Ayn Randian Ethics

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You're confusing said captains with thieves and exploiters, as if there is no difference.

They've been making it awfully easy.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Sorry I’ve wandered. Here’s the simple truth of why Rand’s philosophy is far superior to that of Marx (not to mention diametrically opposed, unbeknownst to the moron you quoted earlier) … one that is so easily overlooked by the armchair CEO: No entrepreneur; no company.

Oh for god's sake. The commenter noted that the two, although obviously on opposite ends politically - an obviousness so obvious it did not need to be pointed out - the nature of their prediction and quality of solution had something in common. Pointing out that the two's views are, of course, ideologically "diametrically opposed" doesn't address that point at all.

For example: today's extreme right and surviving communists in Europe are ideologically at opposite ends of the spectrum (and please dont go Jonah Goldberg on me on that one). On most every major issue of the day - from immigration and integration to taxes and welfare - they are right across from each other. And yet it's easy and valid to find parallels between them, in the nature of their rhetoric, the target groups whose fears and resentments they address, the way they look at the established powers that be, and in the intolerant and dogmatic manifestations of their ideology.

That's the kind of comparison the commenter was making here, and it takes a certain bullheadedness to just bulldozer over that with a treatise about how Marxism and Randism are diametrically opposed in general. I mean, sorry, but do'h .. and?

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Taxing production has to be the single dumbest solution ever conceived. And guess what? You can blame Conservatives/Republicans AND Liberals/Democrats for that. Mr. Smith would never have approved of either.

I don't recall, from my reading of The Wealth of Nations, that Adam Smith ever addressed that subject. Where did you find it?

I assume, of course, that you've also read The Wealth of Nations (both volumes -- not the abridged versions). After all, you certainly wouldn't attempt to characterize Smith's position without having read his book.

There's actually 5 books in the series, Joe. But I'm sure you knew that and were just testing me, right? Sorry I don't remember Book, Chapter or Verse... but his point was abundantly clear: Something to the effect of direct taxes on labor cause the prices of consumer products to go up, AND the demand for labor to go down. He thought the idea ridiculous and favored a tax on the goods themselves, so as not to deter business or the demand for labor.

Ah, I see. Your use of the term "production" was confusing, since you seem to be using it interchangeably with "labor," which Adam Smith, as far as I know, never did. "Production" is simply an act of producing something, which may or may not involve labor. For instance, contributing capital is part of the process of production, but it involves no labor. Smith didn't say "production" when he meant "labor" because he already had a perfectly good term for "labor:" he called it "labour."

But then he didn't talk about taxing "labor" any more than he talked about taxing "production" because it would be nearly impossible to tax either. He did, however, talk about taxing the wages of labor. That would be fairly easy to do, since wages (unlike "production" or "labor") are easily quantifiable. Likewise, products can be taxed, but not the act of production itself.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I'm sorry you don't recall it, but I promise it's there.

Well, if Smith actually talks about "taxing production," I'd appreciate it if you could find that for me.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

You're confusing said captains with thieves and exploiters, as if there is no difference.

There's a difference?

Modern Corporate structure in America is economic feudalism. Those at the top have no problem convincing themselves that they are 'worth' the exploitation and thievery.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Quote:
There's actually 5 books in the series, Joe. But I'm sure you knew that and were just testing me, right? Sorry I don't remember Book, Chapter or Verse... but his point was abundantly clear: Something to the effect of direct taxes on labor cause the prices of consumer products to go up, AND the demand for labor to go down.

Occom Bill -- you know how much I despise an exchange of arguments, and how much I hate to contradict you. But the principles of taxation you are putting forward are not Adam Smith's, they are somebody else's. Adam Smith clearly states four maxims of proper taxation, and the very first of them is that taxes be in proportion to someone's income. You can use Adam Smith as an authority against a progressive income tax if you want.But you cannot use him as an authority against every conceivable form of income tax. The following excerpt, from his chapter on the Sources of the General or Public Revenue of the Society , practically calls for a (flat) income tax, which would in practice work out as a tax on labor and thrift today.

Adam Smith wrote:
I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN21.html

I think you need to read that chapter again (and the excerpt I quoted from it.) It is clear that Smith thought subjects of every state ought to contribute in proportion to the protection they enjoy from the state, however, this in NO WAY suggests, let alone calls for, a flat tax on Income. He pointedly described a direct tax on labor as “absurd and destructive”, and described why rather thoroughly.
Heres a broader quote that further demonstrates his dislike of direct taxes on labor:

Adam Smith wrote:

The ordinary or average price of provisions determines the quantity of money which must be paid to the workman in order to enable him, one year with another, to purchase this liberal, moderate, or scanty subsistence. While the demand for labour and the price of provisions, therefore, remain the same, a direct tax upon the wages of labour can have no other effect than to raise them somewhat higher than the tax. Let us suppose, for example, that in a particular place the demand for labour and the price of provisions were such as to render ten shillings a week the ordinary wages of labour, and that a tax of one-fifth, or four shillings in the pound, was imposed upon wages. If the demand for labour and the price of provisions remained the same, it would still be necessary that the labourer should in that place earn such a subsistence as could be bought only for ten shillings a week free wages. But in order to leave him such free wages after paying such a tax, the price of labour must in that place soon rise, not to twelve shillings a week only, but to twelve and sixpence; that is, in order to enable him to pay a tax of one-fifth, his wages must necessarily soon rise, not one-fifth part only, but one-fourth. Whatever was the proportion of the tax, the wages of labour must in all cases rise, not only in that proportion, but in a higher proportion. If the tax, for example, was one-tenth, the wages of labour must necessarily soon rise, not one-tenth part only, but one-eighth.
V.2.132
A direct tax upon the wages of labour, therefore, though the labourer might perhaps pay it out of his hand, could not properly be said to be even advanced by him; at least if tile demand for labour and the average price of provisions remained the same after the tax as before it. In all such cases, not only the tax but something more than the tax would in reality be advanced by the person who immediately employed him. The final payment would in different cases fall upon different persons. The rise which such a tax might occasion in the wages of manufacturing labour would be advanced by the master manufacturer, who would both be entitled and obliged to charge it, with a profit, upon the price of his goods. The final payment of this rise of wages, therefore, together with the additional profit of the master manufacturer, would fall upon the consumer. The rise which such a tax might occasion in the wages of country labour would be advanced by the farmer, who, in order to maintain the same number of labourers as before, would be obliged to employ a greater capital. In order to get back this greater capital, together with the ordinary profits of stock, it would be necessary that he should retain a larger portion, or what comes to the same thing, the price of a larger portion, of the produce of the land, and consequently that he should pay less rent to the landlord. The final payment of this rise of wages, therefore, would in this case fall upon the landlord, together with the additional profit of the farmer who had advanced it. In all cases a direct tax upon the wages of labour must, in the long-run, occasion both a greater reduction in the rent of land, and a greater rise in the price of manufactured goods, than would have followed from the proper assessment of a sum equal to the produce of the tax partly upon the rent of land, and partly upon consumable commodities.
V.2.133
In If direct taxes upon the wages of labour have not always occasioned a proportionable rise in those wages, it is because they have generally occasioned a considerable fall in the demand for labour. The declension of industry, the decrease of employment for the poor, the diminution of the annual produce of the land and labour of the country, have generally been the effects of such taxes. The consequence of them, however, the price of labour must always be higher than it otherwise would have been in the actual state of the demand: and this enhancement of price, together with the profit of those who advance it, must always be finally paid by the landlords and consumers.
V.2.134
A tax upon the wages of country labour does not raise the price of the rude produce of land in proportion to the tax, for the same reason that a tax upon the farmer's profit does not raise that price in that proportion.
V.2.135
Absurd and destructive as such taxes are, however, they take place in many countries.

I don't see how you can interpret such obvious distaste for direct taxes on labor as an endorsement of same. He went out of his way to describe the ill effects of such direct taxes against a tax on rent and the consumer goods themselves, demonstrated why it is destructive, and then came right out and called them "absurd and destructive."

In all cases, his desire to distribute the burden fairly according to the benefit received is evident; but he clearly favored taxes on rents and consumer goods over direct taxes on labor.

In today's economy; the benefits of such a taxing scheme would be immense. The entrepenur would be free to re-invest his money into furthering his enterprise, which in turn generates more dollars to be spent on rents and consumer products, eventually, by the end user. He who chooses to consume rather than reinvest in the economy at large, would pay a greater share than he who sought to expand his business. The frugal little guy could save a greater portion of his earnings, while, again, the spendthrift would pay a greater share of the burden.

The only real advantage a diret tax on labor has is it's ease of collection. He covered this as well and his his distaste is quite obvious in this consideration as well:

Adam Smith wrote:

Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labour, and are attended with all the inconveniences of such taxes.
V.2.146
Capitation taxes are levied at little expence, and, where they are rigorously exacted, afford a very sure revenue to the state. It is upon this account that in countries where the ease, comfort, and security of the inferior ranks of people are little attended to, capitation taxes are very common. It is in general, however, but a small part of the public revenue which, in a great empire, has ever been drawn from such taxes, and the greatest sum which they have ever afforded might always have been found in some other way much more convenient to the people.

Note to readers who would like to take the simplistic view and erroneously compare Smith's thoughts with Reagan's trickle down economics: It just aint so. Where Reagan sought to relieve business while taxing the labor of the little guy, Smith does no such thing. By taxing rents and consumer goods, as opposed to labor, every man of every income level gains control over how much he contributes based on his spending habits rather than his earning habits. While the little guy who chooses to consume less, whether it's out of desire or necessity, would gain an obvious advantage, so too would the big guy who chooses to further his investment in business rather than consumables for himself. This in turn creates more jobs, which in turn, inevitably, drives up wages as the number of job seekers diminishes in ratio to the number of jobs. ALL of which increases the amount of capital available to be spent on rents and consumables in the process. Hence, it is a win/win scenario for the little and big guys alike.

I believe our founding fathers well understood this principle and it wasn't until about a 100 years ago that our government lost it's collective mind in misguided greed, that ultimately has done it far more harm than it ever did good in terms of gross receipts. I am not disputing that the money needs to be raised, nor that it should be raised in proportion to one's benefit... and I even agree that those who benefit most should pay a greater percentage share. Punishing production, however, is NOT the best way to accomplish this goal. Not by a long shot.

0 Replies

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
You're confusing said captains with thieves and exploiters, as if there is no difference.

They've been making it awfully easy.

I once crashed my car in a place called Riviera Beach, FL (Among the very worst places in the country for crime per capita.) I shouldn't have been surpised, but I admit that I was; every single person who stopped or commented asked questions like, "are you okay?""Do you need me to call anyone?" You'll probably chastise me for highlighting the obvious point; but it turns out the bad apples who've tarnished the repuatation of the whole really aren't terribly representative of it.

I've known some scumbags in business myself and consider them the exceptions... NOT the rule.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Sorry I’ve wandered. Here’s the simple truth of why Rand’s philosophy is far superior to that of Marx (not to mention diametrically opposed, unbeknownst to the moron you quoted earlier) … one that is so easily overlooked by the armchair CEO: No entrepreneur; no company.

Oh for god's sake. The commenter noted that the two, although obviously on opposite ends politically - an obviousness so obvious it did not need to be pointed out - the nature of their prediction and quality of solution had something in common. Pointing out that the two's views are, of course, ideologically "diametrically opposed" doesn't address that point at all.

For example: today's extreme right and surviving communists in Europe are ideologically at opposite ends of the spectrum (and please dont go Jonah Goldberg on me on that one). On most every major issue of the day - from immigration and integration to taxes and welfare - they are right across from each other. And yet it's easy and valid to find parallels between them, in the nature of their rhetoric, the target groups whose fears and resentments they address, the way they look at the established powers that be, and in the intolerant and dogmatic manifestations of their ideology.

That's the kind of comparison the commenter was making here, and it takes a certain bullheadedness to just bulldozer over that with a treatise about how Marxism and Randism are diametrically opposed in general. I mean, sorry, but do'h .. and?
[/quote]
That is just so much nonsense Nimh. Mostly because like the person you quoted, you haven’t read the book either and apparently have no clue as to what Rand may or may not have had in common with Marx. Here, I’ll break it down for you further:

Quote:

I've always suspected that Rand, who fled to America as a result of Stalinist persecutions, at least according to her data, was a Soviet sleeper agent sowing discord in America by effectively starting a religion that raised self-satisfaction to the highest of human aspirations

What a bizarre rant about someone who’s entire philosophy glorified the things Americans were proud to compare to the Soviet’s mirror opposite (and frankly, idiotic) ways. How precisely was promoting worship of raw capitalism supposed to be sow discord in a capitalistic society and how diluted would a Soviet have to be to believe such a strategy tenable?

Quote:

and openly mocked and scorned concepts like altruism and charity; her view, enshrined in ATLAS SHRUGGED, that men of great talent should step away from society and await its inevitable collapse under the weight of its own corruption is oddly similar to Marx's conviction that communism was the natural and inevitable end result of capitalist society.

Had this idiot (or you) read the book, he’d know better than to arrive at such an absurd conclusion. In the first place; Marx thought Socialism would follow Capitalism (and in many ways was right about that… certainly should get partial credit at least) and that would lead to Communism (pity he never envisioned the veritable hell that leads to).

Secondly; Atlas Shrugged was meant as a warning NOT to let Marx’s predictions come true. There is no “odd similarity” there; it was quite intentional indeed. Further; originally, the book was slated to be titled the Strike as in, take some time off till they miss us bad enough to negotiate more fairly. Her fictional “men of great talent” weren’t hell bent on stepping away; they resisted until each determined for themselves that the collapse appeared inevitable. They stepped away because they refused to take any further active roles in their own undoing. Rand’s version of Utopia, where the “men of great talent” gathered, couldn’t possibly be any further from communism… and indeed it was the wish of that collective to return sanity (purer capitalism) to the country once the country collectively realized how inept the parasitical bureaucrats were without the individual minds who made the country run.

When they tried to share his mind, equally, leaving him only an equal share for himself; John Galt revolted and vowed to stop the motor of the world… and did. Cartoonish? Yep. Are there some mighty fine lessons to be learned therein? You bet your ass.

Anyway: Capitalism… to bureaucratic incompetency (insert whichever kind of anti-capitalism nonsense you like here; it all works (doesn’t work) the same)… back to Capitalism. Rand believed that the most capitalistic persons rise to the top of every “ism” anyway, so it’s just foolish not to work with what comes natural. Does that sound even remotely similar to Marxist Theory to you? (Of course not.)

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Taxing production has to be the single dumbest solution ever conceived. And guess what? You can blame Conservatives/Republicans AND Liberals/Democrats for that. Mr. Smith would never have approved of either.

I don't recall, from my reading of The Wealth of Nations, that Adam Smith ever addressed that subject. Where did you find it?

I assume, of course, that you've also read The Wealth of Nations (both volumes -- not the abridged versions). After all, you certainly wouldn't attempt to characterize Smith's position without having read his book.

There's actually 5 books in the series, Joe. But I'm sure you knew that and were just testing me, right? Sorry I don't remember Book, Chapter or Verse... but his point was abundantly clear: Something to the effect of direct taxes on labor cause the prices of consumer products to go up, AND the demand for labor to go down. He thought the idea ridiculous and favored a tax on the goods themselves, so as not to deter business or the demand for labor.

Ah, I see. Your use of the term "production" was confusing, since you seem to be using it interchangeably with "labor," which Adam Smith, as far as I know, never did. "Production" is simply an act of producing something, which may or may not involve labor. For instance, contributing capital is part of the process of production, but it involves no labor. Smith didn't say "production" when he meant "labor" because he already had a perfectly good term for "labor:" he called it "labour."

But then he didn't talk about taxing "labor" any more than he talked about taxing "production" because it would be nearly impossible to tax either. He did, however, talk about taxing the wages of labor. That would be fairly easy to do, since wages (unlike "production" or "labor") are easily quantifiable. Likewise, products can be taxed, but not the act of production itself.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I'm sorry you don't recall it, but I promise it's there.

Well, if Smith actually talks about "taxing production," I'd appreciate it if you could find that for me.

In other words; since Bill's now provided Book, Chapter, and Verse... rising to and meeting Joe's challenge; Joe feels like he needs to bob and weave behind some petty word games to pretend he wasn't caught. Not fun Joe.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

In other words; since Bill's now provided Book, Chapter, and Verse... rising to and meeting Joe's challenge; Joe feels like he needs to bob and weave behind some petty word games to pretend he wasn't caught. Not fun Joe.

I hate to puncture your pathetic little fantasy, O'BILL, but contrary to your claim you didn't provide "book, chapter, and verse" showing that Adam Smith said anything regarding "taxing production." Your excerpt from TWON talked about taxing wages, not production. I know that Smith talked about that -- remember, I'm the one here who has actually read TWON -- and if you had claimed "Smith didn't like taxing wages" I wouldn't have said anything. As it is, however, you still haven't provided any evidence that Smith disapproved of taxing "production." Your post, therefore, was irrelevant to my query. I still await some evidence that Smith had any opinions regarding the taxation of production.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

I have neither time for, nor interest in, your word games Joe. My point was clear enough and I remain convinced that Smith would have concurred. I chose words favored by Rand (which you probably recognized, but enjoy being disagreeable too much to accept) while making my point. So what? It shouldn’t surprise you that in drafting my opinion; I didn’t choose exactly the same words as a Scotsman chose to use a quarter of a millennia ago. Since you’ve now admitted your complaint was a misunderstanding (or pedantic nonsense from the onset), there is no further need to discuss it. Frankly, I am a thousand times more interested in Thomas’s substantive disagreement than I am your petty, pedantic, substitute for same.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Rand’s version of Utopia, where the “men of great talent” gathered, couldn’t possibly be any further from communism…

As I said before, pointing out that the political ends of Randism (for lack of a better word) and Marxism are obviously diametrically opposed does not address in any way the observation that the nature of their prediction and quality of solution had something in common. You can have opposite ends but go about achieving them in similar ways, or look at the existing system's ambiguities with, for example, a similar ideological rigidity.

A desire for a "more pure" system, an affirmative prediction that the current system is bound to end in a big kaladeradatsh and that the right people, the select few who know better, should just wait and remain uninvolved as the system collapses, so its downfall will pave the way for an ideological utopia of some sorts ... well, et cetera ad infinitum; utopians with a certain ruthlessness can share all kinds of characteristics, methods etc, even as their ideology and desired end point of development are diametrically opposed; and their similarities are often telling.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You'll probably chastise me for highlighting the obvious point; but it turns out the bad apples who've tarnished the repuatation of the whole really aren't terribly representative of it.

The current collapse of the financial system and the revelation of the sheer greed-driven recklessness and irresponsability that gradually came to undermine it is not a question of "a few bad apples". That's just naive.

Just like it's terribly naive to point to the fact that someone is personally friendly and helpful when encountered on the street as some kind of purported evidence that he can't have been behind criminally reckless, callous or megalomaniac acts within the echo chamber of his work. The British noblemen and industrialists were always extremely polite in any interpersonal communication, but they still funded and fuelled the British Empire into subjugating various colonies with the utmost brutality.

I mean, seriously, historical analogies that will be debated in turn aside, surely you can see this. Arguing that the captains of industry or finance can't possibly be thieves or exploiters because they are so friendly when they come across you when your car is stranded is just an enormous nonsequitur, isn't it? I'm sure that if Madoff had passed by, he would have been very friendly to you too. And?

1 Reply

@nimh,

OK NEVER MIND I totally misread your first paragraph so please disregard the nonsense in those last two paras.

(I tried to delete the post, but it's too late. I should get some sleep.)

1 Reply

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

As I said before, pointing out that the political ends of Randism (for lack of a better word) and Marxism are obviously diametrically opposed does not address in any way the observation that the nature of their prediction and quality of solution had something in common.

Except they had nothing in common, Nimh. Nothing. Her fictional characters fought the system, individually, until defeat looked inevitable. They didn't seek control, rather, they sought freedom from it. That they eventually gave up when collapse appeared imminent is no eerie coincidence either; it is the inevitable conclusion of a rational mind.

I think you are trying too hard to lend your own well thought out theories to that poster’s ignorant rambling.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I have neither time for, nor interest in, your word games Joe.

Or, in other words, O'BILL feels like he needs to bob and weave behind some petty word games to pretend he wasn't caught. Not fun O'BILL.

1 Reply

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

OK NEVER MIND I totally misread your first paragraph so please disregard the nonsense in those last two paras.

(I tried to delete the post, but it's too late. I should get some sleep.)

Okay, I won't.

You know; if you want to characterize the government representatives as the corrupt A-holes you seem to think every CEO is; you'll get little argument from me. It just isn't fair hold every CEO in disdain because a relative few are scumbags. I'd wager most priests don't molest children either.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

0 Replies

It's only a relative few CEOs which are 'scumbags?' Really?

Perhaps not scumbags, but I would wager that a large percentage of them are interested in advancing any argument which justifies ever-increasing rises in CEO pay, at the expense of... anything, apparently.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's only a relative few CEOs which are 'scumbags?' Really?

Perhaps not scumbags, but I would wager that a large percentage of them are interested in advancing any argument which justifies ever-increasing rises in CEO pay, at the expense of... anything, apparently.

Cycloptichorn

That' is not scumbaggery, Cyclo. That's capitalism. Moreover, it is human nature. Will you now tell us that you wouldn't like a raise yourself?

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's only a relative few CEOs which are 'scumbags?' Really?

Perhaps not scumbags, but I would wager that a large percentage of them are interested in advancing any argument which justifies ever-increasing rises in CEO pay, at the expense of... anything, apparently.

Cycloptichorn

That' is not scumbaggery, Cyclo. That's capitalism. Moreover, it is human nature. Will you now tell us that you wouldn't like a raise yourself?

Not at the expense of harming my company, no, I wouldn't. See, there's more to consider than my bottom line. And it's not like I'm hurting as it is.

It seems that modern CEOs don't care what the negative effects of their high salaries are - after all, that's human nature as well, to not give a shit about the side effects, as long as you get what you want right now. Unless you've grown up, that is.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The Randian ethics is what is giving justification for the actions of culprits who were behind the current financial melt down. Ayn Rand is what I call a 'teen infatuation' philosopher i.e. it also appealed to me when I was a kid and knew nothing. It is a low level self-gratification and justification for immature acts. It is stone-age philosophy. A modern analogy would be a car with only a powerful engine with no steering, brakes, gears, carburation, or fuel injection. It is a start and stop operation. Ayn Rand was fixated on motive i.e what motivates us to action. True, selfish is the primary motive as much as the engine in a car is the motive power. But you you need more than an engine to get around similarly you need more than selfishness to steer around in modern society. You need controls. Steering wheel, brakes, gears, carburator or fuel injection are controls. Adam Smith is no philosopher for he misses the point that division of labor is itself a regulation. His theory is based on the improved production thru specialized skilled labor which means certification and training. Regulations are controls.

0 Replies

Ayn Randian Ethics

Related Topics