Objectivist arguments (and from others) I have heard

[Conquer or Die]

1. What is wrong with somebody making money? A man studied carefully the list of patents officially registered in the United States and discovered that the hanger had never been patented and so he patented it and became a millionaire. Who did he hurt? What was his crime?

2. There are two farms, one on which a man can grow 10 oranges, 10 apples, and 10 pears. There is another farm of similar size and resources that grows 10 oranges only. Why should the second farm exist? Because I want to buy an orange from the man with the second farm. It's what I want to do and it's what I'm willing to do.

3. I was willing to pay $40 to somebody for a used office chair. I, however, did not have the money. A friend of mine was asked if she wanted to purchase the chair and she said she would, for $5. It was promptly agreed too. Determining value is your prerogative and that is what sets the standards for business to be conducive.

[Dean]

1. What is wrong with somebody making money? A man studied carefully the list of patents officially registered in the United States and discovered that the hanger had never been patented and so he patented it and became a millionaire. Who did he hurt? What was his crime?
This is precisely what is wrong with capitalism: its deals in the purchase and sale of economic power (capital), which serves as a real blow to production capabilities and direction.


2. There are two farms, one on which a man can grow 10 oranges, 10 apples, and 10 pears. There is another farm of similar size and resources that grows 10 oranges only. Why should the second farm exist? Because I want to buy an orange from the man with the second farm. It's what I want to do and it's what I'm willing to do.
Congratulations; decentralized farming will certainly be more commonplace in the context of a communist paradigm, since people won't be discouraged from at-home production by incredibly long, unproductive working days.


3. I was willing to pay $40 to somebody for a used office chair. I, however, did not have the money. A friend of mine was asked if she wanted to purchase the chair and she said she would, for $5. It was promptly agreed too. Determining value is your prerogative and that is what sets the standards for business to be conducive.
This describes some of the economic forces at play when people make decisions. It doesn't serve as an argument for a market- or capital-based economy; it only serves to justify to moral argument for capitalism, which has always been based in subjective wants, specifically in the subjective character of values.

The problem is that capitalism doesn't allow for a "fair" equilibrium of these wants. Further, it relies on disparate wants rather than communal values. Put simply, there are a lot of things that tons of people want - human values really are quite similar.

[Jimmie Higgins]

1. What is wrong with somebody making money? A man studied carefully the list of patents officially registered in the United States and discovered that the hanger had never been patented and so he patented it and became a millionaire. Who did he hurt? What was his crime?There is no wealth being created in this example. This patent goes to a manufacturing plant where the hangers are produced, the people who turn this idea into wealth are paid a small wage and have little say in how or why they produce. They are hurt.


2. There are two farms, one on which a man can grow 10 oranges, 10 apples, and 10 pears. There is another farm of similar size and resources that grows 10 oranges only. Why should the second farm exist? Because I want to buy an orange from the man with the second farm. It's what I want to do and it's what I'm willing to do.This example doesn't make sense it is a hypothetical abstraction. Is your argument that customer choice determines who wins out in capitalist competition? That is not true because it is profit, not customer desire that determines who wins out in competition.


3. I was willing to pay $40 to somebody for a used office chair. I, however, did not have the money. A friend of mine was asked if she wanted to purchase the chair and she said she would, for $5. It was promptly agreed too. Determining value is your prerogative and that is what sets the standards for business to be conducive.Capitalism's main engine is not yard sales. A magical chair that appears from no labor can be sold at any price and the money is yours, but in the real world, if the chair materials cost $3 and the labor put into the chair was paid $3... then the value of the chair could not be $5 or else the manufacturer would go out of business. Profit is made by selling the chair for more than what you paid to produce it so the labor is what creates the value above the base material cost.

[trivas7]

Objectivism's arguments deal with principles, not the ad hoc situations you ask about here.

[RED DAVE]

Objectivism's arguments deal with principles, not the ad hoc situations you ask about here.Objectivism's principles are principles designed to aid and abet one class exploiting the labor of others with no guilt.

RED DAVE

[mikelepore]

The hanger example isn't possible. You gain nothing by patenting an invention that is already available. Others will always have what the law calls "prior user rights."

However, people have been hurt by the patenting of new inventions. About fifteen years ago the scientific journals such as 'Science' and "Nature' printed angry editorials because a company that owned a patent on a medical diagnostic kit decided that they didn't want to manufacture it for an undetermined number of years, but no other company was permitted to manufacture it either.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The hanger example isn't possible. You gain nothing by patenting an invention that is already available. Others will always have what the law calls "prior user rights."

However, people have been hurt by the patenting of new inventions. About fifteen years ago the scientific journals such as 'Science' and "Nature' printed angry editorials because a company that owned a patent on a medical diagnostic kit decided that they didn't want to manufacture it for an undetermined number of years, but no other company was permitted to manufacture it either.Not to mention that Al Gore, world-saver, was sent to Africa to prevent countries from making affordable generic versions of pattented AIDS drugs that were too expensive for the majority of people with the disease. You know - thousands of lives of people in Africa or protecting a copyright for the US's most profitable industry... what would Jonas Salk do?

[Conquer or Die]

The hanger example isn't possible. You gain nothing by patenting an invention that is already available. Others will always have what the law calls "prior user rights."

I actually heard that argument from a pretty attractive girl who was madly in love with Howard Roark. I don't know if she was using it as a hypothetical example but it sounded like she was trying to say it was a true story.

Two of the questions polled from two self described objectivists are both interesting cases on a personal level. One became a liberal hippie and the other cheated her way through school in order to get into her second or third choice college. They both were complete social opposites attracted by the stench of Rand's vomit. Their favorite book was actually The Fountainhead and not Atlas Shrugged, which shows they both had better taste than a typical Rand fan.

There was actually a small collection of obnoxious politicos at my school that consisted of objectivists, fascists, one libertarian warmonger and one Marxist. I was the only one involved who was a liberal (though also a socialist, and a Christian, and a Catholic, and a Libertarian).

Needless to say I was the most useless of the bunch; although thinking back they were all pretty fucking stupid.


However, people have been hurt by the patenting of new inventions. About fifteen years ago the scientific journals such as 'Science' and "Nature' printed angry editorials because a company that owned a patent on a medical diagnostic kit decided that they didn't want to manufacture it for an undetermined number of years, but no other company was permitted to manufacture it either.

Patents are a shit idea that encourages laziness, of course, and denies advances in important fields in the name of being able to capitalize on profits.

[Dean]

Objectivism's arguments deal with principles, not the ad hoc situations you ask about here.

This is precisely the problem with narrow individualist systems. You pretend that you can divorce the human being from society in the process of analysis, which always fails. The simple fact is that the human being is a social character and human activity, especially freedom and productivity, must be understood in terms of its social character.

If this paradigm you've been defending as of late deals primarily with principles and not real situations, its an incredibly narrow, willfully blind kind of system.

[RGacky3]

1. What is wrong with somebody making money? A man studied carefully the list of patents officially registered in the United States and discovered that the hanger had never been patented and so he patented it and became a millionaire. Who did he hurt? What was his crime?

Thats like saying "whats wrong with monarchies, one peasent married into nobility and now lives a good life, who did he hurt?" Exact same argument, its amazing how many capitalist arguments you can just apply to monarchies and feudalism.


2. There are two farms, one on which a man can grow 10 oranges, 10 apples, and 10 pears. There is another farm of similar size and resources that grows 10 oranges only. Why should the second farm exist? Because I want to buy an orange from the man with the second farm. It's what I want to do and it's what I'm willing to do.


So, these are all strawmen, I don't know what your argument is here.


3. I was willing to pay $40 to somebody for a used office chair. I, however, did not have the money. A friend of mine was asked if she wanted to purchase the chair and she said she would, for $5. It was promptly agreed too. Determining value is your prerogative and that is what sets the standards for business to be conducive.

Whats your argument?

[trivas7]

Objectivism's principles are principles designed to aid and abet one class exploiting the labor of others with no guilt.

RED DAVE
Prove it.

[trivas7]

This is precisely the problem with narrow individualist systems. You pretend that you can divorce the human being from society in the process of analysis, which always fails. The simple fact is that the human being is a social character and human activity, especially freedom and productivity, must be understood in terms of its social character.

If this paradigm you've been defending as of late deals primarily with principles and not real situations, its an incredibly narrow, willfully blind kind of system.
I have been defending this paradigm lately. What paradigm are you defending? If you think your paradigm deals with real situations apart from an ideology you're wrong.

[RED DAVE]

Objectivism's principles are principles designed to aid and abet one class exploiting the labor of others with no guilt.
Prove it.This is about as hard to prove as the fact that it's currently hot in New York.

The essence of Objectivism is the notion that unfettered capitalism is the ultimate freedom. Rand in her work attempted to counteract any criticism of capitalism as an exploitative system, a society where the capitalist class profits from the labor of the working class. Any income that a person receives from the labor of others is exploitation. Rand justified this exploitation and attempted to make people "feel good" about exploiting others.

RED DAVE

[trivas7]

This is about as hard to prove as the fact that it's currently hot in New York.

The essence of Objectivism is the notion that unfettered capitalism is the ultimate freedom. Rand in her work attempted to counteract any criticism of capitalism as an exploitative system, a society where the capitalist class profits from the labor of the working class. Any income that a person receives from the labor of others is exploitation. Rand justified this exploitation and attempted to make people "feel good" about exploiting others.

RED DAVE
No; the essence of Objectivism is reason and individualism. Clearly you know nothing re Objectivism.

[synthesis]

No; the essence of Objectivism is reason and individualism. Clearly you know nothing re Objectivism.

That's the essence of "Objectivist" rhetoric. The essence of Objectivist theory is as he said. I don't know of any better evidence for this truism than the fact that Rand is best known for her Carlylian, hagiographical treatment of the bourgeoisie as Marx defined it.

Personally, I think the idea that any political philosophy can be entirely objective is wishful thinking. Truth is fundamentally subjective; consensus is the closest we can ever come to genuine objectivity.


If you think your paradigm deals with real situations apart from an ideology you're wrong.

Well, that is the philosophical basis for materialist analysis...

[-A-kRud-A-]

1. What is wrong with somebody making money? A man studied carefully the list of patents officially registered in the United States and discovered that the hanger had never been patented and so he patented it and became a millionaire. Who did he hurt? What was his crime?

2. There are two farms, one on which a man can grow 10 oranges, 10 apples, and 10 pears. There is another farm of similar size and resources that grows 10 oranges only. Why should the second farm exist? Because I want to buy an orange from the man with the second farm. It's what I want to do and it's what I'm willing to do.

3. I was willing to pay $40 to somebody for a used office chair. I, however, did not have the money. A friend of mine was asked if she wanted to purchase the chair and she said she would, for $5. It was promptly agreed too. Determining value is your prerogative and that is what sets the standards for business to be conducive.

Time to copy and paste some Kropotkin since I cant post links yet I guess- in short read Chapter IV from conquest of bread. It will answer your silly questions:


"What we do want is so to arrange things that every human being born into the world shall be ensured the opportunity in the first instance of learning some useful occupation, and of becoming skilled in it; next, that he shall be free to work at his trade without asking leave of master or owner, and without handing over to landlord or capitalist the lion's share of what he produces. As to the wealth held by the Rothschilds or the Vanderbilts, it will serve us to organize our system of communal production.

The day when the labourer may till the ground without paying away half of what he produces, the day when the machines necessary to prepare the soil for rich harvests are at the free disposal of the cultivators, the day when the worker in the factory produces for the community and not the monopolist--that day will see the workers clothed and fed, and there will be no more Rothschilds or other exploiters.
No one will then have to sell his working power for a wage that only represents a fraction of what he produces.
"So far so good," say our critics, "but you will have Rothschilds coming in from outside. How are you to prevent a person from amassing millions in China and then settling amongst you? How are you going to prevent such a one from surrounding himself with lackeys and wage-slaves--from exploiting them and enriching himself at their expense?

"You cannot bring about a revolution all over the world at the same time. Well, then, are you going to establish custom-houses on your frontiers to search all who enter your country and confiscate the money they bring with them?--Anarchist policemen firing on travellers would be a fine spectacle!"
But at the root of this argument there is a great error. Those who propound it have never paused to inquire whence come the fortunes of the rich. A little thought would, however, suffice to show them that these fortunes have their beginnings in the poverty of the poor. When there are no longer any destitute there will no longer be any rich to exploit them.


Let us glance for a moment at the Middle Ages, when great fortunes began to spring up.
A feudal baron seizes on a fertile valley. But as long as the fertile valley is empty of folk our baron is not rich. His land brings him in nothing; he might as well possess a property in the moon.
What does our baron do to enrich himself? He looks out for peasants--for poor peasants!
If every peasant-farmer had a piece of land, free from rent and taxes, if he had in addition the tools and the stock necessary for farm labour, who would plough the lands of the baron? Everyone would look after his own. But there are thousands of destitute persons ruined by wars, or drought, or pestilence. They have neither horse nor plough. (Iron was costly in the Middle Ages, and a draughthorse still more so.)

All these destitute creatures are trying to better their condition. One day they see on the road at the confines of our baron's estate a notice-board indicating by certain signs adapted to their comprehension that the labourer who is willing to settle on this estate will receive the tools and materials to build his cottage and sow his fields, and a portion of land rent free for a certain number of years. The number of years is represented by so many crosses on the sign-board, and the peasant understands the meaning of these crosses.


So the poor wretches swarm over the baron's lands, making roads, draining marshes, building villages. In nine years he begins to tax them. Five years later he increases the rent. Then he doubles it. The peasant accepts these new conditions because he cannot find better ones elsewhere; and little by little, with the aid of laws made by the barons, the poverty of the peasant becomes the source of the landlord's wealth. And it is not only the lord of the manor who preys upon him. A whole host of usurers swoop down upon the villages, multiplying as the wretchedness of the peasants increases. That is how things went in the Middle Ages. And to-day is it not still the same thing? If there were free lands which the peasant could cultivate if he pleased, would he pay £50 to some "shabble of a duke" for condescending to sell him a scrap? Would he burden himself with a lease which absorbed a third of the produce? Would he--on the métayer system--consent to give the half of his harvest to the landowner?
But he has nothing. So he will accept any conditions, if only he can keep body and soul together, while he tills the soil and enriches the landlord. So in the nineteenth century, just as in the Middle Ages, the poverty of the peasant is a source of wealth to the landed proprietor.


The landlord owes his riches to the poverty of the peasants, and the wealth of the capitalist comes from the same source."

[Nolan]

No; the essence of Objectivism is reason and individualism. Clearly you know nothing re Objectivism.

I can find a good comparison to your exchange:

Person 1: "The mob is about power and money!"

Person 2: "No, the mob is about honor and tradition!"

They're both right if you take the mobs words at face value.

[-A-kRud-A-]

No; the essence of Objectivism is reason and individualism. Clearly you know nothing re Objectivism.

LOL, yes, and according to Rand capitalism is the only system which individualism can be maximized. Rand was a bi product of Stalinism. Plain and simple. She was too greedy, selfish and narrow minded to use Max Stirners works properly, as Bakunin and subsequently Emma Goldman did. Even the "individualist " Tucker was against wage slavery. He thought people should trade labor. He isnt my cup of tea but was closer to Stirner than Rand was. She was way off base as far as individualism goes....she was only interested in the individualism and freedom of the capitalist. She was a social Darwinist who saw capitalists as the strong- but in reality they are the parasites.

[Nolan]

Rand was a bi product of Stalinism.

Lol. Please refrain from saying stupid things.

[synthesis]

Lol. Please refrain from saying stupid things.

I'm pretty sure he means that Rand's work was a reaction to Stalinism, not that her theory was directly influenced by the policies of the Stalinist state.

[Demogorgon]

No; the essence of Objectivism is reason and individualism. Clearly you know nothing re Objectivism.
Given objectivism is about a cult mentality and parroting the gurus words without critical analysis, that is a rather comical statement.

To the objectivist, Rand's ideology is absolutely beyond reproach and is the product of perfect reasoning and therefore is the only ideology that can possibly come from proper thinking. They don't define reason as proper thinking or whatever, they define it as believing exactly what they are told to believe by the higher ups of their cult.

[RED DAVE]

No; the essence of Objectivism is reason and individualism. Clearly you [RED DAVE] know nothing re Objectivism.Unlike yourself, I actually met Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden. Rand was a shrill, hysterical woman who was about as reasonable as my cat when she wants food. As to individualism, Rand was the leader of a cult that demanded a level of conformity that would make a member of the American Communist Party blush.

It's you, fool, who know nothing about the history and philosophy of your own movement.

Objectivists advocate mass murder; swallow Bush's lies (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6418)

RED DAVE

[Dean]

I have been defending this paradigm lately. What paradigm are you defending? If you think your paradigm deals with real situations apart from an ideology you're wrong.

'Objectivism' is nothing mroe than childish moralist crap. I could get just as much stimulus from some pothead telling me to save the ecosystem, dude, and describe that as "collectivist reason" but its bullshit because they're fucking kids, too.

Get over your bullshit. There is a real economic system out there for analysis and you choose to fuck around with the trivial crap some disenfranchised bourgeois woman created solely to attack communism. That's why its all about rich individuals, describes most human beings as worthless leaches, and considers government activity primarily driven by this underclass.

It's really sad to see whats become of you. The quality of your posts has consistently gone down, as well as any serious inquiry present in them. Worthless.

[trivas7]

Unlike yourself, I actually met Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden.
RED DAVE
And Karl Marx was turgid, tortured, confused, neurotic, unscientific, illogical, and pompous. Who cares?

I know full well the history of stupidities practiced by certain individuals within the Objectivist movement -- not the least of which perpetrated by AR herself.

[trivas7]

Get over your bullshit.
Nothing to the point, Dean.

[trivas7]

Get over your bullshit.
Nothing to the point, Dean. At least I make an effort to understand what I criticize.

[trivas7]

Get over your bullshit.
Nothing to the point, Dean. At least I make an effort to understand what you criticize out of hand. I find your arguments unhistorical and based on the thinist tissues of abstraction: alienation, exploitation, the class struggle. All of whose details fall on the deaf ears of most productive workers.

[RED DAVE]

Rand was a shrill, egomaniacal, racist and a supporter of the War in Vietnam -- For openers.

ETA: She led a cult, which was a direct consequence of her egotism, and she damaged many people as a result. Her philosophy is taken seriously be no one in any philosophy department in the known universe because it is about as valid as Lawsonomy.

She was a shitty writer.

RED DAVE

[Dean]

Nothing to the point, Dean. At least I make an effort to understand what you criticize out of hand. I find your arguments unhistorical and based on the thinist tissues of abstraction: alienation, exploitation, the class struggle.
Alienation between the laborer and control over his or her labor,
exploitation of capital including the labor force and
class antagonisms - conflicts between entities in the context of a competitive capitalist market
are all quite meaningful, historical facts.

Certainly more meaningful than the ridiculous narrow crap about "NAP" and "virtue of selfishness," which again fail to respond or relate to real material reality. It's a bunch of hot air akin to the religious dogma any priest might go on about.


All of whose details fall on the deaf ears of most productive workers.
Trivas7 has certainly been known as of late for his hollow appeals to popularity. One could point out how much more deaf the working class is to Rand's crap, especially when it cannot be gainfully used to empower working class interests.

I'm surprised you're concerned about the interests of workers, though. Us Marxists don't ***** and moan about how the ruling class doesn't care for Marxism. But we do appreciate how the ruling class directly supports Objectivism and Neoclassical insanity - Greenspan and Koch industries come to mind.

[trivas7]

Alienation between the laborer and control over his or her labor,
exploitation of capital including the labor force and
class antagonisms - conflicts between entities in the context of a competitive capitalist market
are all quite meaningful, historical facts.

That these are historical facts in the history of ideas I grant you, the metaphysically given facts of reality -- not at all.

[Dean]

That these are historical facts in the history of ideas I grant you, the metaphysically given facts of reality -- not at all.
Oh, conflict between competing economic interests isn't a material fact? :laugh: Laughable!

EDIT: I now see you use the term "metaphysical" which is nothing more than a pompous way of saying "real" or "material" (since the advent of empirical science, anyway). So you think exploitation, alienation and conflict of economic interests simply "don't exist," how convenient. It's nice that you don't have to refute anything concerning those issues (you've been famous for offering dismissive one-liners recently).

I guess we'll just have to take your word for it. Considering your record, it oughta really be worth something.

[Telemakus]

No; the essence of Objectivism is reason and individualism. Clearly you know nothing re Objectivism.
"My moral purpose in life is for my personal happiness and rational self-interest.
By exploiting the lower class I can gain vast a mounts of capital, which would work for my self-interest and increase my happiness, freedom etc.
Therefore, I should exploit the lower class."

Assume that the second assumption is true. Is this argument valid, to an Objectivist?

[Dean]

"My moral purpose in life is for my personal happiness and rational self-interest.
By exploiting the lower class I can gain vast a mounts of capital, which would work for my self-interest and increase my happiness, freedom etc.
Therefore, I should exploit the lower class."

Assume that the second assumption is true. Is this argument valid, to an Objectivist?
No, because exploitation doesn't exist! It doesn't factor in! What a convenient system - one could do no wrong, provided you are pleased with yourself.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I find your arguments unhistorical and based on the thinist tissues of abstraction: alienation, exploitation, the class struggle. All of whose details fall on the deaf ears of most productive workers.

Alienation (the idea that we, as workers, are one cog in a much larger production process), exploitation (that we, as workers, are paid a wage that is worth less than the value our labor creates), and class war (that people who control production and the people who produce are at odds): aside from the idea that class war is inevitable, all capitalists and workers know on some level that alienation and exploitation are common - but they probably describe it in different ways and might think these things are unavoidable or good whereas radicals do not. So these ideas are objective and exist regardless of weather someone believes in them or not or what their judgment of them is. As far as deaf ears go: this is true, radical ideas are currently marginalized, but then again laws of gravity and aerodynamics don't mean much to people either unless they are falling or trying to fly.

Objectivism just doesn't stand up because it is not grounded in anything concrete - dividing societies around collective or individual makes no sense and is relative. Every society is, by definition, collective - the point is about how theses collectives are organized - hierarchically, democratically, etc.


At least I make an effort to understand what you criticize out of hand. Go read "Capital" - it's all about understanding the system we criticize. Objectivism isn't anything unique or original - it is mearly an attempt to rearrange the ideological deck-chairs of capitalism. The only reason it has gotten any attention outside of the usual Rand cult is because Objectivist ideas fit nicely as a "philosophy" to justify what the ruling class has been attempting to do since the late 1970s. If you are trying to break unions and undo the social safety net, a "philosophy" that justifies the measures it takes to do that is suddenly embraced by an establishment that had basically ignored these ideas under different circumstances.

[-A-kRud-A-]

Lol. Please refrain from saying stupid things.

How so? She grew up in Stalinist Russia and saw that as the be all end all of collectivism. Nothing stupid about that unless you support Stalin which would be stupid.

This is where she got her fixation on individualism, same with Emma Goldman but Emma was sane and stuck to individualism within collectivism.

[RED DAVE]

What the randoids are doing these days:

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/07/22/haters-go-after-the-ground-zero-mosque/

RED DAVE

[Dean]

How so? She grew up in Stalinist Russia and saw that as the be all end all of collectivism. Nothing stupid about that unless you support Stalin which would be stupid.
Actually, it is stupid because she left in 1926, which means the provisional and Leninist governments were more prevalent especially in her childhood. She came from a rich family which explains her admiration for the elite, and she was well educated which gives her no excuse to display such ignorance about communism.

In fact, had it not been for the revolution, she would not have had a right to get an education, along with the Jews living in Russia at the time who were also outcast from academia. If anything, she should have been grateful for the 'Soviet' regime.

[RED DAVE]

Where's a randoid when you need someone to smack?

RED DAVE

[Publius]

1. What is wrong with somebody making money? A man studied carefully the list of patents officially registered in the United States and discovered that the hanger had never been patented and so he patented it and became a millionaire. Who did he hurt? What was his crime?

You can't patent things that are already invented. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art