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

[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.

 

[WhoWee]

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.

Again, I'm sorry we don't agree. But it is still not clear to me why competition would not inhibit one company from injecting meat and fish with toxins to increase weight - when others do not engage in this bad practice?

 

[disregardthat]

Again, I'm sorry we don't agree. But it is still not clear to me why competition would not inhibit one company from injecting meat and fish with toxins to increase weight - when others do not engage in this bad practice?

This has been explained a long time ago, also by others than me. You don't seem to respond to these answers. It's common, and no one are inhibiting anyone, even in the presence of competition. It's simply profitable. Still you argue that competition would magically resolve this. That is illogical. It's not primarily toxins however. Phosphate above legal levels are known to occur. It's mainly salt water.

 

[WhoWee]

This has been explained a long time ago, also by others than me. You don't seem to respond to these answers. It's common, and no one are inhibiting anyone, even in the presence of competition. It's simply profitable. Still you argue that competition would magically resolve this. That is illogical. It's not primarily toxins however. Phosphate above legal levels are known to occur. It's mainly salt water.

If one company routinely injects salt water into their meat and fish - and others do not - the consumers will eventually seek the best price/value point. I don't think an expansion of regulation to monitor whether a company injects water or salt water into meat or fish is feasible. I also disagree that the presence of elevated levels of salt water would not be noticeable to consumers.

 

[disregardthat]

If one company routinely injects salt water into their meat and fish - and others do not - the consumers will eventually seek the best price/value point. I don't think an expansion of regulation to monitor whether a company injects water or salt water into meat or fish is feasible. I also disagree that the presence of elevated levels of salt water would not be noticeable to consumers.

No, actually, the consumers want the fish with the injected salt water. It looks whiter, and seems more fresh. And it's obviously the cheapest. They don't know what they get, they are generally not aware of this process. To put it succinctly; they don't know better. This has practically been a secret business up until now. These things was uncovered by long-term investigation, and such things should not be the job of the media. When a shipment of unprepared fish weighs more after preparation, something fishy is going on, pardon the pun.

 

[WhoWee]

No, actually, the consumers want the fish with the injected salt water. It looks whiter, and seems more fresh. And it's obviously the cheapest. They don't know what they get, they are generally not aware of this process. To put it succinctly; they don't know better. This has practically been a secret business up until now. These things was uncovered by long-term investigation, and such things should not be the job of the media. When a shipment of unprepared fish weighs more after preparation, something fishy is going on, pardon the pun.

I understand salt has been used as a preservative for meat and fish for a long time. My point was that excessive/abusive use should be noticeable by consumers.

 

[mheslep]

Jarle - You realize that the illicit narcotics drug industry you rightly describe as horrific is a case where the thing is completely regulated, i.e. banned outright with criminal penalties? Illicit drugs are not a case that goes in the laissez faire examples column. Whatever the good or bad traits of the narcotics industry at present, all the credit or blame goes to regulation.

 

[WhoWee]

Jarle - You realize that the illicit narcotics drug industry you rightly describe as horrific is a case where the thing is completely regulated, i.e. banned outright with criminal penalties? Illicit drugs are not a case that goes in the laissez faire examples column. Whatever the good or bad traits of the narcotics industry at present, all the credit or blame goes to regulation.

That is why I chose illegal drugs to make a point - in spite of the total failure of Governments to regulate the industry - consumers, manufacturers, and distributors have found a way to self-regulate the quality standards as well as supply/demand price competition.

 

[disregardthat]

Jarle - You realize that the illicit narcotics drug industry you rightly describe as horrific is a case where the thing is completely regulated, i.e. banned outright with criminal penalties? Illicit drugs are not a case that goes in the laissez faire examples column. Whatever the good or bad traits of the narcotics industry at present, all the credit or blame goes to regulation.

Illegalization of drugs is not business regulation, mheslep, they are illegal for good reasons. Take heroin for example, it destroys people mentally and physically. It is poisonous. No laissez faire status would change that, and you should provide evidence for your assertion that illegalization is to blame for the state of the business, and that a free trade market of drugs of all kinds would be without the symptoms it is ridden with today.

 

[mheslep]

Illegalization of drugs is not business regulation, mheslep,

Sure it is. Prohibition is just a subset of regulation in general. The bad connotations that travel with drugs like heroin don't change the meaning of words.

they are illegal for good reasons. Take heroin for example, it destroys people mentally and physically. It is poisonous.

Yes, I agree, but that misses the point.

No laissez faire status would change that,

I don't say that it would, that it would make poisons non-poisonous. The argument against criminalization is that it brings with it a black market and violent crime, a forced underclass of entire swaths of society and incarceration of much of the same, and the expenditure of huge sums on law enforcement. Now, recognizing all of that, as it happens I still favor narcotics prohibition, barely, unless and until I understand more fully the harm and costs to people in the event of legalization. But I do so (favor prohibition) by balancing the costs of one against the other, as I think I know them, and not by pretending that there's no harm caused by a government imposed prohibition.

 

[ParticleGrl]

If one company routinely injects salt water into their meat and fish - and others do not - the consumers will eventually seek the best price/value point.

You don't seem to understand that part of the point of the semi-toxic preservatives is to make the fish look better. Once again, its an asymmetrical information situation (bad driving out the good). Please read the market for lemons paper I keep bringing up. Its very easy to understand, and extremely relevant to inherent issues in unregulated markets.

I also disagree that the presence of elevated levels of salt water would not be noticeable to consumers.

Well, empirically you are wrong. Refer to the link at the beginning of the discussion.

 

[ParticleGrl]

That is why I chose illegal drugs to make a point - in spite of the total failure of Governments to regulate the industry - consumers, manufacturers, and distributors have found a way to self-regulate the quality standards as well as supply/demand price competition.

Sorry for two posts in a row, I missed this. What proof do we have that there is any measure of quality control and that market incentives have created it? Could you give me a reference that indicates that junkies don't live in fear of getting a bad fix? It seems to me that the illegal nature of the product would create a high rate of turn-over in suppliers, but I honestly don't know about the economics of the drug trade, but I imagine getting ripped off is fairly common.

 

[WhoWee]

Sorry for two posts in a row, I missed this. What proof do we have that there is any measure of quality control and that market incentives have created it? Could you give me a reference that indicates that junkies don't live in fear of getting a bad fix? It seems to me that the illegal nature of the product would create a high rate of turn-over in suppliers, but I honestly don't know about the economics of the drug trade, but I imagine getting ripped off is fairly common.

(I just lost a very detailed response with multiple links - here is the condensed summary)
The street price of Heroin dropped a few years ago and has remained stable.
Heroin use went up when the price dropped - but is now on the decline.
Pure heroin is less deadly than mixes and combinations.

Overdose overview:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-09-30-drug-overdose_N.htm
"Addiction to prescription painkillers — which kill thousands of Americans a year — has become a largely unrecognized epidemic, experts say. In fact, prescription drugs cause most of the more than 26,000 fatal overdoses each year, says Leonard Paulozzi of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The number of overdose deaths from opioid painkillers — opium-like drugs that include morphine and codeine — more than tripled from 1999 to 2006, to 13,800 deaths that year, according to CDC statistics released Wednesday.

In the past, most overdoses were due to illegal narcotics, such as heroin, with most deaths in big cities. Prescription painkillers have now surpassed heroin and cocaine, however, as the leading cause of fatal overdoses, Paulozzi says. And the rate of fatal overdoses is now about as high in rural areas — 7.8 deaths per 100,000 people — as in cities, where the rate is 7.9 deaths per 100,000 people, according to a paper he published last year in Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety.

"The biggest and fastest-growing part of America's drug problem is prescription drug abuse," says Robert DuPont, a former White House drug czar and a former director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. "The statistics are unmistakable."

About 120,000 Americans a year go to the emergency room after overdosing on opioid painkillers, says Laxmaiah Manchikanti, chief executive officer and board chairman for the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians."

 

[ParticleGrl]

None of the links answers the question I ask, and what you insinuated- what evidence is there that market forces have created a base level of quality on the drug market?

 

[WhoWee]

None of the links answers the question I ask, and what you insinuated- what evidence is there that market forces have created a base level of quality on the drug market?

From my post "In the past, most overdoses were due to illegal narcotics, such as heroin, with most deaths in big cities. Prescription painkillers have now surpassed heroin and cocaine, however, as the leading cause of fatal overdoses, Paulozzi says. And the rate of fatal overdoses is now about as high in rural areas — 7.8 deaths per 100,000 people — as in cities, where the rate is 7.9 deaths per 100,000 people, according to a paper he published last year in Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety.

"The biggest and fastest-growing part of America's drug problem is prescription drug abuse," says Robert DuPont, a former White House drug czar and a former director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. "The statistics are unmistakable.""


The highly regulated (and legal) prescription drugs are now responsible for more deaths than the unregulated (except for being illegal) drugs. Does this not answer your question? The unregulated illegal drugs are killing less people than the highly regulated drugs - prescribed by doctors?

 

[lpetrich]

What's your point, WhoWee?

Is there some sort of secret behind-the-scenes plot?

There are other explanations that have nothing to do with supposed government depravity. Like more ready availability, and more opportunity to report overdoses. Furthermore, abuse of prescription drugs is a result of getting around government regulations, of following only the letter of the law and not its spirit. And sometimes not even the letter, as with Rush Limbaugh and OxyContin. Also, alcohol and tobacco aren't regulated nearly as much as prescription drugs, yet they still cause a Hades of a lot of trouble.

Consider the frog wars of 19th-cy. US railroad companies as they extended their lines outward. They'd sometimes get their employees to fight the employees of rival RR's. Or consider what criminal gangsters sometimes do -- fight each other.

 

[thephysicsman]

I have read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountain head. I personally believe in them, and many other people that I talk to also believe in them. So why do other people hate the books and her? What train of thought gets them to disliking her work?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

I've just started reading The Fountainhead, and I'm thoroughly engrossed. I think people hate these ideas because they are collectivists and believe that it's the duty of each individual to sacrifice his values and ultimately his life to a mystifal an undefined "greater good".

Individualists like Rand, collectivists/statists do not. Why do they hate her? Because they are not honest. Knowledge or conflict is a threat to them, as opposed to an opportunity, i.e. a problem to resolve. Their theory of values is a betrayal of their nature as human beings, lest they accept reason as the standard of value. They don't want to acknowledge reasons, laws, but rather to live indulgently by relative or dogmatic standards. i.e. Being loved for being, not for anything they might think or achieve. It is the ultimate form of freedom they want; freedom from humanity.

So true!

I once saw Ayn Rand on a television show. A person in the audience started a question with something like "I used to believe in your philosophy but now I know better" and Ms. Rand simply walked off the stage. Yes, the questioner was being rude, but Ms. Rand, by walking off, was putting down everyone else in the audience, as well as the host of the show.

She sometimes lost control like this, but this has no bearing on the truth of her philosophy.

she was an egotistical, self centered, not very likeable person

Egoistic and self centered, yes. Not very likeable? Maybe if you're a collectivist.

Here "philosphy" was basically "get yours and never help other people".

Not true. "Follow your rational self interest".

 

[WhoWee]

What's your point, WhoWee?

Is there some sort of secret behind-the-scenes plot?

There are other explanations that have nothing to do with supposed government depravity. Like more ready availability, and more opportunity to report overdoses. Furthermore, abuse of prescription drugs is a result of getting around government regulations, of following only the letter of the law and not its spirit. And sometimes not even the letter, as with Rush Limbaugh and OxyContin. Also, alcohol and tobacco aren't regulated nearly as much as prescription drugs, yet they still cause a Hades of a lot of trouble.

Consider the frog wars of 19th-cy. US railroad companies as they extended their lines outward. They'd sometimes get their employees to fight the employees of rival RR's. Or consider what criminal gangsters sometimes do -- fight each other.

My point was that market forces will provide a certain level of regulations - where Government regulation has either failed or doesn't exist. Deaths on the street are unacceptable to the market - especially consumers. Competition and steady demand have stabilized prices.

This has nothing to do with "Government depravity", Rush Limbaugh, or frog wars.

 

[lpetrich]

My point was that market forces will provide a certain level of regulations - where Government regulation has either failed or doesn't exist. Deaths on the street are unacceptable to the market - especially consumers.

Which means that the Mafia is a bunch of lily-livered pacifists, right?

This has nothing to do with "Government depravity", Rush Limbaugh, or frog wars.

So counterevidence is irrelevant?

 

[WhoWee]

Which means that the Mafia is a bunch of lily-livered pacifists, right?

You said that - not me. No, dead junkies are bad for business.

 

[WhoWee]

So counterevidence is irrelevant?

"Counterevidence" (?) - please explain.

 

[ParticleGrl]

The highly regulated (and legal) prescription drugs are now responsible for more deaths than the unregulated (except for being illegal) drugs. Does this not answer your question? The unregulated illegal drugs are killing less people than the highly regulated drugs - prescribed by doctors?

Prescription drugs might be killing more people, but they are also being used by more people, which maks sense, as they are more easily available. The switch to prescription drugs may well represent the fact that the free market did not set a minimum quality standard in banned narcotics, so drug users are moving to professionally filled prescriptions sold illegally.

Further, the fact that overdoses are up on prescription drugs suggests that when people buy even prescription drugs illegally, they might not be getting what they pay for (stronger doses, different fillers, etc).

In short, you are making conclusions your data in no way warrants.

My point was that market forces will provide a certain level of regulations - where Government regulation has either failed or doesn't exist.

You are ignoring foundational things that must be in place for a market to work. One is the ability to build a reputation- in a drug business, a reputation is as big a liability as an asset (greater awareness among drug users also means greater awareness among law enforcement). You should read economics papers on black markets. Further, a drug market is ripe for asymmetrical information, so such a market may well represent potential for the good to drive out the bad.

 

[WhoWee]

Prescription drugs might be killing more people, but they are also being used by more people, which maks sense, as they are more easily available. The switch to prescription drugs may well represent the fact that the free market did not set a minimum quality standard in banned narcotics, so drug users are moving to professionally filled prescriptions sold illegally.

Further, the fact that overdoses are up on prescription drugs suggests that when people buy even prescription drugs illegally, they might not be getting what they pay for (stronger doses, different fillers, etc).

In short, you are making conclusions your data in no way warrants.

As I recently posted:
"My point was that market forces will provide a certain level of regulations - where Government regulation has either failed or doesn't exist. Deaths on the street are unacceptable to the market - especially consumers. "

It's really very basic - dead junkies don't buy dope (that is certain), drug dealers that sell product that makes people sick (when others don't) will be avoided - fairly certain, and dead and sick junkies lead to criminal prosecutions - dealers avoid bad supplies.

 

[ParticleGrl]

It's really very basic - dead junkies don't buy dope (that is certain), drug dealers that sell product that makes people sick (when others don't) will be avoided - fairly certain, and dead and sick junkies lead to criminal prosecutions - dealers avoid bad supplies.

Basic doesn't mean correct. You are assuming normal market forces will reign, and ignoring the huge barriers to normal market operations that exist when a product is illegal. Building a reputation as having good product is just as likely to land a supplier in prison as having a poor reputation. When your product is illegal, any reputation is a liability.

Further, given law enforcement, the turnover of vendors is almost certainly fairly quick. No supplier is likely to have a long-term reputation for quality, which means costumers purchase from unknown dealers fairly often. In short, the mistake is assuming that a black market functions like a market.

 

[WhoWee]

Basic doesn't mean correct. You are assuming normal market forces will reign, and ignoring the huge barriers to normal market operations that exist when a product is illegal. Building a reputation as having good product is just as likely to land a supplier in prison as having a poor reputation. When your product is illegal, any reputation is a liability.

Further, given law enforcement, the turnover of vendors is almost certainly fairly quick. No supplier is likely to have a long-term reputation for quality, which means costumers purchase from unknown dealers fairly often. In short, the mistake is assuming that a black market functions like a market.

I'm sure we can go back and forth for days. This is the post that started the drug discussion:

"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? "

I never intended to make a case beyond the basic observation that the "industry" seems to have developed some standards on it's own.

 

[ParticleGrl]

I never intended to make a case beyond the basic observation that the "industry" seems to have developed some standards on it's own.

And my point is that there is absolutely no reason to think that's true. The proportion of overdose to use doesn't seemed to have changed much, if it all.

 

[WhoWee]

And my point is that there is absolutely no reason to think that's true. The proportion of overdose to use doesn't seemed to have changed much, if it all.

How are you reaching that conclusion - if there wasn't a level of self regulation (given the greed and violence inherent) the occurences of bad drugs should be increasing.

 

[ParticleGrl]

How are you reaching that conclusion - if there wasn't a level of self regulation (given the greed and violence inherent) the occurences of bad drugs should be increasing.

OR, more people will avoid the market completely and look for alternatives, like illegal prescriptions, which have the advantage of being professionally filled by a pharmacist.

 

[WhoWee]

OR, more people will avoid the market completely and look for alternatives, like illegal prescriptions, which have the advantage of being professionally filled by a pharmacist.

I'm talking specifically about heroin. They might take other drugs?

 

[Evo]

What? This is so off topic...