3 ms·

With the anti-regulatory view Ayn Randians have it most certainly would lead to a heads I win tails you lose style of capitalism. A wild west approach to capit

With the anti-regulatory view Ayn Randians have it most certainly would lead to a heads I win tails you lose style of capitalism. A wild west approach to capitalism would be disastrous. A society without proper regulation of corporations (especially ones as rich and powerful as currently exist in the world) would be a horrible one to live in. Virtually all regulations are based on nonobjective standards, meaning that businessmen must constantly defer to the judgment of bureaucrats. The above is the from the Ayn Rand institute. https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/regulations/Regulatory-Strangulation https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/regul...

mistermann 9y ago
> With the anti-regulatory view Ayn Randians have it most certainly would lead to a heads I win tails you lose style of capitalism. That sounds a hell of a lot like the system we have today. Wall street has a great run and pockets all the money, then boom and they get bailed out by the taxpayer. I don't know who "Ayn Randians" are, but they certainly aren't followers of her original writing. I consider myself a bit of an an old school Randian, and if I was running the show most people on Wall Street would be scared shitless, because a lot of them would be going to prison. But then, perhaps she was less than honest, she was drinking buddies with Alan Greenspan, who I think is a criminal of the highest order. > A wild west approach to capitalism would be disastrous. Completely agree. > Virtually all regulations are based on nonobjective standards, meaning that businessmen must constantly defer to the judgment of bureaucrats. I agree with that more or less. People on the left tend to disagree with this because they want to regulate according to their personal beliefs, as if they were passed down from god. Personally, I'm more than happy to negotiate a compromise, but I sure don't get that feeling from today's left. I don't think a lot of Rand's beliefs stand up to the test of time, or would be pragmatic in today's world - philosophy should change with the times. But an example of one of her beliefs that I disagree with is the FDA - while I think it has more power than it should, if I recall correctly she believed it should be abolished entirely. Not that this is impossible or would be the end of the world, but I consider it sub-optimal, considering the dishonesty of westerners. But then, we didn't used to be this dishonest either. She also had a tendency to put principle before pragmatism, I disagree somewhat with that as well. One should be fairly open minded about these sorts of things.

mistermann 9y ago

> With the anti-regulatory view Ayn Randians have it most certainly would lead to a heads I win tails you lose style of capitalism. That sounds a hell of a lot like the system we have today. Wall street has a great run and pockets all the money, then boom and they get bailed out by the taxpayer. I don't know who "Ayn Randians" are, but they certainly aren't followers of her original writing. I consider myself a bit of an an old school Randian, and if I was running the show most people on Wall Street would be scared shitless, because a lot of them would be going to prison. But then, perhaps she was less than honest, she was drinking buddies with Alan Greenspan, who I think is a criminal of the highest order. > A wild west approach to capitalism would be disastrous. Completely agree. > Virtually all regulations are based on nonobjective standards, meaning that businessmen must constantly defer to the judgment of bureaucrats. I agree with that more or less. People on the left tend to disagree with this because they want to regulate according to their personal beliefs, as if they were passed down from god. Personally, I'm more than happy to negotiate a compromise, but I sure don't get that feeling from today's left. I don't think a lot of Rand's beliefs stand up to the test of time, or would be pragmatic in today's world - philosophy should change with the times. But an example of one of her beliefs that I disagree with is the FDA - while I think it has more power than it should, if I recall correctly she believed it should be abolished entirely. Not that this is impossible or would be the end of the world, but I consider it sub-optimal, considering the dishonesty of westerners. But then, we didn't used to be this dishonest either. She also had a tendency to put principle before pragmatism, I disagree somewhat with that as well. One should be fairly open minded about these sorts of things.