View Full Version : Capitalism and Rand
Ayn Rand once wrote:
The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others....
In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate. They can deal with one another only in terms of and by means of reason, i.e., by means of discussion, persuasion, and contractual agreement, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit.
Source: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
Do you believe Ayn Rand's views on Capitalism are feasible? Can humans, who are aggressive and envious by nature, not only function, but succeed in a society where all relationships are voluntary?
John Scott
08-23-2008, 02:15 AM
I can see the collectivists saying that such freedom is dangerous. The capitalists, they will say, would run roughshod over the "little guys". Therefore we need Big Brother to dictate how people interact.
Understanding their protest, I also dismiss it.
Society can order itself without resorting to big brother.
eternaltraveler
08-23-2008, 08:50 PM
Can humans, who are aggressive and envious by nature, not only function, but succeed in a society where all relationships are voluntary?
Some humans undoubtedly cannot function in such a society any more than tapeworms can survive without a suitable host.
The real issue is not whether society can function; unhindered by the parasitic class society would likely function better. The issue is whether or not the rest of us are somehow obligated to be fed on by parasites.
Of course the parasites we know are not a suitable analogy. They lack anything but the most basic of nervous systems.
A thought experiment might be in order. Lets say tomorrow scientists discover that a kind of tape worm that infests humans is actually a sentient entity, and every time a 3rd world child took albendazole a life every bit as rich as your own was extinguished. It’s not the “fault” of this entity that it’s ancestors fell into an evolutionary niche that placed it in the human digestive track. What responsibly would we have toward it? Should we strive for complete annihilation of these entities?
Extrapolating from this augmented parasitic analogy do we have any responsibility toward the parasites on our society who likely are at least partially where they are due to some parasitic program written in their DNA.
All of us, after all, spend about 9 months as entirely parasitic beings in a more classical sense.
John Scott
08-23-2008, 08:59 PM
All of us, after all, spend about 9 months as entirely parasitic beings in a more classical sense.
For the most part, those are invited parasites.
A thought experiment might be in order. Lets say tomorrow scientists discover that a kind of tape worm that infests humans is actually a sentient entity, and every time a 3rd world child took albendazole a life every bit as rich as your own was extinguished.
I'm not of the opinion that all sentient beings deserve rights. Rights are created by being party to the social contract, the source of rights.
Let's say Albert Einstein, a very sentient being when he was alive, refused to honor the social contract. He would have no rights. Just as I do not enjoy the rights of any contract I am not party to.
eternaltraveler
08-23-2008, 09:10 PM
For the most part, those are invited parasites.
One could consider mistakenly eating undercooked meat to be inviting these theoretical albert enistien parasites to your gut just as much as mistakenly (for a female) becoming pregnant due to a broken condom or mistiming (if pregnacy was her intention it is another matter). And of course some pregnancies are wholely not invited.
Let's say Albert Einstein, a very sentient being when he was alive, refused to honor the social contract. He would have no rights. Just as I do not enjoy the rights of any contract I am not party to.
I agree with the above statement 100%. And brought up the above for the sake of discussion because of yet we don't seem to have any residents who disagree.
DSieve
09-03-2008, 07:19 AM
Can humans, who are aggressive and envious by nature, not only function, but succeed in a society where all relationships are voluntary?
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/12_02/RIDER151207_468x516.jpg
Interesting response. Care to elaborate? ;)
DSieve
09-04-2008, 07:52 AM
lol... Have you seen the movie? I think his character pretty much represents the extreme ideal represented in the question.
... all human relationships are voluntary ...
This is not possible. Babies are humans, but are dependent upon parents (or caretakers). Many adults are physically or mentally incapable of surviving without depending upon others. 99% of adults (more or less - I pulled than number from my nether regions) are capable of functioning in a system where all relationships are voluntary, and in fact, I believe that we are realizing this scenario here in the USA. People are free to embrace or reject familial or employer relationships as they like.
... the banishment of physical force from human relationships ...
This sounds nice, but there is always going to be an element of force - whether by government or the people - in securing order. And wherever that force resides, there is always going to be opportunity for abuse and corruption.
Still, I think that Capitalism is truer to the human spirit than any other system.
lol... Have you seen the movie? I think his character pretty much represents the extreme ideal represented in the question.
I have not seen it. Is that Easy Rider?
This is not possible. Babies are humans, but are dependent upon parents (or caretakers). Many adults are physically or mentally incapable of surviving without depending upon others. 99% of adults (more or less - I pulled than number from my nether regions) are capable of functioning in a system where all relationships are voluntary, and in fact, I believe that we are realizing this scenario here in the USA. People are free to embrace or reject familial or employer relationships as they like.
I think 99% is a tad high, but still a good point. ;)
DSieve
09-05-2008, 08:16 AM
Is that Easy Rider?
Yes, it is.
John A Roark
12-03-2008, 12:14 PM
I would like to see an argument in justification of the statement, "...there is always going to be an element of force--whether by government or the people--in securing order."
Must there be?
Why?
And is it your contention that such an 'element of force' is morally acceptable?
Does your (or anyone else's) vision of 'order' supersede mine, and if so, why?
What's to stop me from rejecting that sense of 'order?'
Is there any means we should use to determine what 'order' should consist of?
(I think Rand had a hell of an idea about that)