Objections to Objectivism

@etherguant,

Haha, Randian 'government'. Before we start talking about that, try to get one of them to explain how they're not anarchists. It's pretty funny. They're anarchists, but only when it comes to big government, for some reason it's perfectly fine for egotistical corporate CEO's to wield as much power as they want. After affirming the CEO's right to wield as much power over others as he can get his hands on, they turn around and say that any kind of government restriction of this power is infringing on their civil liberties.

Contradiction anyone?

0 Replies

@etherguant,

etherguant;154276 wrote:

What are your arguments against the existence of the type of government proposed by Ayn Rand and her Ilk.

How about you give us either your argument for or against Ayn Rand's government, and then we will respond to what you write. Obviously, since you have started a thread, you must have some thoughts on the subject.

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

I'm wondering about the phrase "and her ilk"

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;154540 wrote:

I'm wondering about the phrase "and her ilk"

So am I. "Ilk" is a little tendentious.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Ilk is simply a more interesting word than kind I don't believe that it has negative connotations.

If you want to ask about my personal philosophy do so here
http://www.philosophyforum.com/lounge/general-discussion/8448-whats-my-personal-philosophy.html

2 Replies

@etherguant,

Lol sorry Ether, was not an attempt at disrespect. I have been very interested in motive of word choice recently. Ilk does normally carry a negative connotation in common usage, although it may by defenition mean kind. By using 'ilk' the average reader is likely to think that not only do you disagree with Rand, but that you find her contemptable. Actual contempt elicits curiosity by the implication of potential drama, and although this is a philosophy forum, it is still a forum and drama is an integral part of its communal draw as an entertainment medium. The word choice is most likely why you have recieved the replies to this thread that you have.

0 Replies

@etherguant,

etherguant;154548 wrote:

Ilk is simply a more interesting word than kind I don't believe that it has negative connotations.

If you want to ask about my personal philosophy do so here
http://www.philosophyforum.com/lounge/general-discussion/8448-whats-my-personal-philosophy.html

It certainly does have a negative connotation. Look it up.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

If you are for rand than I meant ilk offensively, if you are against rand than I meant Ilk ironically.

To make things simpler let's say the specific brand of objectovism your arguing against is for involuntary taxation to support the military, police and courts to defend everyone from force and fraud. Objectovists for voluntary taxation are anarchists.

0 Replies

@etherguant,

Beyond trivialities about connotations, does anyone have thoughts on the topic ?

1 Reply

@etherguant,

@amist: While etherguant is chasing a less snide meaning for "ilk", you can look up "nescience" that so aptly describes your knowledge of the Objectivist politics. And while you're at it, grasp the difference between "egoism" and "egotism". Then fathom the fact that the "power" of economic incentives is the antonym of the "power" of physical force.

Rand's unique brand of radical laissez-faire capitalism was derived as a logical consequence of her commitment to an egoist ethics that is a direct consequence of recognizing that man by nature survives and thrives solely via the application of his reason to his actions in the service of life. Since the freedom to do that can only be infringed on by physical force, governments need only one assignment - to remove physical force from human interrelationships by guaranteeing that

No person may initiate the use of physical force or threat thereof to gain, withhold, or destroy any tangible or intangible value owned by another person who created it or acquired it in a voluntary exchange.

That is to say, that all human interrelationships shall be voluntarily entered into. That is to say also, that no one can contradict this principle without implicitly justifying the use of physical coercion to take values from some persons by force in order to give them to others - a position that is the politics of statism and the morality of thieves.

1 Reply

@MichaelM,

Rand and lassaiz-faire types fail to recognize the existence of economic coercion and that it can be as brutal and stupid as the physical violence that she does condemn.

0 Replies

@jimkass,

well would not a government that recognizes individual rights be a good thing ?

It is

0 Replies

@etherguant,

@Deckard

There is no such thing as "economic coercion". The force alleged to be economic in that concept is only a metaphor for "undue influence." In a society that prohibits actual or threatened physical force, the option to walk away from an offered exchange is never closed, and no one may be forced to offer a value in exchange.

An economic action is one in which two parties voluntarily offer each other something they value less in exchange for something they value more. when such exchanges are completed, both parties will have profited. Exchanges are generated by two parties placing different values on each of the items being exchanged due to their particular differing circumstances. If force (coercion) is exercised in an exchange of values, it ceases to be an economic act and becomes an act of aggression.

What you are asserting is that anyone's offer of an owned value at a particular price or failure to offer a value can be converted into an act of aggression merely by some other person's need for a lower price or greater value.

All thieves and murderers perceive some need they cannot figure out how to solve in any other way, and that need is their personal justification for taking action by force against others who do not volunteer to fulfill that need on their terms.

2 Replies

@MichaelM,

MichaelM;155360 wrote:

@Deckard

There is no such thing as "economic coercion". The force alleged to be economic in that concept is only a metaphor for "undue influence." In a society that prohibits actual or threatened physical force, the option to walk away from an offered exchange is never closed, and no one may be forced to offer a value in exchange.

An economic action is one in which two parties voluntarily offer each other something they value less in exchange for something they value more. when such exchanges are completed, both parties will have profited. Exchanges are generated by two parties placing different values on each of the items being exchanged due to their particular differing circumstances. If force (coercion) is exercised in an exchange of values, it ceases to be an economic act and becomes an act of aggression.

What you are asserting is that anyone's offer of an owned value at a particular price or failure to offer a value can be converted into an act of aggression merely by some other person's need for a lower price or greater value.

How does the one party acquire the thing of value in the first place? How did that party become the "owner" of that commodity?
What constitutes legitimate ownership?

1 Reply

@etherguant,

One can only own that which is a product of one's own reason and effort. Matter, as such, cannot be owned by anyone, since no one created it. Material objects may be justifiably claimed as someone's possessions if and when they embody the product of that person's reason and effort.

For instance, that is the principle behind the homesteading of land. No one owns the earth, but the improvements to it are the product of applied reason and effort, so the land to which that product adds value is justifiably possessed by the improver.

2 Replies

@MichaelM,

MichaelM;155525 wrote:

One can only own that which is a product of one's own reason and effort. Matter, as such, cannot be owned by anyone, since no one created it. Material objects may be justifiably claimed as someone's possessions if and when they embody the product of that person's reason and effort.

For instance, that is the principle behind the homesteading of land. No one owns the earth, but the improvements to it are the product of applied reason and effort, so the land to which that product adds value is justifiably possessed by the improver.

So, for example, if a factory owner hires some laborers at subsistence wages and those laborers put their reason and effort into producing widgets then said laborers have at least partial ownership of the widgets and certainly more ownership than the owner of the factory who has been sitting on his ass all day. I agree.

0 Replies

@etherguant,

No. The factory owner offers a particular wage for a particular amount and type of application of reason and effort. The worker voluntarily contracts with the factory to provide the reason and effort in exchange for the wage.

The factory owner values the labor more than the wage. The worker values the wage more than the labor. Each gives up something valued less to gain something valued more.

It is an act of unmitigated arrogance for any other human being to interfere with the choices of the two parties in valuing that which is being exchanged. You may not decide for the worker whether the wage is just or not. That is his decision alone. If he judges it unjust he will be, in a free society, free to not accept it.

There can be no "just" wage or price other than that to which the parties of an exchange voluntarily agree.

1 Reply

@Deckard,

Deckard;155471 wrote:

How does the one party acquire the thing of value in the first place? How did that party become the "owner" of that commodity?
What constitutes legitimate ownership?

By working for it? By risking for it? By inheriting it from those who worked for it?

But here is a bit of nonsense for you if you like blank ammunition:

If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder!, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required . . . Why, then, to this other question: What is property? may I not likewise answer, It is robbery!, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first?
-Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, What is Property?

0 Replies

@MichaelM,

MichaelM;155547 wrote:

No. The factory owner offers a particular wage for a particular amount and type of application of reason and effort. The worker voluntarily contracts with the factory to provide the reason and effort in exchange for the wage.

The factory owner values the labor more than the wage. The worker values the wage more than the labor. Each gives up something valued less to gain something valued more.

It is an act of unmitigated arrogance for any other human being to interfere with the choices of the two parties in valuing that which is being exchanged. You may not decide for the worker whether the wage is just or not. That is his decision alone. If he judges it unjust he will be, in a free society, free to not accept it.

There can be no "just" wage or price other than that to which the parties of an exchange voluntarily agree.

Exactly. Value is strictly determined by the parties involved in the transaction.

The labor theory of value is a rather simple-minded attempt to justify third party (i.e. the government's) intervention in transaction between two individuals so that wages and prices may be set by that entity.

Yet another tool for the soulless minions of collectivist orthodoxy.:bigsmile-sun:

0 Replies

Objections to Objectivism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know