Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddhism and Objectivism
Hello there. I absolutely love Ayn Rand's books. If there any more lovers of this author and her philosophy, I was about to find out something. What do fellow Buddhists think of this philosophy and how do you think it ties with Buddhism? Discuss! 
0
Comments
Objectivity? See my sig. :]
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/
Resource!
Jeff Walker, a biographer, found this entry in one of her personal journals: "One puts oneself above all and crushes everything in one's way to get the best for oneself. Fine!" To me, that's the core of Objectivism. Of course, publicly she put it more poetically. In Atlas Shrugged, for example, she writes, "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
Same idea, but the latter is far more attractive. Hell, I'd even agree with it if I didn't understand what it actually boiled down to!
I agree with Rand to a certain extent about personal responsibility and the idea that we're responsible for making good decisions and should reap the fruits of our labour. But I also think that, as a society, we have a collective responsibility to one another as well. We should work together in the spirit of social cooperation, helping each other make good decisions along the way in support of the common good.
For what it's worth, I don't see one political ideology or philosophy as inherently right or wrong, I've simply sided with the one I think is geared more towards taking the needs of society as its primary focus. I used to be more of an individualist, but for whatever reason I found myself unable to not take the needs and suffering of others into consideration, which is why I've come to adopt more socialist-leaning views. Everyone's mileage may vary, of course.
As a side note, I think Edward Bellamy humourously illustrates the ideological difference between individualism and socialism quite well in his 1887 utopian novel, Looking Backward, when he writes:
The mystery was explained when we found ourselves on the street, for a continuous waterproof covering had been let down so as to inclose the sidewalk and turn it into a well lighted and perfectly dry corridor, which was filled with a stream of ladies and gentlemen dressed for dinner. At the comers the entire open space was similarly roofed in. Edith Leete, with whom I walked, seemed much interested in learning what appeared to be entirely new to her, that in the stormy weather the streets of the Boston of my day had been impassable, except to persons protected by umbrellas, boots, and heavy clothing. "Were sidewalk coverings not used at all?" she asked. They were used, I explained, but in a scattered and utterly unsystematic way, being private enterprises. She said to me that at the present time all the streets were provided against inclement weather in the manner I saw, the apparatus being rolled out of the way when it was unnecessary. She intimated that it would be considered an extraordinary imbecility to permit the weather to have any effect on the social movements of the people.
Dr. Leete, who was walking ahead, overhearing something of our talk, turned to say that the difference between the age of individualism and that of concert was well characterized by the fact that, in the nineteenth century, when it rained, the people of Boston put up three hundred thousand umbrellas over as many heads, and in the twentieth century they put up one umbrella over all the heads.
As we walked on, Edith said, "The private umbrella is father's favorite figure to illustrate the old way when everybody lived for himself and his family. There is a nineteenth century painting at the Art Gallery representing a crowd of people in the rain, each one holding his umbrella over himself and his wife, and giving his neighbors the drippings, which he claims must have been meant by the artist as a satire on his times."
a group doesnt actually exist. a group is made up of multiple individuals. individuals are the basic component and when you start whittling away at the foundation of something it inevitably crumbles.
what i took away from atlas shrugged is that if you do whats best for you then you will inevitably be doing whats best for others.
But the same argument can also be said about individuals who do what's best for themselves and, in the process, take away or infringe upon the rights of other individuals. In addition, the question must be raised, What are 'rights' and where do they come from? I'd argue, for example, that rights are the product of social agreement and endeavour. Without some type of guarantee or protection, the very idea of rights is effectively meaningless.
This is little more than sophistry. It's like saying there's no city, state, country, etc., only individual citizens; no family, only individual family members; no human being, only individual cells; etc.
It sounds good in theory, but in practice it's not hard to find examples of people doing things in their 'best interest' and harming others in the process. Ideally, we want people to desire what's best for themselves and then do things that benefit themselves and society at the same time, but when you rely on greed (lobha) as a major motivating factor, many of those things will inevitably be unskillful.
Besides the idea that everything is objective is completely absurd.
Please explain how a free market society would practice compassion and reduce suffering, especially in an Objectivist/Agorist/Libertarian sense? I see a wholly free market to be essentially Social Darwinism, with a few rich philanthropists donating money.
The comment software only allows one image. Here are a <a href="http://www.angryflower.com/objectiv.html">couple</a> of <a href="http://www.angryflower.com/murgal.html">other</a> relevant cartoons.
bob the flower must not have read the part of atlas shrugged where all the thinking men had founded their own utopia and were working the ground themselves.
i get it. capitalism, liberatarianism, it all seems very selfish and without compassion. but you cant be compassionate if someone is forcing you to be.
and jason, there is no city, or state or anything without the individual. the state derives its power from the individuals.
compassion is great and everyone SHOULD practice it. but theres a big difference between SHOULD and HAVE TO.
btw if you guys keep talking about this i will as well. i love debating philosphy/politics. great fun. just beforewarned at no time will i ever get mad at any of you, or think that you are personally attacking me simply because you think socialism is great. individual freedom is what im all about. even freedom i dont agree with. i only say this cause i recently argued with a friend on FB who subsequently defriended me.
OK, but try to be a little more specific, What are rights, where do they come from and how are they to be enforced?
If you say they're from God, for example, how does God prevent another individual or group from taking away your life, your freedom of expression, your property, etc.? If you look around at nature, it seems that, empirically speaking, animals (including us) seem to have the 'natural right' to take the life of other animals and their territory in order to survive. Just look at the whole of human history, and you'll see similar conflicts as well, even in the Bible, e.g., Deut 20:16-18, where God ordered the death of every man, woman and child in Canaan.
Sure, the various tribes of Canaan may have had some barbaric beliefs compared to the Israelites, and they may have been occupying land that the Isrealites considered their own, but what happened to their natural rights (especially life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness)? Either God afforded them none, which means they're highly selective, or God took them away (presumably for a good reason), which is the same thing you accuse the state/society of doing.
And if rights are simply innate, explain Somalia, which is in the mess it's in due to a variety of factors, from the collapse of its government following a bloody civil war, to foreign ships dumping nuclear waste and heavy metals off its coast and overfishing their coastal waters. Without a viable state and means of livelihood, people are resorting to piracy (taking the freedom and property of others). Do the Somalian people have the right not to have toxic waste wash up on their beaches? If so, what happened to that right? If not, why not? If people have an 'innate' right not to be deprived of their freedom and taken hostage, why aren't these hijackings 'naturally' prevented?
As for myself, I think the issue of natural rights is an intriguing subject. And while I'm not well-versed in political philosophy enough to debate the finer points of whether certain rights are something inherent to humankind or the product of government, I tend to agree with Jeremy Bentham's assessment articulated in Anarchical Fallacies:
In addition, I think Bertrand Russell makes some interesting observations in A History of Western Philosophy regarding the philosophical ideals and scientific discoveries of ancient Greek philosophers that gave rise to the modern idea of natural rights, especially those of our Founding Fathers. For example, he writes that:
And this ideal itself essentially grew out of a "refined type of error" in mathematical knowledge originating from ancient Greek thinkers, especially Pythagoras, who believed that mathematical knowledge was superior to that of empirical knowledge in that it was thought to "supply an ideal, from which every-day empirical knowledge fell short." Because of this, Pythagoras ascribed a primacy to thought over sense, and intuition over observation. Thus:
The problem, as Russell later points out, was the inherent one-sidedness in their thinking (emphasis mine):
Nevertheless, even though I tend to side with Bentham here, I also agree with Daniel Dennett, who writes in Darwin's Dangerous Idea that, "Perhaps talk of rights is nonsense upon stilts, but good nonsense." Why? Because when taken out of the context of government, the very notion of rights seems meaningless to me as government itself is the 'stilts' upon which rights stand. As I said, what are rights but the product of social agreement and endeavour? And even if, for the sake of argument, 'rights' are inherent to humanity, don't we still depend on society to make sure those rights aren't violated, and if so, redressed?
All you're saying is that you don't like the idea, so it must not be true. You'll need a better argument than that to convince me you're right.
A. Personally, I'd say that capitalism itself isn't inherently selfish and doesn't make people greedy as much as it rewards people for their selfishness and greed, but it has the same result either way. B. Nobody's forcing you to be compassionate, or even suggesting that you should be.
What I'm saying, at least, is that I find myself unable to not take the needs and suffering of others into consideration, and Buddhism has had a lot to do with this. Before I became interested in Buddhism, I was completely uninterested in political economy whatsoever. After years of studying and practicing Buddhism, however, I began to take more of an interest. This was partially due to cultivating compassion.
It became clear to me that the world was imperfect, that there is and always has been suffering in the world. I also realized that it can't be 'fixed,' but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try our best to do what we can to make things better.
Buddhism itself is compatible with pretty much any political-economic system (e.g., see Are Capitalism and Buddhism incompatible?), but the way Buddhism has affected me has lead to adopt more socialist-leaning views. As Einstein put it, "the real purpose of socialism is... to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development" (Why Socialism?), and I have a hard time not getting involved when I see what I perceive to be people being preyed upon by greed, hatred and delusion.
Another point that I think can be made is that it's in our best interest for everyone around us to be healthy, educated and not starving, and it's in the best interest of society as a whole as well. More free market-oriented people tend to argue that, while this is true, the free market is what can make this happen; however, markets generally withhold their benefits from people who can't afford to purchase them, which means that less fortunate people must rely on individuals who are not only wealthy but generous as well. In my ideal society, heathcare, education and freedom from hunger would be as 'inalienable' as the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In our state, yes, but by your own admission, that means that, paradoxically, there is no state (group), only independent individuals. But all you have to do is look around and see that the individual is anything but independent in a civil society; they depend on a number of factors for their survival, and I'd argue that one of those factors is the cooperation and mutual well-being of other individuals in that society.
Same here, and I promise I won't de-friend you over our political/philosophical differences.
Oh yeah. Problem is her economic "philosophy" is very much in vogue these days. How tuned out have you been exactly?
...just one opinion though.
that is the exact reason i gave up christianity.
i would blame a lot of the problems of somalia on foreign governments intervention including the united states. they most certainly do have the right to not have toxic waste dumped on them or anything else thats happening, which is why as a people we are supposed to hold our government to accountable for such actions. (in general terms here, i have no evidence nor am i claiming the us dumped toxic waste on somalia)
now whos using sophism. i rarely quote the writings of other men. i use my own thoughts and life experiences to come to conclusions. im not opposed to reading what others have written, just opposed to following them blindly. not saying youre definitely doing that, but thats how i read the above.
you are right that we do need a government. i will quote someone here.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
governments, societies, states are put together by the individuals that live there. the state only has powers that the individuals grant it. and in order to form such a state those people will set up its rules and regulations that THEY as INDIVIDUALS believe will make them safe and happy.
(i use caps for emphasis not yelling)
this is the basis for a free society, one in which the individuals are in charge. we do need a set of rules and regulations to insure that our rights are not infringed upon, but it is still the individual that is supposed to be in control, not the other way around.
governments only exist because individuals allow them to. individuals form governments. governments do not create individuals.
youre right i dont like the idea, and im not saying its not true. im saying it is very much true. that if you allow a government to grant you rights then that government can also take them from you. thats totalitarianism.
agreed, except with greed. greed is a bad thing and causes people to break the laws. generally speaking we prosecute criminals, rather than reward. and yes the system fails a lot when it comes to white collar crime, which is something that definitely needs to be addressed.
im glad buddhism brought you more into the political sphere. the problem i have with guaranteeing things like healthcare and food is that it creates a dependency which weakens the mind and spirit. if everything is provided then why work? and who is providing these services? how are they being compensated. no one should be denied life saving healthcare and no emergency room does, but it shouldn't be free.
awesome.
take a look at the computer technology. things get better and cheaper. why there and not in healthcare? bc the government rarely intervenes in computers. the ipod is in a near free market system with next to no rules and regulations.
any time you add on bureaucratic paperwork and regulations you increase the cost of doing business. companies have to make a profit in order to not shut down, so they raise their prices.
again, banking is one of the most heavily government regulated areas. the federal reserve, which controls all flow of money in our economy, is its self a quasi-governmental entity.
saying we have a run amok capitalist system is simply not true. the closest we have ever had was in the beginning of our country where we quickly became the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world.
Except it wasn't governments (which you say is just a bunch of individuals anyway), but private companies such as Achair Partners and Progresso that dumped tonnes of toxic waste off of Somalia's coast because it was cheaper than disposing of it properly. So my questions for you are, How is the US responsible for that? and If rights are innate, then why wasn't this violation of their rights 'naturally' prevented? Could it be that they didn't have a stable and viable government to enforce these rights?
Simply utilizing sources to support a particular point of view isn't sophism; sophism, in the sense that I'm using it, is a deceptive argument. And if you think I'm not thinking for myself, you're greatly mistaken.
And none of that negates my point that rights are better understood as the product of social agreement and endeavour. Governments are composed of individuals, and a consensus among those individuals, as a collective group, is generally where we acquire these "rules and regulations" we live by. My argument is that, if right were truly innate, we wouldn't need things like law enforcement and courts, which is one aspect of governance. In other words, without someone to protect them, you're so-called 'natural rights' are effectively meaningless. If you disagree, please tell me what rights are, where they come from and how nature protects your rights (especially on a global scale) without the assistance of some human institution.
Then please tell me what rights are, where they come from and how nature protects your rights (especially on a global scale) without the assistance of some human institution.
And while you're at it, think about this. At one time, people in this country thought it was a right to own property, including other people. A bunch of individuals agreed about this, and this belief was codified into law. And the institution of slavery greatly contributed to the the early success of the US due to the huge source of cheap labour. Then, later on, a civil war broke out, which was due in no small part to this issue, and the law was changed so that people were no longer given the right to own another person as property. If what you're saying is true, then we can argue that the abolition of slavery was the result of totalitarianism.
Of course, you can argue that it was the state, or the group of wannabe slave owners that composed the state, that took away the rights of the African slaves in the first place, but I think this raises a few dilemmas.
The first is that many Africans were sold into slavery by other Africans (individuals), so it wasn't simply the state that took away these supposedly natural rights, it was individuals treating others as commodities (free market) as well.
The second is about property rights and the ideas of private ownership, and far these extend, which is closely tied into the first. (For example, I'd say that the reason slavery is no longer as prevalent in the US is that we've agreed people aren't to be treated as property via the government, as well as by popular consensus.)
The third is the question, How is it possible to take away the rights of someone if those rights are natural and innate? If they can be taken away, they're not very inalienable are they?
Except capitalism arguably runs better on greed, especially in the form of 'maximization of profit,' than compassion. I think this argument is summed up well by Walter Williams in his article, "The Virtue of Greed":
Nonsense. The French, for example, have excellent universal healthcare, and they're very spirited and hard working in general. The same applies the every other wealthy, industrialized nation besides the US. Unless, of course, you really think that the Brits, the Canadians, the Germans, the Finns, the Spaniards, the Swiss, etc. are just a bunch of spiritless deadbeats.
As for these universal healthcare systems themselves, I think they've proven to be quite efficient and reliable.
And many, including myself, would argue that regulation are a good thing. I'd argue that a combination of deregulation and lax regulatory oversight on the part of the government contributed to the collapse in the banking industry, e.g., the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act, the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act and the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (which technically didn't deregulate anything, but did prevent the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from regulating most over-the-counter derivative contracts, including credit default swap), etc.
To be even more specific (I've had this conversation before), I think that stricter regulations and oversight on the part of the government could have prevented the current financial crisis by preventing 'too big to fail' companies in the financial sector from getting into such unstable positions in the first place.
Let's take AIG, for example. It's rather complicated to explain exactly what happened with AIG, but the bottom line is that AIG's financial sector was paid by investment companies to back up securities that were in turn backed by pieces of mortgages. AIG effectively promised to make up the difference if the investments failed. So where did they go wrong?
It seems that AIG, thanks in part to Gary Gorton, the finance professor who designed AIG's risk models, figured that being paid to take on these risks was "free money" because they never thought they'd have to make any payments to cover actual defaults. What they apparently didn't take into consideration, however, was the potential write-downs or collateral payments to trading partners (How AIG Failed). But specific regulations dealing with these securities and mortgage default swaps could have possibly prevented all of this. This is where both the company and the government failed.
David Swensen, the person who's credited with creating derivatives or 'swaps,' eventually paved the way for an entire industry to be built around creating and trading derivatives based on mortgage payments of homeowners (Inventor of the "Swap" blames regulators for Financial Crisis). In the case of AIG, they basically insured these mortgage-backed securities. But the government was seemingly reluctant to regulate these derivatives and the industries that had developed around them, and traders eventually abused them to the point of financial collapse. Part of this was due to the perceived benefit of these swaps by people like former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. As Bob Moon notes, "... he called credit default swaps "probably the most important instrument in finance," because they were supposed to spread risk around and stabilize the market" (Banks deep into unregulated 'gambling').
The sad fact is that stricter regulations and oversight on the part of the government, plus more transparency and less greed on the part of financial institutions, could have prevented much of this from happening, including what happened with AIG. Swensen himself says that he supports "requiring swaps and other derivatives to be traded openly on an exchange" since it'd reduce the risk, but surprisingly, this very proposal was "torpedoed by both the Clinton and Bush administrations." Why? Swenson theorizes that, "Financial institutions that deal in these things have resisted that because it would make the market more transparent and less profitable" (Inventor of the "Swap" blames regulators for Financial Crisis).
With respect to the banks that where involved in this, I think that stricter regulations and oversight on the part of the government would have helped prevent much of their irresponsible behavior as well. The banks themselves didn't keep proper track of who actually held all the risks, and essentially thought they were spread the risk to other institutions, but in fact they were just spreading it amongst themselves. You can argue that this wasn't due to regulation or deregulation so much as stupidity on their part, but I agree with Marcus Baram that the passage of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 "reduced decades-old regulations separating banking, insurance and brokerage activities" and "helped to create the current economic crisis" (Who's Whining Now? Gramm Slammed By Economists).
As Mark Sumner points out in his article, "John McCain: Crisis Enabler," the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 made it possible for large commercial banks to become even larger, as well as to become "directly involved in the stock market, bonds and insurance," and that the Commodity Futures Modernization Act "expanded the scope of futures trading" creating "new vehicles for speculation and sheltered several investments from regulation." And I think it can be reasonably argued that this is one of the main ways financial institutions that were 'too big to fail' were able to get into the position of failing.
So, I've referenced at least two pieces of legislation — one that deregulated the banking industry and one that prevented excluded financial derivatives (e.g., subprime mortgage derivatives) from the Commodity Exchange Act — and explained why I thought they had a direct hand in setting this crisis up. Do you have a counterargument to this?
Comparing Ipods to things like subprime mortgage derivatives is comparing apple to oranges.
Many of the best healthcare systems in the world are non-profit, and have less 'paperwork' than our private, for-profit system (the same applies to many of the universal, for-profit systems as well).
It is, and it should be (see above). I'm not a big fan of the Fed, though.
And that's also where the worst abuses are to be found. I was honestly astonished reading about US labour history.
Whether individual rights are inherent or decided by society?
Whether there can be a truly free market and if so, would it be a good thing?
Whether health care is a right or a privilege?
Whether being slightly right wing is better than being slightly left wing?
You guys keep jumping from topic to topic and that can only result in an argument that keeps splitting off into different threads which go around in circles.
You probably don't even disagree with each other as much as you think, it's just a matter of interpretation.
Um, yeah, and that's half the fun.
I definitely think it's wonderful that everyone has put their two cents in about Ayn Rand and her philosophy. I for one agree with John83. Even if you do not agree with her philosophy, that her books are really quite enjoyable. Thanks to everyone for their insightful opinions.
Don't mention it.:D
Please, don't confuse socialism with mere communism, authoritarianism (Stalinism), the necessary advocation to violent methods, etc. As that guy who I use for training my patience called Glenn Beck.
http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/ambedkar/
The Annhiliation of Cast I think is an interesting work that I think shows some of my points, also the Dalai Lama:
http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes1.html#marxism
http://fora.tv/2008/07/26/His_Holiness_the_Dalai_Lama_at_The_Aspen_Institute#fullprogram
Just a thought.
shift, jason is right, arguing is just plain fun. i used to argue with a good friend of mine over who would win in a fight, batman or spiderman. a pointless argument with no real possible way to win, but fun nonetheless.
ill post again tomorrow. lots of good points to consider and then completely reject. i kid.
Funny, the first computers and the internet were funded by state operations... then cappies saw they could make a nice profit and got on the bandwagon. Such a daring & risky technology would never be undertaken by a capitalist.
... at the expense of a lot of lives, dignity, and exploitation of other people around the world. in order for the "good ol' US of A" to prosper, others have to suffer. Imperialism, heard of it?
In fact, labour rights and social inequality were in some ways greater at the beginning of your (not everyone is American here) country's history due to lack of regulation, as well as the fact that the labour movement hadn't started up yet.
Your lunch break? 8-hour work day? Thank the workers for that.
Oh, also, I think Libertarians view the world like in the mural:
No Creme Brule for you.
If we did the rules would more than likely read a little different, I reckon
AKA DARPA,... the war machine...
first, im a libertarian just in case you hadnt noticed. i believe that all power, rights and responsibilities rest in the individual. some one said i should thank workers, and i do, becasue im thanking individuals. ill come back to the why of rights and responsibilities.
second, i dont argue that governments cant do good things, in fact i know they can. as someone said they helped fund the first computers and internet programs. however the point i was trying to make in regards to computer tech is that it wasnt until entrepenuers, in other words capitalists, came in that computer tech became affordable to the everyday person. steve jobs and steve wazniack created the first home computer in their garage. bill gates pushed the pc into every home in almost the entire world.
the point is that governments arent in it to make a profit. governments dont make money they spend it. and it is that profit that allows tech to become cheaper and better. im not saying you cant start a business with altruistic motives and be successful, you can. but if youre not making money you wont be in business for long.
another example of government starting something awesome is space travel. obviously a private corporation wouldnt start that, however now that the tech is there there are several companies trying to make a go at it, and if successful, ie we get out of there way, space travel will become as affordable as air travel.
i might not have said this here, but im an american and i recognize that some here are not. no disrespect is intended when i say our country.
the world is filled with both good men and bad. sometimes the bad men become powerful and take advantage of that power and exploit those around them. pointing out exploitation isnt a condemnation of capitalism itself, its a condemnation of those who allow that to happen. the government, which is comprised of the people.
as i said earlier the people are the ones with the rights, not the state. these rights must be protected by the people. thats where responsibility comes in. if someone intends to deprive you of a right it is your responsibilty to prevent that from happening. ill give a very very simplified example.
if some attempts to hit you, it is your responsibility to move out of the way.
now on a larger scale we recognize that we need rules in which to operate to prevent this from happening so we create a state. the state does not create the people.
the state that the people create is supposed to be a hand put in front of your face to prevent that person from hitting you. it is the states job to insure that you are safe and your freedom is not hindered.
about freedom real quick. man is free. everyone has the absolute right to do whatever they please, so long as you do not interfere with someone elses right. the man has every right to punch you up until the point where his right conflicts with your right to not be punched.
now as i said people are free to do what they want so long as they arent infringing upon anothers right. so lets look at exploitation. obviously its wrong. the exploited have a right to not be exploited. how do we prevent that? well as someone pointed out the workers, or individuals, took it upon themselves to confront their exploiters and forced them to stop. however here is where i think the real problem lies.
politicians.
politicians are just people and can be good or bad just like everyone else. the bad politicians are the ones who allow these large corporations to exploit individuals.
we (in america) have a system of rules that begins with the constitution. the ultimate problem, the real reason why capitalism seems so evil, is that so many of our elected officials fail to enforce the rules on rich corporations because they are just as corrupt as the CEO's
however again that is our fault. it is our fault for not holding our elected officials accountable. if we (as individuals) demanded that white collar crime be investigated and prosecuted as agressively and harshly as blue collar, then maybe corporations would think twice about exploiting someone.
lastly i disagree with the idea that the other idustrialized nations are as advanced as the us. everyone always talks about how awesome france is. i recognize that this is just one story and you could easily tell me a story that refutes it, but ill tell it anyway.
my wife has cousins who are french and they visited us this summer. while talking with them i found these things out.
1. gas cost roughly $5.50 in us dollars. i asked why? and he told me because the state taxes something like 80% of it.
2. as a result of this high gasoline price, he said no one has a big car. i asked if he would like a big car, and he said if he could afford the gas he would love one.
3. his house is bigger than average by french standards. his house is also smaller than mine and i live in an average size house by american standards.
4. his house is heated with radiators and by wood that he cuts. not because he wants to do that, but because he has to because more modern methods are too expensive.
what i take away from that is that my standard of living is higher than his. again i realize this is just one story but he says he lives an average life in france. if that is average and i recognize that its an if, ive never been there, then the french way of doing things isnt working so hot.
According to Economist magazine 34% of Americans hold passports. National borders are a light bending lens, and we naturally see other nations through that. Right now, most of your friends around the world say American exceptionalism is not serving you or your children's future.
But then..... this is looking through another country's lens.
Regarding the rest, we not only don't hold companies accountable, we bail them out. In a free market, the big companies would be allowed to crash to allow for the smaller companies to replace them. We maintain large monopolies and oligopolies and that's not what capitalism is about. Capitalism isn't about greed and hoarding money, it's about reinvesting profits into other ventures to benefit everybody. Socialists equate capitalism to all these horrible things, but capitalism has nothing to do with it, it comes down to oligarchy.
As for gas prices, I don't mind them rising. I don't need a big car since I prefer my motorcycle. And it would get rid of the soccer moms in SUVs on their phones trying to kill me all the time.
The size of your house doesn't equate to standard of living. It just reflects the demand for land. If you go towards the city, you can only get tiny apartments. If you go out to the country, you can get hectares for the same price.
We have been trying to get a wood fireplace for ages, so that's awesome.
Also, Richard H is right, America is nowhere near as advanced as the average American seems to think. It looks like a civilisation on the brink of collapse. Same goes for other western countries as well. We're running overdrive on consumerism to maintain the economy. That comes down to selling crap people don't need that's produced by slave labour overseas. Something like that is just not sustainable. Unless we start producing on our own land again, using our own workforce, we're kind of screwed.
This makes it very easy for individuals to get away with just about anything. People start to turn a blind eye to things and encourage whatever makes more money, rather than what's right.
Again, that's not the fault of capitalism, but the legal system.
thats one of the reasons i loved atlas shrugged. there are a lot of similarities in that book to the things that are happening now.
Here I think you actually make a good point, and I don't necessarily disagree with it. In fact, I think you're right to point out areas where government research and development has made new technologies available that private companies to improve and make cheaper. One of the main issues I have with more right-leaning Objectivists and libertarians is that they think everything should be privatized, and completely disregard the positive and innovative role government funding, research and development plays in these areas.
So, for me, the fundamental disagreement I have with this philosophy is its stance privatization, and the idea that private companies are more innovative, responsible and efficient than public companies/government. In some areas, this may be true; but in areas such as high tech research and development and healthcare, I'm not so sure. Let's take healthcare, for example.
The most common argument against 'socialized medicine' from those in favour of the mythical free-market is that the allocation of resources needed in such a socialized system will inevitably lead to the rationing of medical care, the complete denial of medical care to those who need it, and even worse, dreaded "death panels."
However, the allocation of resources is an inherent part of any system, and insurance company bureaucrats in our private system routinely deny coverage and 'ration' care now! That's how insurance companies make their profit, after all. The real question is, who do we want to be in charge of approving medical care, an insurance company bureaucrat or a government bureaucrat that's answerable to the people? Each has its own pros and cons, but the more 'socialized' healthcare systems that cover everyone have proven to be quite efficient and reliable.
According to the <a href="http://ezinearticles.com/?France-Has-the-Best-Healthcare-System-in-the-World&id=2643603">World Health Organization</a>, for example, France has the best overall health care system in the world, excelling in 4 areas: (1) universal coverage, (2) responsive health care providers, (3) freedom of choice and (4) overall health and longevity of the population.
In 2005, France spent $3,926 per capita on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_compared#Canadian_health_care_in_comparison">healthcare</a>, and of that, approximately 80% was government expenditure. The U.S., in comparison, spent $6,347, and of that, approximately 45% was government expenditure. Yet France has a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate than the U.S. (Although, to be fair, I've heard it mentioned that the U.S. counts premature births whereas France doesn't, and these differences can't be attributed to the differences between the two systems alone as there are undoubtedly other factors involved, e.g., eating habits, stress levels, etc.)
Or how about <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112014770">Spain's healthcare system</a>? Spain's constitution guarantees the right to universal healthcare and requires the state to provide it, it's ranked 7th best by the WHO, and according to one study published last year in the U.S. journal <i>Health Affairs</i>, there are a third fewer deaths caused by delayed access to health care than in the U.S.
And then there is Canada's healthcare system, which was quite similar to ours before they adopted a single-payer system. It's not only ranked higher than the U.S. system by the WHO (30th v. 37th out of 191 nations), but like France, Canada has a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate than the U.S. (Again, these differences can't be attributed to the differences between the two systems alone, but I think it at least goes to show that Canadians seem to be doing OK with the system they've got.)
In addition, a <a href="http://www.pnhp.org/canadastudy/CanadaUSStudy.pdf">2006 peer-reviewed study</a> of healthcare access in Canada and the U.S. done by the <i>American Journal of Public Health</i> concluded that "U.S. residents are one third less likely to have a regular medical doctor, one fourth more likely to have unmet health care needs, and are more than twice as likely to forgo needed medicines." Of course, every system has its problems, and Canada's isn't perfect, but I'd still say that Canada's system is pretty damn good considering it covers everyone <i>and</i> costs less per person than ours.
With all of the wealth, resources and technology at our disposal, I don't understand why we can't create a universal healthcare system of our own that's ever better and more efficient than any of those listed above. More fundamentally, healthcare shouldn't be about making a profit, it should be about keeping people healthy. Our lives are worth more than pieces of paper.
Sure, you can make that case, but then it seems that you're also saying you're in favour of government regulations, which is a position I think many Objectivists and libertarians may disagree with.
From what I understand, their default position is that private companies will curb their own unethical and destructive behaviour due to a combination of their own enlightened self-interest and abstract market forces, or else they'll eventually go out of business. The problem is that private companies routinely cut corners to maximize their profits and don't go out of business until the government catches them, and only after they've already polluted the environment by illegally dumping hazardous waste, committed egregious fraud, and have effectively injured/killed workers due to poor safety standards and negligence.
As for whether or not exploitation is a condemnation of capitalism itself, I think that's debatable. There are many different kinds of exploitation, and some (read 'the most blatant') are easy to prove (e.g., slavery, a company exploiting the human and natural resources of a foreign country, such as in the case of United Fruit in Guatemala, etc.). When it comes to showing how the average wage worker is exploited, however, that's a little more difficult, especially when it comes the various labour theories of value vs. the marginal utility theory.
In the Marxist sense, exploitation is an inherent part of the capitalist mode of production, which in turn, ties into Marx's theory of alienation. It's rather complicated, but in short, exploitation is the idea that the capitalist profits far more from your labour than you do, and it doesn't really matter whether it's voluntary or not.
Smith et al. assumed that labour creates wealth (surplus value). But according to Marx, in a capitalist system, labour itself becomes a commodity, an object that's bought and sold on the market. Moreover, due to private ownership of the means of production, the product of your labour doesn't legally belong to you (alienation), nor does the surplus value your labour creates (unpaid labour), which is kept by the capitalist. (That's why Marx defines slavery, feudalism and capitalism as exploitative systems of production, i.e., the producers/workers have no ownership and/or distributive control over the surplus created by their labour).
In addition, the product of your labour becomes a commodity that's divorced from the labour expended on its production, thereby obscuring the social relationship between producer and consumer (commodity fetishism).
Furthermore, the employer has the ability to increase their profit exponentially by reinvesting the surplus value extracted from your labour into their company while you, the labourer, are forced to spend your meager wages on the necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter, etc.
So from one perspective, an individual might look at it like, "Wow, somebody will pay me a few bucks an hour to work at their company; now I'll have some money for rent, bills and food." But from another, wider perspective, there's an entire class of people who've been created by the capitalist mode of production who must sell their labour in order to survive while others thrive by exploiting that labour.
This doesn't mean, however, that the employer is necessarily the 'bad guy,' 'or even consciously in charge of this exploitation, since, as a friend of mine points out, "... the logic of the system seems to force the hand of the bourgeoisie as much as that of the proletariat." That's why some people want to see a radical economic transformation in which the exploitation, alienation and commodity fetishism of the present system are gradually eliminated via a more socialized mode of production. The question is whether such a system exists, and if so, how it can be successfully implemented.
But as I said, actually proving the above kind of exploitation is rather difficult, especially when it comes to the various labour theories of value (the idea that commodities have an objective value that's relative to the amount of socially necessary labour-time involved in their production) vs. the marginal utility theory (the idea that the value of commodities are determined by their marginal utility). There's lots of crazy math involved.
Marx's theory of exploitation was derived from his labour theory of value, which was itself a critique of both Smith's and Ricardo's labour theories of value, but the labour theory of value itself has since been challenged by the marginal utility theory. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about either yet to declare a winner in this particular debate, although I will say that I think even if Marx's theory proves to be incorrect, his dialectic method of analysis still has a great deal to offer our modern understanding of economics.
Before any this can sufficiently be addressed, I think you need to answer my original question: What rights are, where they come from and how are they protected? This is important to understanding the foundation of your political and economic views, and I can't address them without first knowing this; although I will say that I completely agree with you that the failure of our elected officials to enforce current laws and regulations is a serious problem, and that the citizens themselves must be more proactive.
If you think that living standards and quality of life is determined by the size of your house and automobile, then you're right, we're #1 (never mind the fact that I don't own either and couldn't afford to visit France even if I wanted to). But here's a few things to think about.
According to the WHO, France has one of the best healthcare systems in the world. France was ranked the "best country to live in" for the fifth time by International Living (a US publication). France has a 35-hour work week. All employees are entitled to 2 1/2 days of paid leave per month (~ 5 weeks of vacation a year). All mothers get a minimum of 16 weeks of paid maternity leave, while father get 11 days (source). The French in general have more leisure time (i.e., less time working and more time to spend with family and friends) than us.
Oil supplies are finite and we have no idea how much is left. Cars use tonnes of oil, and not just for gas. Oil comes from, and the price is controlled by, places that are currently controlled by less-than-ideal governments and cartels. Besides things like oil spills, the use of oil and gas creates harmful byproducts that damage the environment, which effects all of us.
Please give concrete some examples of how 'socialism' is speeding our decline, especially considering that it's arguably been helping to raise the living standards in Europe since WWII.
I'd argue, for example, that our rise was due to WWII, and our decline is mainly due to a combination of complacency and poor trade policies. The industrial centres of Europe and Asia were levelled during WWII, and the US, whose means of production were relatively untouched, capitalized on that.
Unfortunately, due to years of poor trade policies (like those of the WTO) and out-sourcing, we're no longer the manufacturing giant we once were, and places like China are slowing taking our place. This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend of mine back in May. We were discussing GM, Chrysler and the offshoring of our manufacturing, and I mentioned that the way I see it:
I think the fact that Ford is building another new assembly plant in China in order to compete with GM helps to illustrate my point. As I said in an earlier part of the same conversation:
To be frank, we're in a difficult position, and I don't see any easy solutions; but I definitely think it's a mistake to blame the boogieman of socialism (whatever that word means to you) for years of poor, neoliberal policies and complacency on the part of the American people.
I can say the same thing about Das Kapital and Looking Backward.
For example, provide healthcare at an extra 1.5% income tax levy for those who opt-in, but still allow private companies to provide healthcare and charge whatever they want.