Ayn Rand -Faith vs Reason

[genkaus]

The Tea-Party is certainly based upon a reading of Rand's Objectivism, granted a misreading, and the Bible. Rand no doubt would completely reject their ideological twist on her theories the same way that Marx stated "I am not a Marxist" after seeing how the Paris Commune butchered his writings. All the basics are there: significant reduction in government, de-regulation of business, "greed is good", the rich deserve to be rich and the poor deserve to be poor, the histrionics about "big government control over people's lives",

My statement that Libertarianism is a theology (which is borrowed from Thom Hartmann) simply means it is believed by those who hold it's principles as an established system of belief though it has never been applied in practice. Many people believe in it as though it were completely rational, time-tested, and practically proven to work. I think it has never been applied in practice due to the fact that especially the laissez-faire capitalism and also removal of the safety net programs would generate a huge stratification of wealth and seriously decrease the quality of life for most citizens.

Also, laissez-faire capitalism has never been accepted or put into practice by an industrialized nation. Libertarianism calls for, essentially the elimination of government. Only the police, military, and legislative branch (but cut down to bare bones) would remain in terms of government. Most other services would be privatized. Rand's theories say basically the same thing. Objectivism is one of those things that works in theory but in practice would be disastrous. It is a complete misread of human nature, market forces and "natural order" of things.

Partially correct. While both Ayn Rand and laissez-faire capitalism call for complete separation of economics and government, Ayn Rand atleast acknowledges that it is impossible in the current scenario. The reason for that would be:
1. Certain services that the government currently provides would not be so easily privatized, such as roads, city infrastructure etc.
2. A source of revenue for maintaining the government would be required - which would automatically put it back in economics.
3. There can be practices is economics that can be coercive and therefore call for government involvement. This is a point that I think Ayn Rand missed.

These are the reasons why pure Laissez-Faire seems impossible, atleast currently. However, it has been adopted as an ideal in many scenarios, its principles have been applied and a great deal of progress has been observed in those cases. Its no miracle that the countries with lesser government involvement in economics boast of better quality of life. While pure Laissez-Faire has never existed, the concepts behind it (such as free-market) have been put into action and observed to work.

Your fear of stratification of wealth and worse living conditions for the poor springs from the incorrect assumption that the total wealth would remain constant. If the total wealth were to remain constant, any increase in wealth of one section of the society would necessarily come at the cost of another section. However, if the total wealth increases, then all the sections can get wealthier even if the wealth gap between them increases.

[mediamogul]

Partially correct. While both Ayn Rand and laissez-faire capitalism call for complete separation of economics and government, Ayn Rand atleast acknowledges that it is impossible in the current scenario. The reason for that would be:
1. Certain services that the government currently provides would not be so easily privatized, such as roads, city infrastructure etc.
2. A source of revenue for maintaining the government would be required - which would automatically put it back in economics.
3. There can be practices is economics that can be coercive and therefore call for government involvement. This is a point that I think Ayn Rand missed.

#3 is putting it lightly. The primary driving force behind laissez-faire unregulated capitalism is profit and capital. The ultimate guiding forces are not principles per se but sheer market forces. It is a kind of "natural selection" in that companies which are profitable survive and those that aren't do not. For instance if it is not profitable for a company to clean up an oil spill they will simply not do it. Monopolies would form. Nevermind workers rights and things like setting a minimum wage or collective bargaining. Regulated capitalism works, unregulated capitalism would be a nightmare.

These are the reasons why pure Laissez-Faire seems impossible, atleast currently. However, it has been adopted as an ideal in many scenarios, its principles have been applied and a great deal of progress has been observed in those cases. Its no miracle that the countries with lesser government involvement in economics boast of better quality of life. While pure Laissez-Faire has never existed, the concepts behind it (such as free-market) have been put into action and observed to work.

Can you name a couple example countries? To my knowledge the countries with the highest standards of living have significant socialized government programs such as education and healthcare.

Your fear of stratification of wealth and worse living conditions for the poor springs from the incorrect assumption that the total wealth would remain constant. If the total wealth were to remain constant, any increase in wealth of one section of the society would necessarily come at the cost of another section. However, if the total wealth increases, then all the sections can get wealthier even if the wealth gap between them increases.

Even under our current regulated US economy (though significantly less regulated than the prosperity of the 50s) we have seen a stagnation in wages for low and mid level employees and an exponential growth in the wages of higher level management and CEOs. Not to mention growth in their salaries during a huge recession. The 1% continued to amass wealth even when the vast majority of the remainder of the population saw a stagnation or reduction in their wealth, employment, and wages. This is in a regulated economy. In an unregulated system there would be no checks to ensure that the rich don't simply completely screw over the poor once and for all. Even if total wealth increases why would those who set the wages and are responsible for the distribution of the wealth not simply continue to amass capital and profit for themselves?

[genkaus]

#3 is putting it lightly. The primary driving force behind laissez-faire unregulated capitalism is profit and capital. The ultimate guiding forces are not principles per se but sheer market forces. It is a kind of "natural selection" in that companies which are profitable survive and those that aren't do not. For instance if it is not profitable for a company to clean up an oil spill they will simply not do it. Monopolies would form. Nevermind workers rights and things like setting a minimum wage or collective bargaining. Regulated capitalism works, unregulated capitalism would be a nightmare.

Which is why not even Laissez-Faire calls for completely unregulated market. Regulations regarding theft and coercion are required even there.

Can you name a couple example countries? To my knowledge the countries with the highest standards of living have significant socialized government programs such as education and healthcare.

As indicated before - there has been no application of pure Laissez-Faire. In fact, I doubt we even completely understand how we would implement it. However, here is a list of countries according to the degree of economic freedom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freest_economy

I believe that you'll find that the standard of living is also high in these countries.

Even under our current regulated US economy (though significantly less regulated than the prosperity of the 50s) we have seen a stagnation in wages for low and mid level employees and an exponential growth in the wages of higher level management and CEOs. Not to mention growth in their salaries during a huge recession. The 1% continued to amass wealth even when the vast majority of the remainder of the population saw a stagnation or reduction in their wealth, employment, and wages. This is in a regulated economy. In an unregulated system there would be no checks to ensure that the rich don't simply completely screw over the poor once and for all. Even if total wealth increases why would those who set the wages and are responsible for the distribution of the wealth not simply continue to amass capital and profit for themselves?

Not being a US citizen, I cannot fully comment on that. But are your government regulations actually working towards equalizing the wealth or are they helping the upper management cover their tracks? Wasn't it government involvement and bailouts because of which those CEOs were able to escape the consequences of their actions?

[The Grand Nudger]

Government and big business are two sides to the same coin here in the good ole US of A. A government post is either A: a credit on a corporate resume (or the thing you are "rewarded" with when you "retire" into the private sector, or B: a post you are slipped into in service of the same.

[5thHorseman]

Ayn Rand is a dick.

[genkaus]

Ayn Rand is a dick.

Read your own signature quote.