Why do some people criticize Ayn Rand's philosophy and literature?

[mheslep]

It is certainly true that many of the most grievous and massive environment damage in the world was done by the former Soviet government.

 

[disregardthat]

Your assertion here is the cliche, that somehow companies, they are 'bad', and government, made up of the same corruptible human beings, is somehow 'good', despite ample evidence that government officials lie, cheat, and steal continuously. And you contend that anyone that doesn't accept your assertion is blind or naive?

I refer you to my example and documentation, where the "bad" companies consisting of "corruptible" human beings, disguises their efforts to the government inspectors in cheating the customers by illegally increasing the weight of fish by 20 %. Maximizing profits while the common customer being at economical and health conditional disadvantage.

Now, please provide documentation for your crazy assertion that there is ample evidence for that government officials continuously lie, cheat and steal.

 

[disregardthat]

It is certainly true that many of the most grievous and massive environment damage in the world was done by the former Soviet government.

Please, are you really degrading yourself by bringing in the Soviet union? It usually comes to this when arguments run short. The western society is not the Soviet union. I am arguing with respect to the laws and standards of western democratic countries, which does not even resemble the Soviet union in any way.

 

[disregardthat]

Haven't some of the world's worst environmental disasters been "regulated" by government officials?

And you somehow believe these disasters would magically be avoided as long as no one, no matter how badly, keep watch? That the workers would somehow be aware of the consequences and take preventive action as long as they wasn't being "regulated"? Or what could possibly have been your point? I would prefer that you don't derail our discussion by ignoring my arguments and spontaneously introducing something new.

 

[mheslep]

I refer you to my example and documentation, where the "bad" companies consisting of "corruptible" human beings, disguises their efforts to the government inspectors in cheating the customers by illegally increasing the weight of fish by 20 %. Maximizing profits while the common customer being at economical and health conditional disadvantage.

Now, please provide documentation for your crazy assertion that there is ample evidence for that government officials continuously lie, cheat and steal.

Here's a quick list of some of my crazy favorites:

"[URL clock is ticking on tax cheat Charlie Rangel
[/URL]
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Marion_Barry"

[Mayor] Barry said this in front of an FBI camera after agents arrested him for smoking crack in a hotel room with an escort. This phrase (and variants) was emblazoned on novelty tee-shirts at the time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwame_Kilpatrick

Kwame Malik Kilpatrick (born June 8, 1970) is the former mayor of Detroit, Michigan, United States.[2] He is a member of the Democratic Party.[3] Kilpatrick's mayorship was plagued by numerous scandals and rampant accusations of corruption, with the mayor eventually resigning after being charged with ten felony counts, including perjury and obstruction of justice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal#Denial_and_subsequent_admission"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Parliamentary_expenses_scandal#Specific_claims

The United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal is a major political scandal ... Public outrage was caused by disclosure of widespread actual and alleged misuse of the permitted allowances and expenses claimed by Members of Parliament (MPs), following failed attempts by parliament to prevent disclosure under Freedom of Information legislation. The scandal aroused widespread anger among the UK public against MPs and a loss of confidence in politics. It resulted in a large number of resignations, sackings, de-selections and retirement announcements, together with public apologies and the repayment of expenses.

"[URL Drug Use and Graft Cited in Interior Department
[/URL]

WASHINGTON — As Congress prepares to debate expansion of drilling in taxpayer-owned coastal waters, the Interior Department agency that collects oil and gas royalties has been caught up in a wide-ranging ethics scandal — including allegations of financial self-dealing, accepting gifts from energy companies, cocaine use and sexual misconduct.

 

[mheslep]

I have made my case. This, and many more examples shows that one has much to answer for if one supports the "ideal" tax-free, government regulation-free society.

No, you've pointed to an example of some business scandal. You did not make the case that regulation makes things better. That's a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc" , along with the ad hominem fallacies.

What's the resolution in that particular fish market case? Have the government hire that fish market operator and have him run the government fish bureau?

 

[WhoWee]

And you somehow believe these disasters would magically be avoided as long as no one, no matter how badly, keep watch? That the workers would somehow be aware of the consequences and take preventive action as long as they wasn't being "regulated"? Or what could possibly have been your point? I would prefer that you don't derail our discussion by ignoring my arguments and spontaneously introducing something new.

That's fine - let's go back to your concern about the toxins. my bold

"

Why are you blindfolding yourself? It's a fine line between "giving customers what they want" and luring them to believe they got what they wanted. It common in the food industry to for example pour water and sometimes even toxins into meat and fish to increase the weight way over the allowed limit. This happens today, and without strict regulation on this it would be much more common. Is this giving people what they want? It is naive to believe that those companies who don't do this will profit for "giving people what they want". On the contrary, those who do are the largest and most profitable companies. It is not odd that the big companies are the worst companies. It is only the government which stands between us and this trickery.

To blame hollywood and the media is just too clichè. Even if someone exaggerate doesn't mean they provide the opposite picture of the world.

"

You claim that "without strict regulation on this it would be much more common" - do you have support for this comment?

 

[lpetrich]

What is the incentive for the workers to injure or cheat consumers?

The money that can be made off of doing so. Ever heard of con artists? They practice capitalism, though very dishonest capitalism.

As to business nastiness, have you ever heard of the frog wars? These were battles between railroad companies as they expanded outward in the 19th cy. US. They'd get their employees to fight the employees of rival companies.

Also consider organized crime. Many criminal gangsters are involved with various businesses, often businesses frowned upon by those pesky governments, like drug dealing, gambling, ...

It's certainly possible to be a good capitalist, and one should respect anyone who tries to be one. But there being good capitalists does not stop there from being bad capitalists.

Your assertion here is the cliche, that somehow companies, they are 'bad', and government, made up of the same corruptible human beings, is somehow 'good', despite ample evidence that government officials lie, cheat, and steal continuously. And you contend that anyone that doesn't accept your assertion is blind or naive?

Government regulators usually don't have a profit motive behind their activities. I'm not saying that they are necessarily incorruptible. Cops and judges are not incorruptible, but does that mean that we ought to disband police forces and judiciary systems? Government regulation of business can be interpreted as part of the police powers of government.

Who says they do? Are they held there at gunpoint?

They might as well be. Imagine that your only chance of employment was to work in a government agency, enforcing regulations that you dislike. What would you decide?

My contention is not to eliminate regulations, but to show that regulations have a cost to them just as market failures do, that they are implemented by the same fallible people (probably more power hungry), that they have all kinds of unintended and possibly deadly consequences, and that there is nothing defacto noble about regulation.

Perpetually wringing one's hands about unintended consequences doesn't prove anything. If one was to perpetually worry about unintended consequences, then one will end up frozen with indecision.

It is certainly true that many of the most grievous and massive environment damage in the world was done by the former Soviet government.

It was the one and only legal business in the Soviet Union. Furthermore, Ayn Rand hated environmentalism, and I'm sure that she would have applauded that devastation as humanity's conquest of nature.

What's the resolution in that particular fish market case? Have the government hire that fish market operator and have him run the government fish bureau?

No, to do what cops and judges are supposed to do.

 

[WhoWee]

The money that can be made off of doing so. Ever heard of con artists? They practice capitalism, though very dishonest capitalism.

I asked a very specific question about the workers - not salesmen or management or investors. Thus far, the soecific question has not been addressed. Accordingly, I'll ask it again - "What is the incentive for the workers to injure or cheat consumers? "

 

[WhoWee]

They might as well be. Imagine that your only chance of employment was to work in a government agency, enforcing regulations that you dislike. What would you decide?

This is a timely question. Allow me to further frame it against the Executive Order signed by President Obama on 1/18/2011 (this is Section1 only).
"The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release January 18, 2011
Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review - Executive Order

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to improve regulation and regulatory review, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. General Principles of Regulation. (a) Our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. It must be based on the best available science. It must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. It must promote predictability and reduce uncertainty. It must identify and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. It must take into account benefits and costs, both quantitative and qualitative. It must ensure that regulations are accessible, consistent, written in plain language, and easy to understand. It must measure, and seek to improve, the actual results of regulatory requirements.

(b) This order is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review that were established in Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. As stated in that Executive Order and to the extent permitted by law, each agency must, among other things: (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

(c) In applying these principles, each agency is directed to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated

present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. Where appropriate and permitted by law, each agency may consider (and discuss qualitatively) values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts."


Do you think these unhappy workers might try to make changes within their discretion to fit their own personal likes/dislikes?

 

[mheslep]

Government regulators usually don't have a profit motive behind their activities.

Agreed, at least not to the degree that the targets of their regulation do.

I'm not saying that they are necessarily incorruptible. Cops and judges are not incorruptible, but does that mean that we ought to disband police forces and judiciary systems?

I don't know where Rand goes on this (I find her a bit silly as I and others have described above), but most modern libertarians agree that free societies require a minimum of law and order to i) prevent people from harming each other and ii) to enforce the agreements they freely make among themselves. That said, even the cops and judges required to do that and no more should still be seen as a burden and a power to be minimized and carefully watched. Government is like fire as Washington said, necessary but dangerous.

Government regulation of business can be interpreted as part of the police powers of government.

Government, given the chance, will interpret anything as part of its police power. That doesn't make it so.

They might as well be. Imagine that your only chance of employment was to work in a government agency, enforcing regulations that you dislike. What would you decide?

To turn the gun on myself? :tongue: No, as long as the society is free, and some places it certainly is not, people vote with their feet.

Perpetually wringing one's hands about unintended consequences doesn't prove anything. If one was to perpetually worry about unintended consequences, then one will end up frozen with indecision.

That comment is over general to the point that it doesn't take us anywhere, made so to avoid the issue, as seen when turned around to say "perpetually wringing one's hands about the malfeasance of industries which are inevitably needed doesn't prove anything and one will end up frozen with indecision."

No, to do what cops and judges are supposed to do.

My point was that regulators often come from or go to the very businesses they are tasked with regulating. This is inevitable, as the government can choose either i) people long connected and experienced in the field risking incestuous relationships*, or ii) people ignorant of the field risking inept regulation. There's an economic theory on the subject, called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture"

*Perhaps the most infamous example of this was the US Minerals and Management Service, tasked with regulating oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, was caught up in notorious sex and cocaine scandal between many of its staff and industry (linked up thread).

 

[lpetrich]

I asked a very specific question about the workers - not salesmen or management or investors. Thus far, the soecific question has not been addressed. Accordingly, I'll ask it again - "What is the incentive for the workers to injure or cheat consumers? "

Whatever incentive they may have to do shoddy work in general.

I don't know where Rand goes on this (I find her a bit silly as I and others have described above), but most modern libertarians agree that free societies require a minimum of law and order to i) prevent people from harming each other and ii) to enforce the agreements they freely make among themselves.

A lot of regulation of business can be justified by exactly that. So where do the laws end and the regulations begin?

 

[WhoWee]

Whatever incentive they may have to do shoddy work in general.

There is a clear difference between doing shoddy work and purposely adding toxins to meat and fish to increase the weight to earn extra profit.

 

[ParticleGrl]

The incentive of workers to increase the weight of fish is that they'll be let go if they don't. Keeping a job is a strong incentive.

 

[mheslep]

Discussion here on the history of deregulation in the US since the 70s in some examples like airlines, and how it was led by the left, e.g. Ted Kennedy, because it was seen as anti-cartel, anti-corporatist, and would favor the little guy.
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/33697?in=27:31&out=36:40

 

[WhoWee]

The incentive of workers to increase the weight of fish is that they'll be let go if they don't. Keeping a job is a strong incentive.

Fear of loss is potent and might justify adding water - toxins (I hope) are a different moral issue.

 

[Jasongreat]

The incentive of workers to increase the weight of fish is that they'll be let go if they don't. Keeping a job is a strong incentive.

The way I see it is that they should fear being let go if they screw the customer. If I bought a fish that was bloated with non-esssential moisture, I would never buy a fish from the same source again. The theory that government regulation is needed is ridiculous, the consumer is the best regulator ever, that is until they feel that there is someone else doing the regulating, then they end up getting f****d. We don't need oversight, we, the consumer need to get serious about undersight.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Fear of loss is potent and might justify adding water - toxins (I hope) are a different moral issue.

I'd be willing to bet the worker's were not told necessarily that what they were injecting the fish with was potentially toxic. Even if they suspected it was dangerous, people can overlook a lot- see the Milgram experiments.

If I bought a fish that was bloated with non-esssential moisture, I would never buy a fish from the same source again.

Then explain why this process went on for years in scandinavian countries (as mentioned above)? The moisture was not only not essential, it was slightly toxic. Your argument is contradicted by reality.

The theory that government regulation is needed is ridiculous, the consumer is the best regulator ever

Often, asymmetrical information prevents the costumer from making a good decision, and the bad drives out the good. See Akerlof's paper The Market for Lemons. The idea of completely laissez-faire markets is absurdly naive.

But, to push this back to Rand- I think most everyone seems to agree on the need for SOME government regulation (how much is a question), and to enforce regulation, you need regulators. Paying for them requires taxation- and we are already WAY outside Randian bounds.

 

[lpetrich]

In reference to Jasongreat's recent post, we ought to disband all government military and police forces, because people ought to protect themselves rather than begging the government to protect them with other people's money and other people's lives. Right?

As to what one will protect oneself with, a disarmed government couldn't stop its citizens from accumulating huge arsenals even if it wanted to.

 

[WhoWee]

In reference to Jasongreat's recent post, we ought to disband all government military and police forces, because people ought to protect themselves rather than begging the government to protect them with other people's money and other people's lives. Right?

As to what one will protect oneself with, a disarmed government couldn't stop its citizens from accumulating huge arsenals even if it wanted to.

If people irrationally hate Ayn Rand - this post may just demonstrate "why". Everything is not absolute in the world. IMO - conversations about Ayn Rand typically head in this direction.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Everything is not absolute in the world. IMO - conversations about Ayn Rand typically head in this direction.

Most probably because Ayn Rand was herself an absolutist, as are most people who identify with the objectivist community.

 

[WhoWee]

Most probably because Ayn Rand was herself an absolutist, as are most people who identify with the objectivist community.

 

[disregardthat]

You claim that "without strict regulation on this it would be much more common" - do you have support for this comment?

It's blatantly obvious. As we see this does happen even in the presence of regulations due to secrecy and denial of investigation. What could possibly incline them to stop this business if no one were investigating them? In my link you can also see how this industry continually grows. It's ordinary logic, what would happen if none or less regulatory laws were made, and no one or fewer were there to prosecute? Do you really believe that it is possible that this illegal business would stagnate or decline, when it is growing despite the presence of regulations?

As to the comment that the consumers are the best regulators, I would say this is pure imagination. Most consumers does not have the technical nor the medicinal knowledge to know what is healthy and unhealthy ingredients in products, especially the synthetic ones. And what then if it was not illegal to refuse to put all the essential but subtle ingredients in the description of some product? How then could you rely on the consumers judgment? It's not like "if it tastes good, it's all right, and if it tastes bad, I'll stay away." Taste is the easiest thing to manipulate chemically.

 

[WhoWee]

It's blatantly obvious. As we see this does happen even in the presence of regulations due to secrecy and denial of investigation. What could possibly incline them to stop this business if no one were investigating them? In my link you can also see how this industry continually grows. It's ordinary logic, what would happen if none or less regulatory laws were made, and no one or fewer were there to prosecute? Do you really believe that it is possible that this illegal business would stagnate or decline, when it is growing despite the presence of regulations?

As to the comment that the consumers are the best regulators, I would say this is pure imagination. Most consumers does not have the technical nor the medicinal knowledge to know what is healthy and unhealthy ingredients in products, especially the synthetic ones. And what then if it was not illegal to refuse to put all the essential but subtle ingredients in the description of some product? How then could you rely on the consumers judgment? It's not like "if it tastes good, it's all right, and if it tastes bad, I'll stay away." Taste is the easiest thing to manipulate chemically.

In a world where the only rule is "no rules" you MIGHT be correct - is competition allowed - or is everyone corrupt?

 

[WhoWee]

I have another scenario - your evil food manufacturer owns the prison system and feeds the prisoners sawdust and chicken broth - but bills state for 3 balanced meals per day.

 

[WhoWee]

One more scenario to consider - in the real world. Please consider the illegal drug world - specifically heroin. The consumers ate addicted and will basically buy whatever is available. However, competition alone seems to have developed a set of minimum standards. When the standards are violated, people might die or become ill, and the supplier goes out of business (shot, stabbed, incarcerated, etc.) and the supply goes back to normal. Can you think of an industry that is more corrupt than illegal drugs - that self regulates?

 

[disregardthat]

In a world where the only rule is "no rules" you MIGHT be correct - is competition allowed - or is everyone corrupt?

What are you talking about? Of course there will be competition, as there is today.

As for the drug-industry example of yours, I find it amazing that you even bring it up. This anarchistic business of countless innocent victims is nothing like any kind of business that would be publicly accepted. I wouldn't know of a better example of a business that leaves the society worse off. It does not argue for your case, even though it is regulated by the consumer in some twisted perspective.

 

[WhoWee]

What are you talking about? Of course there will be competition, as there is today.

As for the drug-industry example of yours, I find it amazing that you even bring it up. This anarchistic business of countless innocent victims is nothing like any kind of business that would be publicly accepted. I wouldn't know of a better example of a business that leaves the society worse off. It does not argue for your case, even though it is regulated by the consumer in some twisted perspective.

Then it's not "blatantly obvious" as competition will be present? As for the illegal drug example - the forces at work include consumer choice, competition, and manufacturing standards - all outside of legal regulations - how is this not relevant?

 

[disregardthat]

Then it's not "blatantly obvious" as competition will be present? As for the illegal drug example - the forces at work include consumer choice, competition, and manufacturing standards - all outside of legal regulations - how is this not relevant?

Of course it's obvious, as both competition and practically uniform bending of the rules exists today. In fact, one government function is to encourage competition by helping small businesses. Monopoly and squeezing competitors out of the marked by non-profitable pricing of products is sanctioned by the government today, at least in my country.

As for the drug industry, it's a non-argument. The crime associated and entangled with the entire industry denies any comparison. If any argument could be made on that basis (and I don't even argue it can) it would be that excessive and violent crime is commonly used in order to maximize profits when industry is not under government regulations. And surely you must be aware of the masses of "bad" and diluted drugs out there. Pure poison. Is death or injury of consumer followed by murder of provider a good self-regulatory tendency? I cannot see how this is an argument for your cause.

Furthermore, the merits of the drug industry is shockingly horrific. They aid terrorism by funding terrorist organizations. They are furthering organized crime by funding mafia organizations. It is corrupting the governments abroad, including law enforcers. It has made several countries into war-zones, e.g. Mexico. Countless civilian victims by brutal violence. 14,000 deaths by drugs in the US only. It drains the global and national economies everywhere by significant amounts. The list goes on.. Is this the kind of self-regulation you think is worth bringing up?

Source: http://csis.org/programs/transnational-threats-project/past-task-forces/-global-narcotics-industry

The grotesque conditions and chaos in Afghanistan is practically funded by the heroin industry. And it is expanding.

"Pakistan is fast evolving into the same drug-financed chaos, financing Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, which Afghanistan has already become. Afghanistan supplies 92 percent of the world’s heroin-producing opium, and Pakistan now transports a growing 36 percent of Afghanistan’s illicit opium, according to a State Department report last year."

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/opinion/lweb22pakistan.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

This does not resemble an industry any sensible person would want.

 

[WhoWee]

Of course it's obvious, as both competition and practically uniform bending of the rules exists today. In fact, one government function is to encourage competition by helping small businesses. Monopoly and squeezing competitors out of the marked by non-profitable pricing of products is sanctioned by the government today, at least in my country.

As for the drug industry, it's a non-argument. The crime associated and entangled with the entire industry denies any comparison. If any argument could be made on that basis (and I don't even argue it can) it would be that excessive and violent crime is commonly used in order to maximize profits when industry is not under government regulations. And surely you must be aware of the masses of "bad" and diluted drugs out there. Pure poison. Is death or injury of consumer followed by murder of provider a good self-regulatory tendency? I cannot see how this is an argument for your cause.

I don't have a "cause". I just don't see anything "blatantly obvious" about your unsupported post.

 

[disregardthat]

I don't have a "cause". I just don't see anything "blatantly obvious" about your unsupported post.

I don't think this is worth the discussion. I have previously backed my statement up by argument:

As we see this does happen even in the presence of regulations due to secrecy and denial of investigation. What could possibly incline them to stop this business if no one were investigating them? In my link you can also see how this industry continually grows. It's ordinary logic, what would happen if none or less regulatory laws were made, and no one or fewer were there to prosecute? Do you really believe that it is possible that this illegal business would stagnate or decline, when it is growing despite the presence of regulations?

Thus it is not unsupported. Besides, I am the only one who are providing documentation (and lately argument) of us two.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't think this is worth the discussion. I have previously backed my statement up by argument:



Thus it is not unsupported. Besides, I am the only one who are providing documentation (and lately argument) of us two.

As you (apparently?) agree, the answer to your question is competition. As per support, your argument is strictly opinion - correct?

 

[disregardthat]

As you (apparently?) agree, the answer to your question is competition. As per support, your argument is strictly opinion - correct?

No, you don't read what I write. Competition exists today. It won't solve the issue. And my argument is based on logical reasoning, not opinion. This is just silly and I won't repeat myself again.

 

[WhoWee]

It's blatantly obvious. As we see this does happen even in the presence of regulations due to secrecy and denial of investigation. What could possibly incline them to stop this business if no one were investigating them? In my link you can also see how this industry continually grows. It's ordinary logic, what would happen if none or less regulatory laws were made, and no one or fewer were there to prosecute? Do you really believe that it is possible that this illegal business would stagnate or decline, when it is growing despite the presence of regulations?

As to the comment that the consumers are the best regulators, I would say this is pure imagination. Most consumers does not have the technical nor the medicinal knowledge to know what is healthy and unhealthy ingredients in products, especially the synthetic ones. And what then if it was not illegal to refuse to put all the essential but subtle ingredients in the description of some product? How then could you rely on the consumers judgment? It's not like "if it tastes good, it's all right, and if it tastes bad, I'll stay away." Taste is the easiest thing to manipulate chemically.

Again, the answer to your question is competition and the clarity of your argument is not "blatantly obvious" to me. I'm sorry that I don't agree with you opinion.

 

[disregardthat]

Again, the answer to your question is competition and the clarity of your argument is not "blatantly obvious" to me. I'm sorry that I don't agree with you opinion.

I have refuted your "answer" time and time again. It's not a counter-argument to simply say you don't understand it. It requires an explanation. I won't participate in this meaningless discussion any more.