Ayn Rand speaks to Mike Wallace, 1959

[Admiral]

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.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever for this claim (that she thought unions, strikes and boycotts should be illegal)? It's completely baseless.

 

[Cain]

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.

This was also touched upon earlier. First, ask yourself who does NOT believe we ought to be allowed to pursue our own goals with little interference. Problems arise when our aims conflict with the aims of others. Also, Rand's loaded (mis)understanding of the term selfishness often seems to suggest that self-interest (and selfishness/ethical egoism by extension) simply means pursuing one's rational self-interest. This is sloppy thinking because a quite important part of morality has to do with what is worthy of value.

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?

Sure universal (or collective) ethical egoists generally argue people ought not steal from one another because the aggregate impact is undesirable. But that form of ethical egoism, as shown earlier in this very thread, often seems to be utilitarianism masquerading in another form. Individual ethical egoism maintains one's own interests are paramount and not open to compromise, so a prohibition on stealing is contingent upon individual circumstances, costs & benefits. The only consistent feature of this world-view is self-advantage; such a person might speak of the "virtue of hypocrisy."

In any event, both variants are counter-intuitive and generally unacceptable because they provide the wrong reasons for socially maladjusted behavior. According to ethical egoism it is our moral duty to pursue our self-interest, and when we fail to do so we harm the person who matters most -- ourself. But this is a mistake. Stealing from others (for example) is wrong because it harms others. Taken to its logical conclusions ethical egoism trivializes immoral behavior by reducing it to failure to act in accordance with one's rational self-interests. What's primarily wrong with murdering, maiming, torturing, and starving a country's population is that it involves inflicting suffering on others. For an ethical egoist he failed to act in his best self-interest. This essential feature of that ethical system is shaded by Rand's sanctimonious indignation and lofty claims of moral clarity.

 

[mhaze]

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

Well, let me reverse the argument on you. Say that a company can spend a billion dollars and produce treatment X that solves disease Y. We calculate that our stockholders would be happy if the net return is 50M per year over 20 years. That's net, after paying for lawsuits, overhead, costs of production.

And to get the net 50M, we need sales of 250M. There are an estimated 500 customers per year who can pay 500K each for the treatment. They will all go in debt for years to do this.

Should treatment X be produced? Explain what would make the decision moral or immoral.

There may be competitive products produced after this one is out, their product may be duplicated in countries that do not obey our patent law, there may be side products that benefit other diseases, and that the product may be a complete failure.

I believe this is a pretty realistic scenario.

I would like to mention something from a strictly Rand perspective. In the USA today we have here absolutely ridiculous drug prices. Many elderly people are paying $500-1000 per month for drugs that they must have. Rand would note that this is due to the absence of a true competitive market, that it was due to Medicare/Medicaid payments (Government payments) being the primary item determining drug costs instead of the free market. Thus, she would hold the opposite of your position: namely that the presence of partial socialization in the economic system was immoral, and created great hardships for individuals.