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

[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.

 

[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.