3 ms·

>Objectivism holds that the only social system which fully recognizes individual rights is capitalism,[72] specifically what Rand described as "full, pure, unco

by jere 14y ago

>Objectivism holds that the only social system which fully recognizes individual rights is capitalism,[72] specifically what Rand described as "full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)#Politics:_individual_rights_and_capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)#Politics... And here's a freebie from some googling: >As far as the role of government is concerned, there are laws--some of them passed in the nineteenth century--prohibiting certain kinds of pollution, such as the dumping of industrial wastes into rivers. These laws have not been enforced. It is the enforcement of such laws that those concerned with the issue may properly demand. Specific laws--forbidding specifically defined and proved harm, physical harm, to persons or property--are the only solution to problems of this kind. So perhaps Rand had nuanced views on this, but I don't hear the same nuance in her followers. And I don't see how the two quotes can be reconciled either.

javert 14y ago
Ayn Rand thought the role of government was to protect individuals from initiating force against one another. Period. If you poison the air in a way that harms someone, that constitutes initiation of force. She called the economic and political system resulting from this "laissez-faire capitalism," or more commonly just "capitalism." In context of the partial quote you gave, "unregulated" means "without economic regulations," not "without any laws." So, that's how you reconcile things. There is actually no "nuance" here at all; this stuff is all totally "black and white," clear and consistent, in her writing. You say "I don't hear the same nuance in her followers," but I'm not sure who you're actually referring to here. Objectivists are quite few and far between. For example, most people in the Tea Party who are Atlas Shrugged fans don't actually understand Rand on an intellectual level.
- sophacles 14y ago
  Reconcile your weird semantics of "laws" and "regulation" with the constant screams of "oh no regulation" every time there is an attempt to pass laws preventing harm to people?
  - javert 14y ago
    There are no semantic oddities. It's just that "regulation" is context dependent, even in everyday English. When people scream "oh no regulation," they mean "no rights-violating/improper laws," but there are other cases where "regulation" just means "laws." It's not as if Rand claimed to be "against regulation" and left it as that, which would be pointless and sloppy. In talking about politics, as elsewhere, she was extremely precise: the point of the government is to protect the individual from the initiation of force. Force is also well-defined in her work, and it includes poisoning someone.
    - sophacles 14y ago
      So is a law banning certain allergens from food a regulation or a protection from violence for those to whom the allergen is poison? What about law requiring those who give others food to warn them about potential allergens? What about a law requiring that warning to be stated in a clear, easy to read manner (rather than hidden fine print)? (say the allergen is soy, which is not an obvious ingredient in say, ice cream, yet is present in a lot of ice creams). The line isn't so clear as you pretend.
      - javert 14y ago
        I don't know what point of mine you are trying to disagree with, or what you are getting at. You seem to be missing the forest for the trees. Everything you have asked about has a very straightforward answer, but you lack the philosophical context to see that. It's like asking a chemist to explain molecular bonds, when you don't even know that atoms exist. As I've said, the proper principle of government is to protect individuals from the initiation of force by others. Since the reasons for this principle are out of the scope of this discussion, yes, you could certainly find some way to appear to pick on it and score points, yet actually fail to do so successfully. Nonetheless, correctly applying this principle means that if something is always a poison to everyone, it's not a legitimate product. There is no legitimate use. Producing it and selling it is simply initiating force. On the other hand, if something is a legitimate food, it's fine to sell it. There is a separate question about allergens. It is an allergic person's responsibility to make sure they don't ingest allergens. The government forcing people to label things is an initiation of force and a violation of rights. Absent such regulation, there would still be plenty of food producers who make information about food content publicly available, since it is needed by their customers who have allergies, and for other reasons. In the cases where food producers do not publish their ingredients (in which case, probably nobody should consume the food...), people with allergies would just be out of luck.

by jere 14y ago

javert 14y ago

Ayn Rand thought the role of government was to protect individuals from initiating force against one another. Period. If you poison the air in a way that harms someone, that constitutes initiation of force. She called the economic and political system resulting from this "laissez-faire capitalism," or more commonly just "capitalism." In context of the partial quote you gave, "unregulated" means "without economic regulations," not "without any laws." So, that's how you reconcile things. There is actually no "nuance" here at all; this stuff is all totally "black and white," clear and consistent, in her writing. You say "I don't hear the same nuance in her followers," but I'm not sure who you're actually referring to here. Objectivists are quite few and far between. For example, most people in the Tea Party who are Atlas Shrugged fans don't actually understand Rand on an intellectual level.

sophacles 14y ago
Reconcile your weird semantics of "laws" and "regulation" with the constant screams of "oh no regulation" every time there is an attempt to pass laws preventing harm to people?
- javert 14y ago
  There are no semantic oddities. It's just that "regulation" is context dependent, even in everyday English. When people scream "oh no regulation," they mean "no rights-violating/improper laws," but there are other cases where "regulation" just means "laws." It's not as if Rand claimed to be "against regulation" and left it as that, which would be pointless and sloppy. In talking about politics, as elsewhere, she was extremely precise: the point of the government is to protect the individual from the initiation of force. Force is also well-defined in her work, and it includes poisoning someone.
  - sophacles 14y ago
    So is a law banning certain allergens from food a regulation or a protection from violence for those to whom the allergen is poison? What about law requiring those who give others food to warn them about potential allergens? What about a law requiring that warning to be stated in a clear, easy to read manner (rather than hidden fine print)? (say the allergen is soy, which is not an obvious ingredient in say, ice cream, yet is present in a lot of ice creams). The line isn't so clear as you pretend.
    - javert 14y ago
      I don't know what point of mine you are trying to disagree with, or what you are getting at. You seem to be missing the forest for the trees. Everything you have asked about has a very straightforward answer, but you lack the philosophical context to see that. It's like asking a chemist to explain molecular bonds, when you don't even know that atoms exist. As I've said, the proper principle of government is to protect individuals from the initiation of force by others. Since the reasons for this principle are out of the scope of this discussion, yes, you could certainly find some way to appear to pick on it and score points, yet actually fail to do so successfully. Nonetheless, correctly applying this principle means that if something is always a poison to everyone, it's not a legitimate product. There is no legitimate use. Producing it and selling it is simply initiating force. On the other hand, if something is a legitimate food, it's fine to sell it. There is a separate question about allergens. It is an allergic person's responsibility to make sure they don't ingest allergens. The government forcing people to label things is an initiation of force and a violation of rights. Absent such regulation, there would still be plenty of food producers who make information about food content publicly available, since it is needed by their customers who have allergies, and for other reasons. In the cases where food producers do not publish their ingredients (in which case, probably nobody should consume the food...), people with allergies would just be out of luck.