Ayn Rand speaks to Mike Wallace, 1959

[mhaze]

It seems to me that what you're describing as "taking advantage" is nothing more than selling a commodity to the person/people who are able/willing to pay the most for it.

At what price does my selling the rock become immoral? By what moral principle should I accept anything less than the largest offer?

Even if I accepted Ponder's argument re immorality of high prices, which I do not, in the alternative one could argue that the paradymn applies only to a zero sum game. That is where if one person wins, another loses.

One go further with that and note growth rates of the economic bases of countries, and the fashion in which trade is not a zero sum game. Technology throws all zero sum games to the winds of change.

Rand argued that capitalism implied growth, and socialism stagnation.

 

[Cain]

My neighbor thinks it's really neat, he offers me $1000 for it, which is all the money he has.
A local businessman wants it for his collection and offers me a million dollars for it.
Bill Gates wants it and offers me a billion dollars for it.
At what price does my selling the rock become immoral? By what moral principle should I accept anything less than the largest offer?

A superb analogy, Mycroft! Truly, a stunning achievement. Let's compare a Mars rock against emergency, life-saving medical attention.

The B.S. laissez-faire argument for charging extortionist prices is that it gives people an incentive to provide life-saving goods. If a person can 10 dollars per bottle of water, he'll try to find a way to get his product into a disaster zone. If a hurricane is coming and a store-owner cannot jack up the prices on flashlights, then one person can come in and afford to buy flash lights and radios for each and every member of her family, potentially leaving others in the dark. B.S. arguments.

Funny thing is that most people, for some craaaaazy reason, think it's immoral to exploit a person in a vulnerable position. One could of course believe such exploitation is immoral but ought to remain legal (because we have the "right" to take advantage of others).

See also the 1981 Michael Mann movie THIEF where the gangster Leo beats up James Caan.

 

[EGarrett]

This is incredible. You do realize Ayn Rand espoused ethical egoism? Are you aware that it cuts to the heart of her ethics?

Apparently not, because one of the core elements of her point of view (not stealing) is counter to what you were bringing up.

 

[Mycroft]

A superb analogy, Mycroft! Truly, a stunning achievement. Let's compare a Mars rock against emergency, life-saving medical attention.

Since poderingturtle didn't mention life-saving medical attention but only increase in prices due to shifts of supply and demand, I can only conclude that you are high.

However, I don't see that it makes a lot of difference in the analogy. Suppose instead of a Mars rock I have one dose of wunder-serum that cures cancer. My neighbor, a local businessman, and Bill Gates all know someone dying of cancer and offer to buy my serum at the same prices offered for the Mars rock.

What's the moral principle to guide my decision? Each of my three potential customers will use the serum to save a life, So aren’t they all equally moral choices? Am I required to choose by lots to avoid “gouging” anyone? Please explain the logic here, if you can.

The B.S. laissez-faire argument for charging extortionist prices is that it gives people an incentive to provide life-saving goods. If a person can 10 dollars per bottle of water, he'll try to find a way to get his product into a disaster zone. If a hurricane is coming and a store-owner cannot jack up the prices on flashlights, then one person can come in and afford to buy flash lights and radios for each and every member of her family, potentially leaving others in the dark. B.S. arguments.

You assert that it’s a BS argument, but you fail to explain why. Is it that you don’t like the outcome? Surely you know that argument from a negative consequence is a fallacy.

Funny thing is that most people, for some craaaaazy reason, think it's immoral to exploit a person in a vulnerable position. One could of course believe such exploitation is immoral but ought to remain legal (because we have the "right" to take advantage of others).

Is it still immoral if a relatively poor person exploits a wealthy person? Suppose in your previously mentioned disaster zone some relatively poor person who has just lost almost everything he owns finds an opportunity to profit from a wealthy person?

Suppose some working-class guy, a driver for a limo company, suffers through hurricane Katrina and sees everything he owns wiped out, but finds himself in possession of his company’s only custom-built stretch Hummer with a full tank of gas. While he’s using it to get his elderly blind grandmother and his pregnant wife out of town, he comes across an attorney who has used his services before who makes him an offer; “You have plenty of room in there,” he says, “Take me, my wife, our daughter and our dog scruffy with you, and I’ll give you a hundred thousand dollars!”

Is it still immoral? I’d like your opinion.

 

[Cain]

Apparently not, because one of the core elements of her point of view (not stealing) is counter to what you were bringing up.

Do you just not pay attention? You an Mycroft, I swear. Did I not already anticipate this criticism and address it in the post above? Why is stealing wrong according to Rand's ethics? A prohibition on stealing, from the perspective of a rational and consistent egoism, is hardly absolute, and not limited to what Rand termed emergency circumstances. Specifically I am talking about what are known as prudent predator arguments.

Mycroft blathered:

Since poderingturtle didn't mention life-saving medical attention but only increase in prices due to shifts of supply and demand, I can only conclude that you are high.

If you had a clue and followed the threading you would instantly know this discussion came out of emergency circumstances. If you wanted to address actual arguments rather than erecting an insufferable straw man you would charitably interpret comments pertaining to "treatment," "taking advantage of others," and "emergency circumstances" as a little more pressing than buying Mars rocks.

However, I don't see that it makes a lot of difference in the analogy. Suppose instead of a Mars rock I have one dose of wunder-serum that cures cancer. My neighbor, a local businessman, and Bill Gates all know someone dying of cancer and offer to buy my serum at the same prices offered for the Mars rock.

What's the moral principle to guide my decision? Each of my three potential customers will use the serum to save a life, So aren’t they all equally moral choices? Am I required to choose by lots to avoid “gouging” anyone? Please explain the logic here, if you can.

That you do not see a difference speaks volumes. If each of the options involves saving a life, and you only have a single dose of "wunder-serum," then Iagree it does not matter (assuming all lives are equal). Considering Bill Gates will have many billions left-over, I do not think he is hurting.

You assert that it’s a BS argument, but you fail to explain why. Is it that you don’t like the outcome? Surely you know that argument from a negative consequence is a fallacy.

Proving you do not even understand the B.S. arguments.

Is it still immoral if a relatively poor person exploits a wealthy person? Suppose in your previously mentioned disaster zone some relatively poor person who has just lost almost everything he owns finds an opportunity to profit from a wealthy person?

Suppose some working-class guy, a driver for a limo company, suffers through hurricane Katrina and sees everything he owns wiped out, but finds himself in possession of his company’s only custom-built stretch Hummer with a full tank of gas. While he’s using it to get his elderly blind grandmother and his pregnant wife out of town, he comes across an attorney who has used his services before who makes him an offer; “You have plenty of room in there,” he says, “Take me, my wife, our daughter and our dog scruffy with you, and I’ll give you a hundred thousand dollars!”

Is it still immoral? I’d like your opinion.

One dumb example deserves another, eh? You seem stubbornly -- no, blissfully -- unaware of the fact that dollar sums are relative. Furthermore, the example seems confused because you have the lawyer initiating an offer. Instead I'll answer your question directly: yes, it's possible and it is immoral for a relatively poor person to exploit a relatively wealthy person. It happens, sometimes in the form of blackmail.

Instead let's go back to moral values, and I'll pose my own contrived example. Two people are injured in an earthquake. You know one person is relatively rich and the other victim is relatively poor. In your possession is one dose of "wunder-serum XX," which has the power to magically save people who are on the verge of death from dying (yep). It also prevents infections. The rich person has a gash on his arm. He's willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars for the wunder-serum. The poor person who is on the verge of death begs for the drug. Question: is it immoral to even have an auction? If you think it's permissible to have an auction, then I'm assuming you agree it's permissible to sell the drug to someone who does not need it, so that someone who does will die. What if the only competitive counter-offer from the poor person is a life of servitude? Also, I call ******** in advance to anyone who says, "i takez the $$$ and i gives it to teh famine relief booyah!!!"

 

[ponderingturtle]

You are saying that reselling a property at a large profit is problematic?
What difference is it if the profit is 2% or 200%? Note that in an economic system, profit is not a static thing but moves and creates goods or services. That is why one factory worker in a town is said to support four or five people in that town - at the supermarket, the ice house, etc.

Again, there may be a confusion between the economic system and private morality. Rand did in fact laugh at assertions of immoral profits, because the use of such a concept would typically illustrate some ignorance of the function of capital (Wealth of Nations is really the basic reference for this).

If you just crack open Wealth of Nations, read the first few pages, then do the same for Das Kapital, what is your impression?

The point is she believes in absolute morality, everything is moral or immoral. So there is a continuum of how much events extort the increase in value of the property. It was accepted that charging someone say $200,000 for an epipen because with out it they will die is immoral, but this is just the extreme end of the continuum that everyone will admit that at the other end it is perfectly acceptable, say buying land speculating on mineral wealth there.

So now it is an immoral act but not an immoral profit to take everything you can from someone who needs your help?

 

[ponderingturtle]

A free market would not have mandated liability. Liability would be a commodity which is negotiated and traded like any other.

The fact that it is mandated means the economics of it is mandated. The participants have no choice, thus there is no free market.

So how do you trade liability for say your truck running someone over? How is that distinct from the modern insurance industry that insures doctors and trucking companies?(also not a free market at all, what with the inspections, requiring licenses to drive and all that unfree activity)

 

[ponderingturtle]

It seems to me that what you're describing as "taking advantage" is nothing more than selling a commodity to the person/people who are able/willing to pay the most for it.

And that is the reasoning I see supporting the charging as much as you can from anyone in need of emergency treatment. They will pay it because you are the only one who can supply it(no one else is close enough to save their life) so charging them everything they own is the moral solution.

At what price does my selling the rock become immoral? By what moral principle should I accept anything less than the largest offer?

Selling the rock is not immoral, but at what point does charging someone an excessive amount of money for a drug that will save their life become immoral? You paid $5, so say $500,000 seem a reasonable price? Sure they will be in debt for years to you, but you still saved their life so you did a good thing.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Since poderingturtle didn't mention life-saving medical attention but only increase in prices due to shifts of supply and demand, I can only conclude that you are high.

And from this I conclude that you are not following the thread or injesting massive ammounts of controled substances.

My point started with emergencies, and then asked how they are different from other events that cause shifts in supply and demand.

You really should pay attention or you will cause yourself to look like an idiot like you did here.

 

[mhaze]

The point is she believes in absolute morality, everything is moral or immoral. So there is a continuum of how much events extort the increase in value of the property. It was accepted that charging someone say $200,000 for an epipen because with out it they will die is immoral, but this is just the extreme end of the continuum that everyone will admit that at the other end it is perfectly acceptable, say buying land speculating on mineral wealth there.

So now it is an immoral act but not an immoral profit to take everything you can from someone who needs your help?

How can you assign moral or immoral to some dollars on a table?

 

[Mycroft]

And from this I conclude that you are not following the thread or injesting massive ammounts of controled substances.

I will confess to having skimmed a few pages, but I have only ingested modest amounts of controlled substances.

And that is the reasoning I see supporting the charging as much as you can from anyone in need of emergency treatment. They will pay it because you are the only one who can supply it(no one else is close enough to save their life) so charging them everything they own is the moral solution.

So what in Rand's writing brings you to the conclusion that she believes this? Rand is all about rewarding people who do work and build things or create new ideas or who are innovative. Nowhere does she say she believes the guy who happens to have the epi pen at the exact moment needed to extort someone out of their life-savings should be rewarded. She compares and contrasts those who create wealth through labor and innovation with those who believe they are entitled to other people's wealth due to their need. She is strangely silent about those who accumulate wealth by speculation.

Selling the rock is not immoral, but at what point does charging someone an excessive amount of money for a drug that will save their life become immoral? You paid $5, so say $500,000 seem a reasonable price? Sure they will be in debt for years to you, but you still saved their life so you did a good thing.

So what should the guiding principle be? If we assume demand is greater than supply, what is the moral way to decide who gets the life saving treatment and who doesn't?

 

[Mycroft]

If you had a clue and followed the threading you would instantly know this discussion came out of emergency circumstances. If you wanted to address actual arguments rather than erecting an insufferable straw man you would charitably interpret comments pertaining to "treatment," "taking advantage of others," and "emergency circumstances" as a little more pressing than buying Mars rocks.

What actually happens in emergency situations is people donate lots of time, equipment and merchandise for free and then expend a great deal of effort getting them to where it is needed while the profit seekers are publicly reviled on CNN, MSNBC and whatever other news channel can make fodder of it. It’s a bit puzzling that we should be talking about profit seekers as though someone were for price-gouging and someone else were against it.

That you do not see a difference speaks volumes.

Typical Cain ad-hom. Amusing, as always.

If each of the options involves saving a life, and you only have a single dose of "wunder-serum," then Iagree it does not matter (assuming all lives are equal). Considering Bill Gates will have many billions left-over, I do not think he is hurting.

I imagine it matters a great deal to the seller. Is his benefit a part of the moral equation? Or is he not allowed to consider his own needs?

Proving you do not even understand the B.S. arguments.

Lol! A Cain ad-hom that’s supposed to distract us from the issue of the question itself. Even more amusing!

One dumb example deserves another, eh? You seem stubbornly -- no, blissfully -- unaware of the fact that dollar sums are relative.

What does that mean? That it’s less of a crime to over-charge a wealthy man than a poor one? That a wealthy person is less entitled to keep his wealth? I’d be interested in hearing a logical foundation for those principles!

Furthermore, the example seems confused because you have the lawyer initiating an offer. Instead I'll answer your question directly: yes, it's possible and it is immoral for a relatively poor person to exploit a relatively wealthy person. It happens, sometimes in the form of blackmail.

So if the limo driver had initiated the offer, he would be guilty of exploitation? What if he had demanded a lesser fee of the lawyer, would it be moral then? Don’t forget the limo driver has a responsibility to his blind grandmother and his pregnant wife, the money he gets from this transaction will be invaluable in helping them rebuild their lives.

Instead let's go back to moral values, and I'll pose my own contrived example. Two people are injured in an earthquake. You know one person is relatively rich and the other victim is relatively poor. In your possession is one dose of "wunder-serum XX," which has the power to magically save people who are on the verge of death from dying (yep). It also prevents infections. The rich person has a gash on his arm. He's willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars for the wunder-serum. The poor person who is on the verge of death begs for the drug. Question: is it immoral to even have an auction? If you think it's permissible to have an auction, then I'm assuming you agree it's permissible to sell the drug to someone who does not need it, so that someone who does will die. What if the only competitive counter-offer from the poor person is a life of servitude?

What I think is interesting about your example is that it presumes the wealthy person will let the poor person die. Doesn’t the question tell us more about your attitude towards wealthy people than it does about anyone who might answer it?

Also, I call ******** in advance to anyone who says, "i takez the $$$ and i gives it to teh famine relief booyah!!!"

Why? If our moral principle is the number of lives saved, isn’t it possible to save more than one life with the rich man’s tens of thousands?

 

[EGarrett]

Do you just not pay attention? You an Mycroft, I swear. Did I not already anticipate this criticism and address it in the post above? Why is stealing wrong according to Rand's ethics? A prohibition on stealing, from the perspective of a rational and consistent egoism, is hardly absolute, and not limited to what Rand termed emergency circumstances. Specifically I am talking about what are known as prudent predator arguments.

Rand was against forcing people to do things. You're trying to stuff her into a box that doesn't fit. Criticisms of ethical egoism are not criticisms of Rand.

 

[Cain]

EGarret writes:

Rand was against forcing people to do things. You're trying to stuff her into a box that doesn't fit. Criticisms of ethical egoism are not criticisms of Rand.

Please stop being obtuse. I know she says it. People say a lot of things. The argument goes to WHY Rand says it is wrong to initiate force, and ethical egoism most certainly does figure into the equation. The presumption is that Rand's "non-initiation of force principle" is DERIVED from (ethical) egoism.

What actually happens in emergency situations is people donate lots of time, equipment and merchandise for free and then expend a great deal of effort getting them to where it is needed while the profit seekers are publicly reviled on CNN, MSNBC and whatever other news channel can make fodder of it.

Which is beside the point, isn't it?

It’s a bit puzzling that we should be talking about profit seekers as though someone were for price-gouging and someone else were against it.

I suggest you peruse capitalism.org, or H.P.O sometime.

I wrote:

That you do not see a difference [in the analogies] speaks volumes.

Mycroft "responds":

Typical Cain ad-hom. Amusing, as always.

I'm afraid this non-response is all too typical. While we're here:

Cain writes:

Proving you do not even understand the B.S. arguments.

Lol! A Cain ad-hom that’s supposed to distract us from the issue of the question itself. Even more amusing!

I see. Pretending to identify fallacies is a major problem; double-speak gets double bonus points.

I imagine it matters a great deal to the seller. Is his benefit a part of the moral equation? Or is he not allowed to consider his own needs?

I imagine that since your example posits a person in need of life saving treatment that individual was a teeny-tiny bit more important. If we assume the lives under threat are equal, which we did, the compensation for the seller seems relatively insignificant as far as the moral dilemma is concerned.

I wrote:

One dumb example deserves another, eh? You seem stubbornly -- no, blissfully -- unaware of the fact that dollar sums are relative.

Mycroft writes:

What does that mean? That it’s less of a crime to over-charge a wealthy man than a poor one? That a wealthy person is less entitled to keep his wealth? I’d be interested in hearing a logical foundation for those principles!

You're still not getting it, are you? I am not going to use the term "over-charge" because it commonly means charging above an agreed upon price. Other words that invite confusion are "crime" and "logical." We are talking about the matter in the context of morality first -- law can come later. I am not sure what a "logical foundation" is, and I am not keen to use the words "logical" and "reasonable" interchangeably.

Now to relative sums. Are you familiar with the word "afford"? One billion dollars does not constitute Bill Gates' life-savings. Why do you think people see a difference between a major Hollywood celebrity being defrauded out of 100,000 dollars vs. a retired school teacher being defrauded out of 75,000 dollars, her life-savings? Why do you think one is considered "more immoral" than the other?

So if the limo driver had initiated the offer, he would be guilty of exploitation?

Are you kidding me? When a person opens a bid, she usually makes an offer she can afford.

What I think is interesting about your example is that it presumes the wealthy person will let the poor person die. Doesn’t the question tell us more about your attitude towards wealthy people than it does about anyone who might answer it?

So says the person who has attacked ME for the "ad-hom." You could not even bother to deal with the example on its own terms and add your psychoanalysis as an afterthought. Oh, and WHY does it presume the wealthy person will let the poor person die? Because it's a take-off of your earlier, confused scenarios.

Why? If our moral principle is the number of lives saved, isn’t it possible to save more than one life with the rich man’s tens of thousands?

*sigh* Because it does not tease out the fundamentals you're ignoring. Yes, it's possible, which is precisely why I anticipated it. What if somebody wants to use the money to consume Yugoslavian porn instead?

What if he had demanded a lesser fee of the lawyer, would it be moral then? Don’t forget the limo driver has a responsibility to his blind grandmother and his pregnant wife, the money he gets from this transaction will be invaluable in helping them rebuild their lives.

Whatever do you mean? He should try to soak the rich lawyer, and kick out grandma and the wife if it means they're taking up space that could be used to store bags of money that will no doubt be used to feed children in Africa.

 

[Gurdur]

Rand was against forcing people to do things.

Simply not true; if she had had her way, trade unions, strikes and boycotts would all be illegal. There is a great deal of authoritarianism in both Rand's Objectivism and Libertarianism.

 

[mhaze]

Simply not true; if she had had her way, trade unions, strikes and boycotts would all be illegal.

She wanted laws against these activities?

 

[ponderingturtle]

How can you assign moral or immoral to some dollars on a table?

So putting someone into debt for years and taking advantage of them can not be concidered immoral?

 

[ponderingturtle]

What actually happens in emergency situations is people donate lots of time, equipment and merchandise for free and then expend a great deal of effort getting them to where it is needed while the profit seekers are publicly reviled on CNN, MSNBC and whatever other news channel can make fodder of it. It’s a bit puzzling that we should be talking about profit seekers as though someone were for price-gouging and someone else were against it.

Nope. You are thinking national disasters, individual ones just get ignored. See studies on how people will just walk past someone passed out on the sidewalk. Most people really don't care.

Also see that recent story of the woman who was stabbed and people steped over her to continue shopping and one person took a picture of her with their cell phone.

I see little evidence that most people really care, they just don't want to be seen not careing.

 

[EGarrett]

EGarret writes:

Please stop being obtuse. I know she says it. People say a lot of things. The argument goes to WHY Rand says it is wrong to initiate force, and ethical egoism most certainly does figure into the equation. The presumption is that Rand's "non-initiation of force principle" is DERIVED from (ethical) egoism.

While I can't speak for Rand 100%, I disagree. She seems to speak repeatedly about people being free to pursue their own goals with little interference. THAT seems to be where her idea of selfishness comes from.

If ethical egoism would support people stealing from each other, then that is completely counter to the idea of personal freedom. Allowing stealing etc. is actually allowing a big, strong (or well-armed) person to take away freedom from many others. How could a person who believes in freedom of personal goals possibly support that in any way?

 

[EGarrett]

Simply not true; if she had had her way, trade unions, strikes and boycotts would all be illegal. There is a great deal of authoritarianism in both Rand's Objectivism and Libertarianism.

But the reason she was against those things is because she thinks a free market would do the same thing in a better way. She wasn't against the IDEA of good worker conditions, she just believed that using a free market, where businesses compete for employees, would naturally improve them.