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?
"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...
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.
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!
two times twenty plus twenty times point five
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
this is, of course, unless you know more british than I do-or perhaps you're speaking spartacus?
Load more comments...