"Atlas Shrugged" WSJ Article

[Toma]

I am skeptical myself. Read some Ayn Rand myself, and she was fucked in the head...

Why not skip to Marx or Chomsky ?

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/noamrbr2.html

[Antonito]

Originally posted by mx73someday


Because the current system is so great and does such a good job of preventing catastrophes.

Hmmm.....irrational people did irrational things....yep, better keep touting a system that relies heavily on rational actors being completely rational

The current system fucked up, no denying that. But it nicely illustrates that people will do incredibly stupid shit, and if there's a way to regulate it so that it doesn't, you know, send the country into a depression, maybe we should.

Originally posted by mx73someday
I don't agree, I think seat belts would have become a market requirement from demand alone. So innovation only happens because of government mandates?

Again, long drawn out process that requires a lot of death to finally drive the point home....or a government regulation....gee, which seems more practical?

[canuckcarguy]

I don't know. I'm not in favour of a totally free market, as mx73 advocates. But when it comes to certain safety things, I think there is room for the market to make them happen.

Airbags were in some cars before they had to be. Even now, many cars come with more airbags than are required by law, because there is a group of consumers that demand them.

Clearly, the challenge is to find the right balance.

[pinoyhero]

^ I agree ... for the most part. I like the airbag example and how over time they became standard as the demand of the market demanded them. At this point in time, laws and regulations aside I don't think cars without airbags would even "make it" and would get eliminated by market forces, so in theory over time the market can decide on its own.

Now in the case of air bags, we're talking lives here so this one may boil down to safety so I can see the good to some extent with a forced reg. In the case of financial markets however I don't think this is a must. To the extent banks and other institutions are fraudulent then yes then should get axed and face fines etc. But in the case they made/invested complex products and the shareholder was too trusting to do their due diligence before investing to receive a rate of return over risk free, then they are at no more fault than the investor.

I wouldn't invest in something without doing my research just like I wouldn't buy a car without an airbag.

[googe]

Originally posted by mx73someday


The one's that need roads leading to themselves! Who is to say that the way cities spontaneously organize themselves under government is more efficient than the way they would under a free market? Cities under a free market might look drastically different than they do today.

No one spends my money more efficiently than myself, its proven that time after time government wastes money. So your $800+M figure is irrelevant, who knows how much cheaper the free market could have the same work done.



Businesses pay for roads leading to their businesses, not individuals. Communities that want roads leading to their communities will pay for those roads and the same goes for all the services they demand. You don't think that a community of 40-50 homes could afford to build a road into their community? What about the developer who wants to sell homes in an area, you don't think he could afford to pay for the road? Consider this when people are getting 100% of the fruits of their labor and not throwing it to the government to get wasted.

I don't understand why you think no one will pay for this stuff voluntarily. I can understand that some people won't want some of these services, and they shouldn't have to, that's their decision. But that doesn't mean that there couldn't be fully serviced communities running under a free market.



The shitty ones get out-competed, and the good ones persist. Whereas in this world, the shitty ones get bailed out at the public's expense and organizations that aren't viable persist.




The market is supposed to be self regulating. A car manufacturer would never sell a car without seat belts in today's market, it's not only because seat belts are mandated by government, it's because the market demands it. The public is the regulative body, they decide what products and services can persist, they vote with their wallet.



Well I'm not sure which kind of hypothetical world we're arguing for, is this free market under anarchism or a limited government? Because I'm under the impression that governments in the past have run free markets (no taxes, tariffs, quotas), and a limited government would at least be in the business of criminal law, things like rape, fraud, theft, murder.

If we're talking about no government, then the DRO concept is the best solution anarchists have for a solution to criminal law, as far as I know.

I think it's fair to say that we both have the same objectives, to live in a free and prosperous society. The only difference is that I believe in voluntaryism, that no one should be coerced or threatened with violence to pay for services they may or may not want. You want to achieve your objectives with violence.

People are going to team up with their neighbors and build their own roads? Business are going to build roads? Seriously?

We have a lot of regulations in place already. People found loopholes and went around these regulations, often completely violating them, and everything went to shit. And the answer is...to have even LESS regulations? So people can do more of that shit, and easier, with impunity?

How some of these posters manage to remember to breathe is beyond me.

[Canmorite]

Originally posted by googe

Business are going to build roads? Seriously?

Many land developers will put in roads, water, electrical and sewer before selling off the property as a whole.

De-regulation of the financial markets is a tricky thing. The market is extremely complex and I don't think anyone on here will come up with the right balance between regulation and free market.

[Heff]

Do I detect the rank odor of shifting goalposts from the pro-randians?

If the current "under-regulated market" on Wall Street fails to meet the randian ideal, its not because the 'system was flawed', its because the randian ideal neglects to account for greed, exploitive tendencies, and just plain old self-importance. Nor does it account for the corruption that comes with power, wealth and affluence.

[TKRIS]

These arguments are not only fruitless, but they're potentially dangerous because they often perpetuate an excluded middle.
I agree that the Rand's ideas are idealistic and unrealistic. However, I also believe that government control should still be limited to the absolute minimum, and that most of the means by which we allow government regulation are inappropriate.
We're a band-aid society. We don't fix problems. We don't change our behavior or adapt. We simple use government as plaster, and slather another layer on every time a new crack appears.

While I find many of what I know of Rand's ideas to be interesting, I also recognize them as being impractical.
Similarly, I recognize that some regulation is a good thing, but I also realize that over regulation inevitably leads to the destruction of freedom.

[Heff]

Originally posted by TKRIS
These arguments are not only fruitless, but they're potentially dangerous because they often perpetuate an excluded middle.

Don't you try to confuse me with common sense and logic.
That's just mean.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Heff
Do I detect the rank odor of shifting goalposts from the pro-randians?

Its tough to argue with them because they don't really understand the kind of society Rand believed in. The idea of a 'community' coming together does not fit into Rand's world because it is in violation of self interest. "Some" government regulation is too much regulation, government of any kind doesn't work in Rand's world. It is about complete and total self-reliance which is both impractical and just flat out stupid.

If the current "under-regulated market" on Wall Street fails to meet the randian ideal, its not because the 'system was flawed', its because the randian ideal neglects to account for greed, exploitive tendencies, and just plain old self-importance. Nor does it account for the corruption that comes with power, wealth and affluence.

But the free market fixes greed, right? RIGHT????????????




The Simpsons knows what I'm talking about

[Heff]

Originally posted by kertejud2

But the free market fixes greed, right? RIGHT????????????

hehe

Rand was an idealist and was over-optimistic about humanities tendency for altruism to counteract greed.

[Canmorite]

Originally posted by Heff

If the current "under-regulated market" on Wall Street fails to meet the randian ideal, its not because the 'system was flawed', its because the randian ideal neglects to account for greed, exploitive tendencies, and just plain old self-importance. Nor does it account for the corruption that comes with power, wealth and affluence.

I highly doubt any regulations or laws will sufficiently regulate greed. You simply can't regulate it...

[Heff]

Originally posted by Canmorite


I highly doubt any regulations or laws will sufficiently regulate greed. You simply can't regulate it...

You can't regulate greed, but you can make it extremely risky to pursue it at the cost of law and order.

[Canmorite]

Originally posted by Heff


You can't regulate greed, but you can make it extremely risky to pursue it at the cost of law and order.

You could, but when who would be willing to take any risk as an entrepreneur or business man to create jobs and revenue?

[Heff]

Originally posted by Canmorite


You could, but when who would be willing to take any risk as an entrepreneur or business man to create jobs and revenue?

Nonsequitur.

Your assumption that all risk of entrepreneurship comes at the cost of law and order is faulty.