Objectivism

[mediamogul]

If industry is guided by rational self-interest in a laissez faire environment how does Rand propose dealing with monopolies? I assume that she was opposed to anti-trust laws of any kind. Does she simply believe in the invisible hand of the market place as the regulating principle?

Rand did not completely address the issue of monopolies, but she was against anti-trust laws. You could say that she believed in the invisible hand, but she'd refer to it as the logical outcome. She did not address the problem of limited resources, which might be one of the points where I disagree with her.

If rational egoism is the principle compelling human productive activity then it is clear that a laissez-faire marketplace clearly benefits those who already have money and who own the means of production, as they will primarily be the ones free to associate while the subordinate working class will be at the whim of the interests of CEOs and other corporate officers.

Not according to Rand. If the guiding principle is rational egoism then the CEOs and other corporate officers would not act on whims in business matters. It'd be in their self-interest to pay their productive employees well and keep them well-satisfied so as to achieve maximum benefit form them. Rand's view was that forceful and exploitive methods destroy a man's mind and it's dangerous to have such a mindless person working for you.

It also appears that impoverished people are limited in their freedom and opprtunities for self determination because they are slaves to their position in society.

She'd disagree that their was any limitation on the freedom. Rand was of the position that for a man of productive worth, opportunities would not be hard to find.

The one opportunity I can think of which might be considered critical would be education for children and Rand did not say anything on the subject. Regarding others, Rand was of the view that if a person had capacity, someone somewhere would find it in his interest to capitalize on it, thus providing the impoverished with the necessary opportunity. If you look at her characters, this becomes apparent. Hank Rearden was a self-made millionaire. Fransisco was born rich, but proved that he would have become a millionaire even without the family fortune.

Couldn't the social safety net type programs be construed as increasing an individual's opportunity for freedom from indentured servant type positions. Economic need and lack of basic material goods can seriously impinge on a persons ability to develop themselves and their community.

The problem with such programs is that they require taking earned money form others to pay for them - money they didn't voluntarily donate. Basically, it makes you responsible for someone else's welfare - a responsibility you did not choose. I guess her position would be like - "Yes, he is poor and that's unfortunate and yes, I see that he needs money to start off, but what gives you the right to take my money to give it to him." She'd have asked you to show how it'd be in her best interest to help that person. Something like showing her that this person could be productive member whose returns would be well-worth the cost here. But if the person in question has no desire to work, only wants the money to fulfill his short-term needs and go back to starving (as many on the welfare do), she wouldn't help him. In the end, she wanted any charity work to be done voluntarily - not forcefully through government.

If I had to find one mistake Rand made, I'd say that she had a too idealistic a view of human nature. No, she wasn't blind to the widespread irrationality, but she believed that once people are freed from the influence of corrupt doctrines such as altruism, they'd automatically move towards being rational.

Rand's most obvious fallacy is her use of rational egoism as the foundational principle guiding the totality of human conduct and productive activity. When we talk of rational self-interest we can only talk in terms of consequences and doing that which rationally would confer the greatest benefit to the acting person. This is of course regardless of the effects that any action would have on another person, with specific implications that a person can be used as a mere means to an end. In other words, particularly for powerful people driven by profit in a laissez faire environment, this means destruction of the environment, running the competition out of business, driving up prices of commodities in any way consistent with their own interest, and outsourcing labor to get the best profit margin possible.

Also, why would a true egoist give to charity? Obviously it would not be out of a genuine desire to help someone elseor reduce another person suffering? Would it be to demonstrate their position of power? To appear as though they were a philanthropist? It would have to confer them some benefit. Didn't Rand herself go on Medicare at the end of her life to have surgery related to her years of chain smoking? It seems as though ideologically noone wants to pay into the safety net programs but then when they need them people always use them.