How is Ayn Rand Still a Thing?

[untermensche]

I didn't say the "traders" devised the current system.

I asked if they supported a system where all labor was paid what it earned as opposed to being paid according to a market?

You included the word devised.

In the book "Atlas Shrugged" the "traders" neither devised nor supported the system that existed. The central point is that they were going on strike against said system.

Your insistence that workers are paid "according to the market" as opposed to "what they earned" makes me wonder if you are a supporter of the Labor Theory of Value. As a supporter of the Subjective Theory of Value, your questions make little sense to me.

This is nothing but a dodge of my question.

You claim that being paid what you earn is some great value.

I don't disagree with you. I simply extend the principle to all workers.

Which instantly make the use of a market to determine the wages of workers illegitimate.

So did these "traders" opposed the use of markets to determine the wages of workers or not?

 

[Horatio Parker]

I'm with those who tried and gave up. Predictable with cartoony characters. Like Horatio Alger or the Hardy Boys, but pretentious.

 

[Ford]

I'm with those who tried and gave up. Predictable with cartoony characters. Like Horatio Alger or the Hardy Boys, but pretentious.

If I remember correctly, also quite murderous. I mean near the end of Atlas Shrugged Dagny Taggart strait up murders a hapless security guard because he was indecisive.

 

[bilby]

I didn't mind Atlas Shrugged; it was better than The Fountainhead, and both were better than a lot of the other crap I have read. That said, I read a fair bit of cyberpunk, and Atlas Shrugged has a similar feel - dystopian and apocalyptic.

I have no idea why some readers are unable to grasp that it is pure fiction, and try to change the world to make it fit with Rand's crazy ideas; That said, some people try to change the world to make it more like Middle Earth, or Starfleet, so I guess it isn't surprising - although it is certainly rather sad.

I have read a LOT of crap in my life, and Ayn Rand is far from the crappiest. She goes on a bit, but that seems to be the style with Russian authors - anything less than 1,000 pages is a pamphlet - and she doesn't seem to like anyone very much, except for characters who have superpowers; even when the bad guys obey the rules, disaster follows, but the good guys make rule breaking into an art form, because they are super special.

It's cartoonish, but that's OK, cartoons are fun. Superman can fly; and that makes Superman fun. If people start hurling themselves off tall buildings in emulation of his feats, then they are insane.

Dagny can tell - with no evidence at all - when a red light is caused by a signal failure, and not (for example) a bridge having collapsed ahead. She uses her superpowers to avoid making the train late, by driving through a signal set to 'danger'; and that makes 'Atlas Shrugged' fun. If train drivers start running through red signals simply to avoid delays in the real world, then they are insane (and criminally liable).

The great thing about fiction is that the good guys always win, and the bad guys lose, by pure force of narrative. Such a force does not exist in the real world, and we forget that at our peril.

As a philosopher, she makes a fairly good paperback fiction writer. She should have left the philosophy to the professionals - but she is far from the first or worst offender on that count.

 

[Ford]

As a philosopher, she makes a fairly good paperback fiction writer. She should have left the philosophy to the professionals - but she is far from the first or worst offender on that count.

Wow. Replace the word philosophy with religion and you've got L. Ron Hubbard. A fairly good paperback fiction writer who had a "serious" side that became an absurd cult.


Coincidence?

 

[bilby]

As a philosopher, she makes a fairly good paperback fiction writer. She should have left the philosophy to the professionals - but she is far from the first or worst offender on that count.

Wow. Replace the word philosophy with religion and you've got L. Ron Hubbard. A fairly good paperback fiction writer who had a "serious" side that became an absurd cult.


Coincidence?

There are some striking similarities.

 

[SimpleDon]

As a philosopher, she makes a fairly good paperback fiction writer. She should have left the philosophy to the professionals - but she is far from the first or worst offender on that count.

Wow. Replace the word philosophy with religion and you've got L. Ron Hubbard. A fairly good paperback fiction writer who had a "serious" side that became an absurd cult.


Coincidence?

But it is a very profitable cult. I remember a thread on Ron Paul's news letters and their supposed racism. Paul said that the news letter articles that clearly were racist weren't written by him, they were sent out without his review and he couldn't remember who wrote them. I came away with the impression that in effect Paul said he isn't a racist but he pretends to be one in his news letters in order to raise money from racists.

Maybe this ties them together, making money. Capitalism in its pure form, anything for a profit.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You included the word devised.

In the book "Atlas Shrugged" the "traders" neither devised nor supported the system that existed. The central point is that they were going on strike against said system.

Your insistence that workers are paid "according to the market" as opposed to "what they earned" makes me wonder if you are a supporter of the Labor Theory of Value. As a supporter of the Subjective Theory of Value, your questions make little sense to me.

This is nothing but a dodge of my question.

You claim that being paid what you earn is some great value.

I don't disagree with you. I simply extend the principle to all workers.

Which instantly make the use of a market to determine the wages of workers illegitimate.

So did these "traders" opposed the use of markets to determine the wages of workers or not?

I disagree that it "instantly make the use of a market to determine the wages of workers illegitimate."

That makes your question illegitimate.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Wow. Replace the word philosophy with religion and you've got L. Ron Hubbard. A fairly good paperback fiction writer who had a "serious" side that became an absurd cult.


Coincidence?

There are some striking similarities.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5YWTFW5WMw[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Sarpedon]

If you want to call it semantics, I cannot stop you from doing so. I've explained the difference before. I can lead a horse to water and all that.

I find that a common trait of bad arguments is making meaningless distinctions between two things, so that the arguer can pretend that the consequences of one thing can be discounted while discussing the other. So I am skeptical about your distinction between political and economic power. While certainly, semantically, they are two different things, in practice, they are always wielded by the same people. At least, that is how I see it. If you could demonstrate for me that they are actually different, instead of merely asserting it, or using the philosophy that you are trying to argue in favor of to prop up the argument that is supposed to support it (circularly), I may feel differently.

You haven't 'led me to the water;' you have merely said that there is water.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I didn't mind Atlas Shrugged; it was better than The Fountainhead, and both were better than a lot of the other crap I have read. That said, I read a fair bit of cyberpunk, and Atlas Shrugged has a similar feel - dystopian and apocalyptic.

I have no idea why some readers are unable to grasp that it is pure fiction, and try to change the world to make it fit with Rand's crazy ideas; That said, some people try to change the world to make it more like Middle Earth, or Starfleet, so I guess it isn't surprising - although it is certainly rather sad.

I have read a LOT of crap in my life, and Ayn Rand is far from the crappiest. She goes on a bit, but that seems to be the style with Russian authors - anything less than 1,000 pages is a pamphlet - and she doesn't seem to like anyone very much, except for characters who have superpowers; even when the bad guys obey the rules, disaster follows, but the good guys make rule breaking into an art form, because they are super special.

It's cartoonish, but that's OK, cartoons are fun. Superman can fly; and that makes Superman fun. If people start hurling themselves off tall buildings in emulation of his feats, then they are insane.

Dagny can tell - with no evidence at all - when a red light is caused by a signal failure, and not (for example) a bridge having collapsed ahead. She uses her superpowers to avoid making the train late, by driving through a signal set to 'danger'; and that makes 'Atlas Shrugged' fun. If train drivers start running through red signals simply to avoid delays in the real world, then they are insane (and criminally liable).

The great thing about fiction is that the good guys always win, and the bad guys lose, by pure force of narrative. Such a force does not exist in the real world, and we forget that at our peril.

As a philosopher, she makes a fairly good paperback fiction writer. She should have left the philosophy to the professionals - but she is far from the first or worst offender on that count.

I've never been a science fiction fan. And I agree that cartoons can be entertaining, but for that I go to say Jim Thompson. Not a word of sermonizing there, but lots of humanity(usually dysfunctional).

I wouldn't tell anyone not to read her, only that I tried and couldn't. And that her ideas, as I understand them, are largely bullshit. I can't blame her for establishing her salon, however. One has to make a living, and if Rand and the reactionaries chose use each other that's between them. But give me Nabokov.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If you want to call it semantics, I cannot stop you from doing so. I've explained the difference before. I can lead a horse to water and all that.

I find that a common trait of bad arguments is making meaningless distinctions between two things, so that the arguer can pretend that the consequences of one thing can be discounted while discussing the other. So I am skeptical about your distinction between political and economic power. While certainly, semantically, they are two different things, in practice, they are always wielded by the same people. At least, that is how I see it. If you could demonstrate for me that they are actually different, instead of merely asserting it, or using the philosophy that you are trying to argue in favor of to prop up the argument that is supposed to support it (circularly), I may feel differently.

You haven't 'led me to the water;' you have merely said that there is water.

I've done it in previous threads, but I'll do it again here.

In behavioral psychology there are the concepts of positive and negative reinforcement. There are actually four options a person has, two of them to encourage a behavior and two to discourage a behavior. One can apply a reward, withhold a reward, apply a punishment, or withhold a punishment.

Although it may seem like it to some, withholding a reward is not the same as applying a punishment.

Economic power exists entirely on the ability to apply or withhold a reward. A reward is offered to convince you to do something the person offering the reward wants you to do, and if you don't do it you don't get the reward. A multi-billionare cannot actually force you to do anything. He can make it sound like an order, but he cannot actually force you. Suppose Bill Gates walked up to you and said "I want you to roll around in that mud puddle and oink like a pig." You can tell him to bugger off. He can then respond by offering to pay you to do so. You can choose to accept payment or continue to tell him to bugger off.

Political power exists on the ability to apply or withhold a punishment. McDonalds cannot throw you in jail for purchasing a Whopper. A police officer can throw you in jail if you don't roll down your window all the way during a traffic stop. Even if you say "officer the window motor is broken" over and over again as he pepper sprays you, handcuffs you, throws you to the ground, and beats you until you require medical treatment. True story.

Now often the government can offer rewards. I'm not talking about tax breaks, although withholding punishment can feel like a reward. I'm talking about everything from government paychecks to various subsidies for either the rich or the poor. But the important thing to remember is that the government managed to collect the money for this economic power by using political power to take it from others.

It is the principle of the carrot and the stick. To get a donkey to move, you either offer it a carrot or beat it with a stick. Economic power is the carrot, political power is the stick. The government only has carrots when they use the stick to take carrots from others.

 

[Sarpedon]

Very good, this is a coherent argument, but unfortunately, obviously untrue. The reason is that it assumes all manner of things that aren't true. Including that economic power is limited to positive reinforcement and that taxation is punishment, instead of payment for services.

The idea that economic rewards are never negative ignores the fact that one must work and be paid in order to survive. Thus, losing one's job is very much a negative power that can be held over it. The entire objectivist philosophy ignores this very obvious fact, that in the world we live in it is virtually impossible to live without money. The fact that this fact is willfully ignored shows the fundamental dishonesty of the argument. Businesses and individuals can and do oppress people by using this fact.

Secondly, you ignore the fact that with money, one can hire someone to go and beat the crap out of someone, or sue them, or harrass them, or do any number of things to someone else. This is, again, absolutely obvious, and completely ignored by your false and dishonest definition. Money gives one the power to do anything, if you have enough of it. This limitation you assume is utterly imaginary.

Third, you ignore the fact that the government has money, and can dispense it just as a business can.

Finally, you once again ignore the fact that it is the rich that produce and run governments. When was the last time we had a poor president? How many congress members are millionaires? How many of the framers of the Constitution were poor, versus rich? The distinction you are trying to make is illusory. The government is in many ways the mask the rich wear when they want to oppress the poor. Pretending the poor control the government is laughably absurd.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I disagree.

On your first point, taxation is not the only "stick" in the government arsenal. In fact it is not even the most prominent of the sticks. The most prominent is the power of the police and the military. The government has the ability to arrest you and throw you in a cage. If anyone outside the government were to do that it would be called kidnapping. The government has the ability to fine your or seize your property. If anyone outside the government were to do that it would be called theft. And if you resist the prior two, the government has the ability to kill you. If anyone outside the government were to do that it would be called murder. That last one is the one upon which all the other government powers rest, including the least severe of them all and the only one you focused on.

That is the power of the stick, that is the punishment that the government can either apply or withhold. And that is something that can't happen outside the government. Those are powers reserved to the government.

I did not ignore that the government can dispense money. What I did was make a point of how it can only use that economic power after it has used its political power to collect said money. It used the stick to collect the carrots it is distributing.

It is somewhat but not completely true that "with enough money you can do anything." But being wealthy alone is not enough protection if those with political power are determined to crack down on someone. Affluenza can only get someone so far. But someone with political power is much better shielded.

Yes, it is true that withholding a reward feels a lot like a punishment. But withholding a reward doesn't put someone in a cage. The boss who says "I'm not going to pay you anymore" cannot say "and I'm going to levy a fine against your prior wages, throw you in a cage if you won't pay it, and kill you if you refuse to cooperate." There is a reason I included the real life example of the officer who committed a vicious assault simply because the teenager didn't roll his window down. It was to illustrate that there is much more a government can do than simply tax, the only power you responded to.

Yes, the framers were largely wealthy. And throughout history most rulers were wealthy. With the exception of the founders, the aristocracy was wealthy because they used their political power to collect wealth. Under corporatism, our current system, wealth is used to buy political power - which makes it a two way street as those with political power still use it to collect wealth. But in days of yore it was a simple one way street - I have a sword, give me money. What you are seeing in your response is the law of effect and cause (reversal intentional).

 

[untermensche]

This is nothing but a dodge of my question.

You claim that being paid what you earn is some great value.

I don't disagree with you. I simply extend the principle to all workers.

Which instantly make the use of a market to determine the wages of workers illegitimate.

So did these "traders" opposed the use of markets to determine the wages of workers or not?

I disagree that it "instantly make the use of a market to determine the wages of workers illegitimate."

That makes your question illegitimate.

Paying somebody a market price has nothing to do with what they earned with their labor.

It is a completely different system for assigning value. It isn't even looking at the work done. It is only looking at the desperation of people in a market. What they will be willing to accept.

You can't say you both support paying people what they earn and also paying them according to a market.

It is one or the other.

Your inability to see this points out one of the inconsistencies with your position.

 

[ksen]

unter, obviously you pay normal people according to a market and you pay super people what they earn.

 

[untermensche]

unter, obviously you pay normal people according to a market and you pay super people what they earn.

If the super people are being paid more because those thrown into the market are paid less are they really being paid what they earn?

Or are they just getting paid what they can get away with?

Which let's face it, is the whole point behind Libertarianism.

 

[ksen]

They earned it by keeping normal people at market wages.

 

[untermensche]

They earned it by keeping normal people at market wages.

And also by keeping those wages as low as possible.

The key is, find a way to remove the pay from the work itself.

 

[Canard DuJour]

I find that a common trait of bad arguments is making meaningless distinctions between two things, so that the arguer can pretend that the consequences of one thing can be discounted while discussing the other. So I am skeptical about your distinction between political and economic power. While certainly, semantically, they are two different things, in practice, they are always wielded by the same people. At least, that is how I see it. If you could demonstrate for me that they are actually different, instead of merely asserting it, or using the philosophy that you are trying to argue in favor of to prop up the argument that is supposed to support it (circularly), I may feel differently.

You haven't 'led me to the water;' you have merely said that there is water.

I've done it in previous threads, but I'll do it again here.

In behavioral psychology there are the concepts of positive and negative reinforcement. There are actually four options a person has, two of them to encourage a behavior and two to discourage a behavior. One can apply a reward, withhold a reward, apply a punishment, or withhold a punishment.

Although it may seem like it to some, withholding a reward is not the same as applying a punishment.

Economic power exists entirely on the ability to apply or withhold a reward. A reward is offered to convince you to do something the person offering the reward wants you to do, and if you don't do it you don't get the reward. A multi-billionare cannot actually force you to do anything. He can make it sound like an order, but he cannot actually force you. Suppose Bill Gates walked up to you and said "I want you to roll around in that mud puddle and oink like a pig." You can tell him to bugger off. He can then respond by offering to pay you to do so. You can choose to accept payment or continue to tell him to bugger off.

Political power exists on the ability to apply or withhold a punishment. McDonalds cannot throw you in jail for purchasing a Whopper. A police officer can throw you in jail if you don't roll down your window all the way during a traffic stop. Even if you say "officer the window motor is broken" over and over again as he pepper sprays you, handcuffs you, throws you to the ground, and beats you until you require medical treatment. True story.

Now often the government can offer rewards. I'm not talking about tax breaks, although withholding punishment can feel like a reward. I'm talking about everything from government paychecks to various subsidies for either the rich or the poor. But the important thing to remember is that the government managed to collect the money for this economic power by using political power to take it from others.

It is the principle of the carrot and the stick. To get a donkey to move, you either offer it a carrot or beat it with a stick. Economic power is the carrot, political power is the stick. The government only has carrots when they use the stick to take carrots from others.

Then Sarpedon's not wrong - you're just redefining a couple of common terms arbitrarily.

"Political" has never meant to do with punishment as opposed to reward. "Punishment" has never excluded withholding "carrot" per your definition. Your parents withheld pocket money as explicit punishment for not doing your homework (or whatever).

But say we accept your definitions. They just emphasise that economic power, as you distinguish it from political power, is what people fear and want to bring under democratic control. Day in, year out, people worry far more about keeping the roof over their families' heads than being "shut in a cage" by government. They fear being shut in a small life by people with economic power as you define it.