Drawing a line.
Posted by Laddius_Maximus 12 years, 2 months 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?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
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.
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
"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
Mysticism is a blind alley where reason is abandoned. :)
O.A.
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.
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.
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.
Load more comments...