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

[disregardthat]

I don't think you posted anything unreasonable. However, we should not assume that people working in the food distribution system intend to injure others - do you agree?

No, I don't. Shall we assume the Asian workers making shoes for American companies have reasonable working conditions? For surely we can assume companies wouldn't take gross advantage of their employees. It's not about believing that everyone's out to get you, but the harsh reality is that government regulations and inspections proves essential in todays industry. In the example I provided, the fish industry actually do intend to cheat their customers. Believing these things take care of themselves by counting on "human decency" is naive.

 

[WhoWee]

How do you pay for such regulation without taxation? In Rand's world, how could any government regulation be implemented?

In Ayn Rand's world the food distribution worker's sense of self protection (including loss of job or imprisonment) would preclude the need for regulation - perhaps? In a more real world sense - it's in the individuals best interest to allow minimum regulations to protect against the poisoning of the food supply - IMO.

 

[WhoWee]

No, I don't. Shall we assume the Asian workers making shoes for American companies have reasonable working conditions? For surely we can assume companies wouldn't take gross advantage of their employees. It's not about believing that everyone's out to get you, but the harsh reality is that government regulations and inspections proves essential in todays industry. In the example I provided, the fish industry actually do intend to cheat their customers. Believing these things take care of themselves by counting on "human decency" is naive.

That's not what I asked you. I inquired "we should not assume that people working in the food distribution system intend to injure others - do you agree? " There are more workers than managers.

 

[disregardthat]

That's not what I asked you. I inquired "we should not assume that people working in the food distribution system intend to injure others - do you agree? " There are more workers than managers.

It's not about injury, it's about cheating to maximize profits. Their customers are the food distribution systems. They were cheated. Even if they weren't, what does that say about the credibility of the food distributors? In any case the end result would have been to the consumers disfavor, both economically and health conditionally. Assume what you want, I call it naivety.

 

[WhoWee]

It's not about injury, it's about cheating to maximize profits. Their customers are the food distribution systems. They were cheated. Even if they weren't, what does that say about the credibility of the food distributors? In any case the end result would have been to the consumers disfavor, both economically and health conditionally. Assume what you want, I call it naivety.

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

 

[disregardthat]

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

By workers you mean salesmen and people working for food distribution companies? Clearly they would not be aware of it. If you mean the workers who produce by illegal methods it should be obvious, especially in the light of my example. It's profitable whenever you get away with it. As the subject being interview explained, the industry for creating the tools for these illegal methods is large (which he said in the video interview by Brennpunkt). You cannot, as this experience show us, rely on the workers acting by their human decency and deny performing their jobs. Furthermore, it is not obvious that they even would have knowledge of breaking subtle laws and regulations. In fact, in this case he was not allowed to reveal what he knew. The specific information he has is classified as industry secrets, and he would violate the law by revealing it. The same laws that protect companies from leakage.

It required six months of journalistic research to uncover some of this. It is excessively naive to believe this effect would not be multiplied in the absence of regulations, and regulations would certainly be practically absent in the hypothetical tax-free society where one would have no authority to perform inspections according to regulations. Besides, as technology develops one is increasingly dependent on creating new laws and regulations to keep up with the ingenuity that follows the need for maximizing profits. It requires a heavy bureaucratic machinery together with the authority and funding to prosecute violators.

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7345652
This link, which you could translate, explains how the same techniques are also currently used in meat production industries, and is becoming more common today.

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.

 

[mheslep]

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.

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?

 

[mheslep]

No, I don't. Shall we assume the Asian workers making shoes for American companies have reasonable working conditions? For surely we can assume companies wouldn't take gross advantage of their employees.

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

 

[mheslep]

. It is excessively naive to believe this effect would not be multiplied in the absence of regulations, and they would certainly be practically absent in the hypothetical tax-free society where one would have no authority to perform inspections according to regulations.

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.

 

[WhoWee]

By workers you mean salesmen and people working for food distribution companies? Clearly they would not be aware of it. If you mean the workers who produce by illegal methods it should be obvious, especially in the light of my example. It's profitable whenever you get away with it. As the subject being interview told the industry of creating the tools for this illegal industry is large (which he said in the video interview by Brennpunkt). You cannot, as this experience show us, rely on the workers acting by their human decency and deny performing their jobs. Furthermore, it is not obvious that they even would have knowledge of breaking subtle laws and regulations. It required six months of journalistic research to uncover some of this. It is excessively naive to believe this effect would not be multiplied in the absence of regulations, and they would certainly be practically absent in the hypothetical tax-free society where one would have no authority to perform inspections according to regulations.

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

 

[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? 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.