Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/21 15:14There are good arguments for most things under the sun.
Do you have a good argument for regulation? Anyone? I will pwnerize your arguments.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Parrot
User Karma: 8
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/21 15:50maf wrote: Do you have a good argument for regulation? Anyone? I will pwnerize your arguments.
I don't know if I want to have a debate with somebody who uses the word "pwnerize"...
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
chris.is.awesome
User Karma: 30
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/21 16:36while i don't believe in this argument, this is one of the strongest arguments i've come across, so i'm curious to hear your stance on it.
so what about enron and their corrupt business practices and how they screwed over california in particular.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
maf
User Karma: 41
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/21 17:42Since Enron already existed in a mixed economy, there is no way to argue specifics like this. I truly believe that Enron would not have had the power it had if we had a free economy that offered more competition against companies like Enron. Increased competition yields a decrease in corrupt activities, because corrupt companies can simply not survive if there are many alternatives to their service.
PWNED!
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Parrot
User Karma: 8
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/21 17:45I don't really know anything about Enron, I'm probably not the right person to ask about that. If you want to really debate on the subject of laissez-fair commercialism, you should ask somebody who's done a lot of research on the subject.
I've read some articles from different points of view on the subject. As I understand it, the main argument for government regulations is that the free market really doesn't take care of itself. Market failures will lead to a less than ideal economic situation.
I don't believe, as some do, that big companies are evil. But need doesn't always drive innovation and businesses often have other concerns.
Others can, and undoubtedly have, phrased that argument much better. Please, if you want to get into the nitty gritty of how markets work and why I'm wrong, don't look at me to provide an engaging debate on the subject.
I would love to see a more professional debate on the subject though. No doubt there have been some, maybe I can find records.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
maf
User Karma: 41
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/21 18:32I'm just joking around with the whole PWNED thing. I am not going to deviate from my rational arguement, unless I want to add PWNED at the end to make myself laugh.
If you want to argue I warn you: I will only argue on terms of absolute right and wrong, there is no middle ground for me. And thus, I will begin my argument:
Humans have individual rights and those rights spill over into any productive activity that they wish to undertake (for example, starting a corporation.) One basic right that humans have is the pursuit of happiness. By that logic, it is morally wrong for the government to infringe upon the pursuit of happiness, whether the government agrees with that pursuit or not.
Companies are made up of people, government should not infringe upon peoples natural rights, therefore it is not the government's job to regulate business in any way. The government's only job is to protect our natural rights and serve justice to those whose rights have been violated. Only when a company or individual violates the rights of others can the government stop them.
...but highly unfortunately we do not live in that world yet. Any support of regulation means you support the violation of some rights but not others, and that is a slippery slope.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Parrot
User Karma: 8
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/21 18:47maf wrote: If you want to argue I warn you: I will only argue on terms of absolute right and wrong, there is no middle ground for me.
I never said that I wanted to argue. I was trying to convey the point that I didn't want to engage in an involved debate on this topic. I guess I didn't communicate that clearly enough.
I wouldn't argue with you under those terms anyway. I believe in arguing with conviction, but not in terms of "absolute right and wrong"
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
maf
User Karma: 41
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/21 20:08Fair enough. If anyone else has an argument, BRING IT ON, I WILL PWN YOU.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Parrot
User Karma: 8
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/21 22:07While I don't want to get into an argument, I would like to dig a little deeper into the issues involving Objectivism.
For example, regarding people who talk to the dead and the like, Penn has often expressed the belief that it doesn't really matter whether they believe in their own bullshit or not.
From a practical standpoint I can see that point, either way we must speak out against them just the same.
Please let me know if I'm misrepresenting objectivism here, it's a very complex subject to keep straight. But as I understand it, Ayn Rand advocated that there was an important difference between being honestly mistaken, and being completely dishonest.
I believe she termed such complete dishonesty as "evil". And if you look at it that way then making up your mind about what a person believes makes a big difference in how you must classify them.
I understand there's some contention among objectivists about what critera to use in determining cases like these.
I'm curious as to what you guys think on this issue. Are you with Penn that it doesn't matter at all? Or do you think that the classification of what is really evil matters a lot?
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
dgandhi
User Karma: 1
pro-capitalist regulations - 2007/02/21 23:37here are some regulations that you will probably have trouble arguing against ( which implies that you would support them, at least grudingly )
1) intillectual property, as such legal fictions only exist through regulation.
2) laws/regs against countefiting, without which currency can not functionally exist.
Property is internally conficted enough to require these sorts of regulations to exist, and don't even try the "natural rights" angle, that's just special pleading for prefered regulations.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
maf
User Karma: 41
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/22 00:52First I will reply to Parrot.
Ayn Rand did make a distinction between honestly mistaken and being knowingly dishonest. I do not think she thought being honestly mistaken was evil, however she would not go out of her way to help correct their mistake unless first confronted.
Personally, I think that people who are honestly mistaken should be dealt with in a rational manner, and explained what they are doing wrong. The knowingly dishonest should be exposed for what they really are, and I think Penn agrees or he wouldn't have a show for that very purpose.
Next... dgandhi.
1) Property rights are personal/natural rights and are to be protected by the government. When the government enforces property rights, it is not regulation, it is protection of the individual's rights. Intellectual property is still property and must be protected. What you create is an extension of your own mind, and that is why your property, tangible or not, is still a right.
2) Counter fitting, although morally wrong, should not be regulated. In a truly free market, companies that did not practice in such devious activities would rise to the stop, where counter fitters would fall to the bottom rungs of society and be shunned by most.
Now, I know there are Objectivists out there just waiting for me to make a mistake. Jump in if you see me making any. I have a fairly strong grasp on Objectivism, but do not claim to be an expert.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
1) Property rights are personal/natural rights and are to be protected by the government. When the government enforces property rights, it is not regulation, it is protection of the individual's rights.
By regulating and reducing the rights of others, we have no way around that. Regulating what I can sell from / manufacture in my factory with my matereals based on the plans I reverse engeneered from something you invented is regulation, you can argue any number of socially or economically compelling reasons for regulating me, but to say you are not is simply denial.
Intellectual property is still property and must be protected. What you create is an extension of your own mind,
An extemsion of my mind? You mean like engrams and psychic energy? That sounds rather spiritualist, I presume you can state that in a way that does not require my blind faith.
and that is why your property, tangible or not, is still a right.
property is a legal fiction, but physical property tends to correlate with possession. Individuals rights become entangled with that possesed ( you can't take my clothes without accosting me ), but that does not mean that I can through force of will make actions that I don't like ( moving into a vacant building I paid for) transgressions of my individual rights.
The fiction that some economic or govermental system can extend my individual rights by granting me property stands on nothing but the pure assertion that it is so.
2) Counter fitting, although morally wrong, should not be regulated. In a truly free market, companies that did not practice in such devious activities would rise to the stop, where counter fitters would fall to the bottom rungs of society and be shunned by most.
So If i can print $50's, that are indistinguishable from the official bill, let's say this costs me $10 a bill (probably less, but lets make it interesting), I can then pay lots of people and lots of businesses, in cash, for services rendered (like ink and power to run my press). They can turn around and use that cash no problem. Please explain how this will ruin my ability to do business.
You seem to be advocating puritanical social shunnig as an economic force, which may have been a good argument when Rand was writing (though she seems to disaprove of puritanism in general), but in the world of seemless anonymous world wide commerce I fail to see how you think that agrument holds any water.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
TheKen
User Karma: 4
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/22 02:14On the topic of counterfeiting, I think I may have to disagree with maf. I don't think printing counterfeit money should be regulated whatsoever, but if you were to actually use counterfeit money in a transaction, it would be analogous to theft of property.
Someone only agrees to give you something that they place $200 of value for if you were to give them something that they value to at least $200. Money is just a placeholder for something of value at a later date. So when you don't give the person the $200 you mutually agreed upon, yet took the $200 of value from them, that is theft. You broke the implied contract.
Essentially what my long winded explanation means is that when you make a deal involving money, you aren't trading a DVD player for those specific bills, you are trading a DVD player for value of currency. When one party doesn't provide the equal perceived value back, they have voided the contract and in effect stolen the DVD player - a property crime.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
dgandhi
User Karma: 1
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/22 09:24TheKen wrote: On the topic of counterfeiting, I think I may have to disagree with maf. I don't think printing counterfeit money should be regulated whatsoever, but if you were to actually use counterfeit money in a transaction, it would be analogous to theft of property.
Someone only agrees to give you something that they place $200 of value for if you were to give them something that they value to at least $200. Money is just a placeholder for something of value at a later date. So when you don't give the person the $200 you mutually agreed upon, yet took the $200 of value from them, that is theft. You broke the implied contract.
You run in to a bootstraping problem here, somebody has to print the "official" money, which is economically the same as printing bills that can pass for the "real" thing. If you CAN get a DVD player with the bill I hand you then I have not stiffed you in the exchange. This all causes inflation, but so does the official printing proccess.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
TheKen
User Karma: 4
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/22 11:04dgandhi wrote: You run in to a bootstraping problem here, somebody has to print the "official" money, which is economically the same as printing bills that can pass for the "real" thing. If you CAN get a DVD player with the bill I hand you then I have not stiffed you in the exchange. This all causes inflation, but so does the official printing proccess.
That's a completely diferent issue. I never said the state should control the money supply. My point was on if they are using an agreed upon currency (it makes no difference if they agree to use US money, Australian money, ounces of silver, etc), then using the fake money would be a property crime.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
