A Philosophy Professor Discusses Ayn Rand in his Ethics Class

[Merton]

If three people all co-own a private business, then that could be considered a form of collectivism within a capitalist system.

That seems a very odd way to characterize collectivism. Like I said, it usually refers to the collective ownership of the means of production, not partnerships or corporations.

 

[Aepervius]

They would be. However an Objectivist isn't necessarily going to buy the cheaper product if he understands why it's cheaper.

There isn't 6 billion objectivist on earth. This is why objectivism, as any philosophical/political systemn assuming everybody subscribding to it, is an utopy only present of the mind of those supporting it.

 

[marplots]

(almost all snipped to get to this)
Objectivism isn't supposed to be about short-term individual benefits, though. It's about rational self-interest, which includes looking at long term consequences.

Isn't that a justification for collectivism?

 

[Aepervius]

2) Self-interest. Waste is an economic term, not a scientific one. I know of a PVC plant in Mississippi that used to have "accidental" waste releases on a regular basis. Then, the president of the company met the president of another company who complained about the cost of that material. The PVC president said, in essence, "What, you BUY that stuff? Let me buy you a drink--you and I can make a deal here!" Suddenly the waste dumping stopped. It didn't trickle to a close, it didn't gradually decline, it ENDED. Completely. Dumping the "waste" was now taking money out of the shareholders' pockets. This is one example, but it's sufficient to illustrate the point that legislation is not the only way to prevent release of hazardous wastes, nor is it even the best way in at least some (I would argue most) cases.

You can bring as many anecdote as you wish on *some* waste product being reusable and bringing economical profit while being sold to otehrs, but the sad fact is that a lot of firm produce waste *nobody* will ever wants.

 

[Akri]

That seems a very odd way to characterize collectivism. Like I said, it usually refers to the collective ownership of the means of production, not partnerships or corporations.

A "collective" is a group of people. If several people own the same thing then that is a form of collective ownership. I think that's what MontagK505 was referring to--situations where a few people decide to share ownership of something within a capitalist system. I could be wrong, though.

There isn't 6 billion objectivist on earth. This is why objectivism, as any philosophical/political systemn assuming everybody subscribding to it, is an utopy only present of the mind of those supporting it.

That's shifting the goal posts a bit, since I was specifically dealing with the issue of whether or not a person who was an Objectivist would act in the way Beelzebuddy described.

And Objectivism doesn't carry the assumption that everyone else will follow Objectivism. Which is why an Objectivist society would still have things like courts and police officers.

 

[Dinwar]

The older I get, the sillier certain views of Ayn Rand become.

As a decon I know would put it, "Vapid prattle."

Also, as was mentioned before, the fact that her philosophy is expounded in fiction novels is extremely off-putting to academics.

If someone believes this, they should excuse themselves from serious discussions of Objectivism. They are hopelessly ignorant of the philosophy, and should educate themselves about it before presenting their opinions about it. Doing it once is understandable; it's a common mistake. At this point in the thread, I see no excuse for it.

Both happens quickly in a laissez faire capitalist society.

I eagerly await evidence of this. No laissez faire society has existed. The Tragedy of the Commons is easily solvable: simply make sure property is owned by someone. When there's no "commons", there's no tragedy. As for monopolies, they have historically been associated with predatory legislation (think AT&T, power companies, airlines...).

Isn't that a justification for collectivism?

It's ostensibly one, yes. In practice, however, collectivism utterly fails to deliver. Unless you're willing to argue that the USSR was GOOD for the starving peasants? If a theory systematically fails in science, we discard it. If it does so in philosophy, it's held as absolutely true it seems. And please don't say "But people corrupted it!" Rand addressed that. Just go ahead and assume that her comments on this topic are my counter-argument.

 

[Lithrael]

How do you tell the difference between useless laws that might as well not exist and laws that should remain on the books despite the fact that violations occur? I often see people ad-absurding it to 'laws against murder don't work, murder still happens' but I don't know what the actual rules are for declaring a given law a lost cause, like you've just done with environmental regulations. I also don't understand how you figure gross violations would happen less under this philosophy than under any other. Would an Objectivist Deepwater Horizon not happen because they'd be.. what, more in tune with their self-interest? Wasn't that a clear demonstration of failure of self-interest as a guarantor of safe operations in itself? It wasn't in anyone's long-term best interest to sacrifice safe practices for speed, yet that's what they did.

I don't see Objectivism addressing the problem we already have with companies making abuses they would be paying for, except that the company disbands, goes broke, goes out of business, etc. I'm not saying it would necessarily be worse but I see no reason to expect it would be better.

The Tragedy of the Commons is easily solvable: simply make sure property is owned by someone. When there's no "commons", there's no tragedy.

How does one apply this to the oceans or the great lakes? To the atmosphere?

 

[Akri]

Isn't that a justification for collectivism?

Not necessarily. That said, voluntary collectivism (which is fine under Objectivism, provided it isn't presented as people having a moral duty to be part of the collective) may well play a factor in the long-term consequences one considers. Of course, it seems that there are a few different definitions of "collectivism" so it would help if you defined the term.

 

[Dinwar]

You can bring as many anecdote as you wish on *some* waste product being reusable and bringing economical profit while being sold to otehrs, but the sad fact is that a lot of firm produce waste *nobody* will ever wants.

Agreed. That's why an O'ist society would have garbage collectors and dumps. Privately owned, and subject to the same property issues I raised earlier (ie, if leachate leaves the dump they would be liable). But you're committing the Nirvanah Fallacy: because not ALL waste can be sold to manufacturers, therefore we should ignore that avenue for addressing industrial waste. You're also ignoring that no matter what, in an O'ist society the one thing they CANNOT do is allow it to migrate to other people's property. EVERY SINGLE industrial spill, BAR NONE, is a violation of property rights. We ignore that in our society because we have invasive laws that we assume will mitigate the impacts. In an Objectivist society that obvious fact would be the central issue.

 

[Dinwar]

How do you tell the difference between useless laws that might as well not exist and laws that should remain on the books despite the fact that violations occur?

You don't. Environmental laws should be taken off the books because they are gross violations of the rights of individuals, AND as a separate issue they are ineffectual. It's an attempt to forestall the argument "Without these laws people would destroy the environment". That argument fails because even WITH the laws they're doing that. So the laws don't do what they propose to do, and violate the rights of innocent people.

I also don't understand how you figure gross violations would happen less under this philosophy than under any other.

Because if they did happen the company would face punative damages that would actually cause them to not do it. Property rights in O'ism are absolute. We're not talking a few thousand dollars in fines; the courts may disband the corporation, or have the appropriate members of the company thrown in jail (it constitutes property destruction, same as if you firebombed the house). They'd still happen (which isn't a change at all--they're happening now, so you can't claim that this is a flaw in O'ism without claiming it's a flaw in every other system, in which case it's a wash), but there'd be much more incentive to not do it because doing so could well ruin you.

 

[Lithrael]

Because if they did happen the company would face punative damages that would actually cause them to not do it.

Yet the massive loss involved in Deepwater Horizon was not sufficient motivation for its various actors not to use sloppy enough practices to allow it to happen. BP certainly didn't want to lose 200 million gallons of oil, Transocean didn't want to lose its rig and kill and injure their workers... Yet getting everything done as fast as possible in order to save and make a little more cash outweighs the idea of the increased risks of things going wrong. You have guys that decided the bonuses and being seen as good workers and not getting bad marks for taking extra time to make sure everything was going as planned, meant more to them than the risk of a massive mishap. If your own fiery death isn't going to motivate you not to risk royally screwing up the environment what on earth is? I don't know either but I'm gonna go ahead and bet it's not Objectivism.

How do you figure Objectivist Exxon would not be in the same position as Real Exxon; allowed to use its political bulk and cash and lawyers to endlessly avoid and negotiate away these punitive measures?

I wouldn't mind laws that targeted actual violators with real prison either, but big money always seems to take the teeth out of ideas like this. I don't see how it could be different.

 

[marplots]

Not necessarily. That said, voluntary collectivism (which is fine under Objectivism, provided it isn't presented as people having a moral duty to be part of the collective) may well play a factor in the long-term consequences one considers. Of course, it seems that there are a few different definitions of "collectivism" so it would help if you defined the term.

This sounds like a game theory problem. I'll illustrate it with a poker analogy. If I collaborate with one other person and divide the spoils, our combined efforts are more effective than my efforts alone. It is in my rational self-interest to do this. However, the same rule leads directly to larger and larger collectives as individuals see that their own efforts will never yield more than joining the collaborative.

I can see that this may break down, and I think this is what underlies that attraction toward Rand. It breaks down when I am exceptional enough that I can rise above the general benefits of being in the collective. However, I can only do so in the modern world if I overlook those areas where I am already taking the benefits and focus on that part where I excel. If I can do that, I will want to promote individualism.

The parts I think get ignored as benefits of the collective are things like language, infrastructure, cultural mores and others -- things I have not created for myself but which ground my ability to act as an individual in contrast to the teeming masses. I didn't invent the wheel, mathematics or a thousand other ideas that I co-opt as background "givens" when I push for individual rank as if it were possible to remove myself from the society around me.

Does a craving for individualism and self sufficiency induce a kind of blindness in Objectivists? Do they seek to pay for the boons they have been blessed with or do you just start fresh, with a blank tally-sheet when you adopt the ideas?

Back to game theory. I get the feeling we are describing a predator/prey relationship, meaning Objectivism couldn't be prevented, but it also couldn't be a sustainable norm.

 

[Myriad]

What does Objectivism say about how to manage commons?

Anyone? Bueller?

Here's an example of what I'm asking. In The Fountainhead, the Objectivist hero architect Roarke wants no one, not even the clients who are paying him, to have any input into his artistic vision for the buildings he designs. (To his credit, he makes no complaint about the fact that this greatly reduces the number of clients who will hire him.) He shows that he is willing to resort to violence to defend that principle, as well as expecting a trial jury to support his right to do so (which, amazingly, they do).

So who, in Roarke's ideal world, gets to point out that a building he's designed and his client wants to erect, would cast entire adjacent neighborhoods into shadow for half the day, create traffic gridlock for blocks around, lack sufficient handicapped access for its public facilities, overtax the local water, sewer, and electric utility grids, put its occupants into mortal danger in the event of an earthquake or fire, and be a permanent eyesore in the skyline? Who should get to veto the building (or force changes in its design to avoid such a veto, at the cost of compromising Roarke's personal artistic vision) over such issues?

The issues I listed are all commons management issues, and the questions of who (if anyone besides Roarke) should get to decide, and how, are some of the fundamental questions of commons management.

But the novel doesn't come close to taking on those questions. Instead, it presents a parade of villains who attack Roarke and his designs for trivially bad reasons -- traditionalism, inferior artistic taste, and most of all, personal envy of Roarke's superior talent. Showing how Objectivist philosophy prevails over such silly straw obstacles is like showing the superior performance of a car by testing it only going downhill.

Did Rand present a stronger case that actually addresses commons management issues -- that is, the actual hard part of politics -- in some other work? If so, where, and how does it work?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Dinwar]

How do you figure Objectivist Exxon would not be in the same position as Real Exxon; allowed to use its political bulk and cash and lawyers to endlessly avoid and negotiate away these punitive measures?

They'd be liable for obstruction of justice. Remember, we're addressing an entirely different legal system here--you can't make the same assumptions as you make under this one. What you're doing is the equivalent of a serf in the Middle Ages asking "What would happen of your local baron dismissed the case?" (Not that the modern legal system is Medieval; I'm just saying that the O'ist concept of law is different from the current one, just as the current one is different from the Medieval one.)

Anyone? Bueller?

If you're going to ignore the answer, don't blame us.

 

[Aepervius]

I eagerly await evidence of this. No laissez faire society has existed. The Tragedy of the Commons is easily solvable: simply make sure property is owned by someone. When there's no "commons", there's no tragedy. As for monopolies, they have historically been associated with predatory legislation (think AT&T, power companies, airlines...).

There has been what was near enough laissez faire capitalism back of the age of the "baron". Monopoly is always the end game if you don't have law against them.

And there is always common without any proprietor. Example : air we breath. The sea. The moon. The antartic and artict.

And frankly why should I pay for fire insurance ? And other form of insurance ? Why should I care if my firm burn down and killl everybody inside, if it cost me LESS to not have fire protection ?

It's ostensibly one, yes. In practice, however, collectivism utterly fails to deliver. Unless you're willing to argue that the USSR was GOOD for the starving peasants? If a theory systematically fails in science, we discard it. If it does so in philosophy, it's held as absolutely true it seems. And please don't say "But people corrupted it!" Rand addressed that. Just go ahead and assume that her comments on this topic are my counter-argument.

Europe as a whole has some sort of colelctivism. You might have ehard of it. Sure we prdctice capitalism AND socialism as a whole. It really is telling that you take an extrem example of failure, which is idnetical to the extrem objectivism wants to go, as a coutner example.

Well sorry but beside black (collectivism) and white (objectivism) there is a slew of gray scale and colors.

 

[Earthborn]

2) Self-interest. Waste is an economic term, not a scientific one. I know of a PVC plant in Mississippi that used to have "accidental" waste releases on a regular basis. Then, the president of the company met the president of another company who complained about the cost of that material. The PVC president said, in essence, "What, you BUY that stuff? Let me buy you a drink--you and I can make a deal here!" Suddenly the waste dumping stopped. It didn't trickle to a close, it didn't gradually decline, it ENDED. Completely. Dumping the "waste" was now taking money out of the shareholders' pockets. This is one example, but it's sufficient to illustrate the point that legislation is not the only way to prevent release of hazardous wastes, nor is it even the best way in at least some (I would argue most) cases.

Cute story. I think more than anything it shows the flaws with Objectivist reliance on "rational self-interest" as a sufficient way to regulate hazardous waste. People don't always act rationally or in their own self-interest. If the president of the PVC plant had acted on his "rational self-interest" then he would have tried to find a buyer for his waste from the very beginning, instead of dumping it. He would have quickly found a vibrant market for the stuff, and wouldn't have polluted. He didn't; only a chance event caused him to reconsider his irrational non-self-interested but selfish behaviour.

It also shows that sometimes government regulation can help people act in their rational self-interest. If it wasn't as easy for him to get away with dumping the stuff, he would have been forced to look for a better way to get rid of the stuff and would have found that others are willing to pay for it. Government regulation would have made him act in his own self-interest quicker.

When real, demonstrable, objective harm occurs due to someone's neglagence or mallicious actions, that is a crime.

Only if the government has made it a crime. In other words: regulates it.

If it all remains on their property, there is nothing anyone can (in justice) do, but if anything from their property enters your property without your permission it is a rights violation and can be prosecuted as such under the principles of Objectivism.

It is not possible to stop everything from entering one's property without one's permission; the wind doesn't look at a cadastral map to stop at land boundaries. Therefore there need to be rules about what things require your permission to enter your property, and what things you just have to accept entering your property without your permission. Those rules are things we tend to call "government regulations".

The legislation, in terms of actually stopping people from damaging the environment, simply isn't effective in the real world as it is now. So the notion that environmental laws are necessary to protect the environment can only be held by evading the fact that they don't work.

Ah, yes... The old "making it illegal to do bad things doesn't work 100%, therefore we must allow people to freely do bad things" argument.

 

[Akri]

Snip

Please define "collectivism" and "individualism" so that I can know exactly what you're arguing with this post.

 

[Myriad]

If you're going to ignore the answer, don't blame us.

Ah. Sorry, my post took some time to write; when I began composing it, your answer that commons would not exist in an Objectivist system was not yet posted.

So, now that that answer is on the table, perhaps you could explain how it would work for the examples of commons issues I listed. For instance, who would privately own "the general benefit to society of handicapped people having the right of general access to all public facilities instead of such access being at the whim of individual proprietors" so that he or she could sue for "destruction" of that "property" when individual businesses choose not to provide it.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[shuttlt]

Cute story. I think more than anything it shows the flaws with Objectivist reliance on "rational self-interest" as a sufficient way to regulate hazardous waste. People don't always act rationally or in their own self-interest. If the president of the PVC plant had acted on his "rational self-interest" then he would have tried to find a buyer for his waste from the very beginning, instead of dumping it. He would have quickly found a vibrant market for the stuff, and wouldn't have polluted. He didn't; only a chance event caused him to reconsider his irrational non-self-interested but selfish behaviour.

Surely the other issue with the story is that the evil industrialist lucked out and found his toxic waste was worth something. Is that true of all toxic waste?

 

[Merton]

If someone believes this, they should excuse themselves from serious discussions of Objectivism. They are hopelessly ignorant of the philosophy, and should educate themselves about it before presenting their opinions about it. Doing it once is understandable; it's a common mistake. At this point in the thread, I see no excuse for it.

So her philosophy wasn't popularized by her fiction?