no concern for others; self-centered. 2. showing or prompted by self-interest.
The important thing to consider is that it is not in one’s self-interest to foster a bad reputation, or risk persecution, or prosecution. Taken in total context with Rand’s overall philosophy, and avoiding contradiction, it can only mean placing oneself ahead of others, but not without consideration of all consequences, or with malice or excessive disregard for others. One cannot expect liberty or property for oneself and not afford it to others.
This contradicts also with your assertion that selfishness, self-interest, (rational self-interest more accurately) must result in mob rule or guerilla warfare as you suggest. Mobs and warfare require collective action. That could hardly be a “value” sought by someone pursuing their rational self-interest.
Regarding your “A perfect Standard”
Standard of Value:
“The Objectivist ethics holds man’s life as the standard of value—and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man.
The difference between “standard” and “purpose” in this context is as follows: a “standard” is an abstract principle that serves as a measurement or gauge to guide a man’s choices in the achievement of a concrete, specific purpose. “That which is required for the survival of man qua man” is an abstract principle that applies to every individual man. The task of applying this principle to a concrete, specific purpose—the purpose of living a life proper to a rational being—belongs to every individual man, and the life he has to live is his own.
Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life.”
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/standa...
If a business doesn't deliver promised goods in exchange for money, the courts need to be involved. If a business destroys another's property, the courts need to be involved.
It's not all on the business, either. The individual can also wrong a business in the same ways.
Laissez-faire doesn't mean government will turn a blind eye to business or individual misbehavior. However, and this is my 2C, it means all the actors have the freedom to behave as they want, and courts will be the arbiters to judge the behavior after it happens.
When you use terms like "make sure companies operate as they are supposed to", it makes me think of the legislature sitting in a room asking themselves how they want the companies to behave, and then passing laws to ensure the companies comply with their wishes.
The offence is when government tries to preempt certain outcomes by denying businesses the freedom to act as they wish.
I need to study up on Laissez-faire more, myself. I could be misrepresenting the position.
That’s not my take at all. The early twenty century saw a few giants arise out of the new economy, but there was no middle-class to speak of. Roosevelt was dealing with a country of starving, impoverished people. Ninety percent of the country's wealth was concentrated in less than three percent of the population. It was like a bad episode of Gulch Gone Wrong. It’s why the era is referred to as the Gilded Age. What appeared to be a boom era paved with streets of gold was in reality cheaply painted --it was gilded. The point of the original anti-trust laws was to increase competition. They were meant to deal with corrupt monopolistic practices that destroyed competition and inflated market prices. In the modern-age it gets a bit tricky. We could probably do with some serious pruning of laws on the books.
https://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE6_... (on anti-trust policies)
finally, Thomas Woods on robber barons of the late 19th century-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbIIPtLEV...
The US rose to the wealthiest nation in the world in a little under 160 years without anti-trust laws, monopoly regulations. It went from a poor agrarian society to the king of the Industrial Revolution.
The more regulation, the more the "middle class" shrinks. I have already stated that the price of goods diminished over 90% in the decade PRECEDING Sherman anti-trust Act.
phrases such as "the gilded age" are manipulative phrases used to gain emotional sympathy and detract from facts.
Whenever I see this language "X percent of the country's wealth is concentrated in Y percent of the population" as justification for some government action against the Y%, it makes me cringe.
What are the levels that are fair and when do we have a problem, and why?
http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMo...,,,,
"Both the number of unskilled and skilled workers increased, as their wage rates grew.[5] Engineering colleges were established to feed the enormous demand for expertise. Railroads invented modern management, with clear chains of command, statistical reporting, and complex bureaucratic systems.[6] They systematized the roles of middle managers and set up explicit career tracks. They hired young men ages 18–21 and promoted them internally until a man reached the status of locomotive engineer, conductor or station agent at age 40 or so. Career tracks were invented for skilled blue-collar jobs and for white-collar managers, starting in railroads and expanding into finance, manufacturing and trade. Together with rapid growth of small business, a new middle class was rapidly growing, especially in northern cities.[7]"
I love the early Industrialists, but I like to look at history objectively without slant.
one must critically examine the statistics. $1200 a year has to be adjusted for inflation. Gold was $19/oz. Now it is $1500/oz.
If 90% of the nation was at poverty(relative term) or below, how did we have one of the longest life expectancies in the world. How possibly could the engine of growth happen? If 90% were barely making it-who did the companies sell to?
PBS as a reference on THIS site is a propaganda source. -it has no value when speaking about economics (louis rukeyser is dead).
finally, as much as I love Twain-his piece co-authored was a satirical piece. He was a writer not an economist. Shall we discuss Dickens and how he manipulated populace understanding of economics?
On "gilded age" you were using this as an example to back up your perspective on the time. I showed that the stats do not add up. It seems that you are making an assumption that there should be a "fair" income distribution. Correct me if this is not the case. One has a right to what they create. If you want to have the argument that these few individuals got something special or enriched by things other than that which they created-let's have that argument. But we will then bring in issues like Tammany Hall corruption (NY). . govt corruption is always worse, because the market cannot correct. enjoy your weekend-and we love debates in here!
As a corollary, systems theory and a long-term perspective are critical.
Systems theory: change one variable, and the entire system will change.
Here's where the Law of Unintended Consequences rears its ugly head. It is best to evaluate ideas, products, and changes, as well as laws, with these concepts in mind
A poet friend I know used to have quotes in his email signature, an once he put his own name to the quote "Ayn Rand was wrong." And that is when I had to write him back and say that some people in the past decade may lay claim to some of her ideas, but not all of them. I also told him that any philosophy would work if absolutely everyone in the society supported it whole-heartedly.
I like the idea of a capitalist inside bumper sticker. :)
"because nobody checks their premises"- do you mean philosophical arguments or place of business here? lol
I am not sure that moral capitalism is a useful term. Capitalism IS a moral system. If a company mistreats employees, in a pure capitalist society, employees will leave. Quality goes down, fewer goods or services will be purchased. Companies that do well in a free market, retain employees, attract higher quality ones, produce better and more products, increase demand for their superior product.
The CEO and founder of Whole Foods wrote a book about "conscious capitalism." which I find absurd. It implies capitalists are either unawake or without conscience, I can't decide which. Words have meaning. It is important to embrace the word capitalism and spark the debate. saying to others you are a moral capitalist is a tautology at best, already ceding to the other side's argument at worst.
I also like the "Capitalist Inside " bumper sticker. It sure beats "Baby on board" crud. I always feel like that is an admonition to drive careful around them, or a boast that they can procreate. Big deal...
Now, as to any philosophy will work... I think some philosophies are doomed to failure even if all support it. Could you elaborate?
Respectfully,
O.A.
think infinity
this is, of course, unless you know more british than I do-or perhaps you're speaking spartacus?
two times twenty plus twenty times point five
so, I disagree with your statement.
Plenty of people LOVE Ben and Jerry's. Support their company. go look at where they put their profits. Integrity should not be decided by a democracy
Look at spice trade 1600s. would not have happened without corporate structures. Semiconductors, computers, electrical power(initially), trains, planes, etc
It turned out to be contractor, but yes BP was responsible for that choice. They can in turn sue that contractor.
If there were no environmental protection laws, then the polluter could be sued for damage to property, but only if there are laws permitting and recognizing property.
You could say well the sea is not private property, but people do use the sea for travel, fishing, etc. Polluting the sea would reduce amenities and rights, which are a form of property.
There are libertarian views (e.g. Murray Rothbard) that say the state can go completely. I have not thought these thru so I am still with Rand's objectivism - 'there is government but there is not much of it'.
I agree, with your last point, it is hard to define the correct place for the line. Trouble is, where-ever the line is put, there seem to be irresistible pressures to move it more left.
every single trust that Teddy Roosevelt complained about-their goods' prices over the decade preceding the passage of the Sherman anti-trust act, declined by 90% or more. These laws were not for consumers-they were to protect inefficient producers and increase govt power.
A correct statute to study on monopolies check out English statute on Monopolies (1623?) which limited the power of govt NOT the power of private citizens
do well
The executive order doesn't really cover "franken-food" hate the term and happy to debate it-after you watch all the Penn and Teller Bull Shit episodes on it- lol.
This exec order(which I do not agree with) covers contracts. Here's how that works. A farmer contracts for genetically modified seeds. The company offering the seeds, has stipulations. If the farmer does not like the stipulations, DO NOT CONTRACT. plant another type of seed. Well, turns out the farmer really wants that seed to compete. hmmmm. what to do, what to do... you can fill in the rest of the picture. One may not strong arm Hank Rearden to give up his metal because YOU need it to compete.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " Ben Franklin, 1757
watch the rules. One should not have to go out of their way to prove safety to EVERYONE's satisfaction, before they may take action. They remain liable for their actions
Enforce natural rights and get rid of fascism/crony capitalism.
I've yet to run into one small business, raising capital without govt benefit, not using a black market or intimidation, keep customers and grow that is crappy.
Have you?