Americans Think Little Of Business, And That's Bad For The U.S. Economy
Dr. Salsman brings some straight-up Objectivism to the pages of Forbes.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Thank you for so many worthy contributions lately.
Regards,
O.A.
Came like this.
Don't be coy; just cite the two inconsistent propositions.
Exactly. The poll is flawed relative to Objectivism. Aren't Objectivists supposed to check their premises?
There was no inconsistency in my posts.
It's the phone, using brew if it matters.
No. I'm just asking you folks for clarity on a philosophy that seems to have been hijacked. Considering how severely Ms. Rand tore into the collectivists on the right, I'm still in shock that her philosophy was grabbed by it.
For instance, why would Objectivists believe that one group of producers should be celebrated over another? If someone asks me who's more important out of a private school teacher, a private attorney, and a businessman, the answer is none because they're all producers. Celebrating one is suggesting that one is more special.
This is an inherently collectivist concept that suggests one's purpose in life is to benefit a collective. It's probably most likely why the answers are skewed. But it's fair game to talk about which groups contribute in a free market:
"The professional businessman is the field agent of the army whose lieutenant-commander-in-chief is the scientist. The businessman carries scientific discoveries from the laboratory of the inventor to industrial plants, and transforms them into material products that fill men’s physical needs and expand the comfort of men’s existence. By creating a mass market, he makes these products available to every income level of society. By using machines, he increases the productivity of human labor, thus raising labor’s economic rewards. By organizing human effort into productive enterprises, he creates employment for men of countless professions. He is the great liberator who, in the short span of a century and a half, has released men from bondage to their physical needs, has released them from the terrible drudgery of an eighteen-hour workday of manual labor for their barest subsistence, has released them from famines, from pestilences, from the stagnant hopelessness and terror in which most of mankind had lived in all the pre-capitalist centuries—and in which most of it still lives, in non-capitalist countries."
seems pretty consistent with the comments in this post @ Adam
You know Rand as well as anyone else in here, and I have what may be a dumb question: What if a "producer" meets all of the definition, but brings harm to his society?
I am thinking of a TV character that I have been following on Breaking Bad, Walter White: a high school teacher that becomes a major drug dealer. He ends up there out of wanting to leave something of worth to his family, when he is told that he will soon die of cancer. He is a natural (chemistry teacher) for making the best meth that his area has ever seen, and he becomes both wealthy, and feared, in the process. He becomes a legend for his success....
first of all, drugs should not be illegal. If you own yourself you have a right to put into your body whatever, you still are responsible for your actions.
The character is capitalizing on a black market, which isn't always bad-plenty have done it-start with sam adams.
"brings harm to his society" first of all, this is inherently collectivist thought process. This character is not working to create a free society, he is opportunistic. The fact that he is battling cancer is irrelevant. If doing something evil for a "good cause" makes it morally ok, then we can justify stealing, welfare, any communist argument. The writers are stringing an audience along and I have no doubt they revel in grey area pig pens. pigs are smart but don't fall in :)
The cancer motive goes away early in the story, when he goes into remission. But, he takes pride in how well he does in the meth trade, and there are several reasons that make it dangerous to try to just 'walk away'. and return to his old life. Bottom line is that he has reached a personal new achievement 'high', that was never realized teaching school. He struggles with the morality of his new job description, but always manages to justify what he is doing, and what he has to do to stay alive (and on 'top').
The question about harming society shouldn't be glazed over by any collectivist argument...drug addicts may have the personal right to be addicted, but they inevitably tramp on others rights in their quest for the funding of their life choice. By promoting this with his product, Walter has a liability.
Excellent show, and has won awards for the first 6 seasons!
also, check out Portugal stats
For example: Do you think that John Galt would embrace a successful meth manufacturer in the gulch?
Judging from 6 seasons of watching him, I think that he would adapt just fine.
But...what if he didn't?
Back on point, though: What does the Gulch do with a renegade, like Walter could become?
This is never addressed in AS...since everyone is a kindred spirit, and not out of step with the philosophy.
Real life has some real speed bumps....
we are so conditioned that the one bad apple will do irreparable harm, we make 100 men instant criminals enacting laws to protect us. The answer is, do not anticipate men will be evil but have in place remedies if someon'es property rights are violated.
Drug users are no longer drug criminals. But they are still committing serious crime to support their addiction.
The article actually says that government rehab programs are now increased, probably to the loss of fear to come forward and ask for help. This is increased government intervention, which has to be funded. Less addicts in jail, but larger government to take care of this new issue.
And those that aren't interested in rehab, are still tramping on the "rights" of others to keep their high going....
What is the difference?
Two identical entities answering the same problem.
My guess is that the drug enforcement ends up more beneficial to the populace. Definitely from the crime aspect.
Or maybe not....
The only other solution is to supply the drugs to the addicts. Another governmental agency.
ADDED: And straight out of Brave New World.
Or are you going for the whole enchilada...a non-doctored kilo? ;-)
The doctor is on call....
I've gone down that road twice. He blames it on his phone. I have since given up on the entire package...
Which of my questions were you trying to answer?
I understand social production to be all objects available for trade in a collective.
what the hell is social production? sounds like a nightmare
@Dragonlady:
Lawyers are also the ones enabling injustice. They're supposed to be amoral hired guns as I understand that field. So, to say that any are good is something of a "rah-rah Amerikah" cheer, isn't it? It's really just saying that you agree with their activities?
Saul's step brother...?