'Atlas Shrugged' may yet come to the screen...

[griffer]

See, silly me, i find 'free market' to be redundant.

Good catch!

 

[carebear]

Objectivists (if I get this right) would say his altruism shouldn't be condoned.

It would be more accurate (if I understand Objectivism correctly, I'm more of a small "l" libertarian than a Randian) to say that an Objectivist would view your altruism as foolish, but since you as an individual are free to do with your production what you wish, no one should stop you.

So it should be tolerated, if not condoned, to interfere with such choices on what to do with one's own production are contrary to individualism.

"Giving back" to society is the choice of an individual, not an obligation. One shouldn't do it out of guilt, or coercion but because one wants to. Rand would probably say that "wanting" is some kind of a false emotion but boo on her.

In my view the success of others on their own merits should make any individualist feel good, if only because producers are far more interesting company than mere consumers. If choosing to endow a library or scholarship or college makes the world more interesting (if not "better") then endow away.

 

[carebear]

See, silly me, i find 'free market' to be redundant.

Good catch!

That's why I laugh when socialists are described as "idealists". That's nonsense, we've already got socialism in every flavor of the rainbow.

It's true freedom and liberty that are still mostly just dreams in the hearts of men.

 

[Senator Jack]

That's an interesting article, Griffer. Thanks for the link (dynamite?)

For only four or five people in this debate, we've got a lot of roads we can go down, but for now I'll follow this one.

A rational individual would negotiate compensation, but you cast Dr. Bob in the role of an extortionist. And the hyperbole of demanding 'all the gold in the world' is not self interested, it purely greed. Profit taking and greed are very different. His demand would elimate market forces.

Is he an extortionist in a Randian world? He's simply putting a price tag on his intellect. It may be an extremely dear price tag, but, hey, that's his choice. Oh, and just for the sake of argument, let's say that NO ONE else can duplicate that cure, so there can be no 'free market' to set the price.


Other things:

How was Lincoln altruistic? He did a job-waged war on his country changed history, and got paid! He chose to be President, he chose his path. He sure ended up materialy a lot better off then where he started.

Far inferior presidents have earned the same pay and no bullet in the head. Okay, not necessarily altruistic, but certainly not enough compensation for the quality of work.

"Giving back" to society is the choice of an individual, not an obligation. One shouldn't do it out of guilt, or coercion but because one wants to. Rand would probably say that "wanting" is some kind of a false emotion but boo on her.

In line with my personal ethics. Actually, for the most part, I think a large part of society isn't entitled to anything, but, conversely, I still believe that some people are taking too much.

Now would this be an interesting discussion if we all agreed?

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[carebear]

Is he an extortionist in a Randian world? He's simply putting a price tag on his intellect. It may be an extremely dear price tag, but, hey, that's his choice. Oh, and just for the sake of argument, let's say that NO ONE else can duplicate that cure, so there can be no 'free market' to set the price.

Correct, he is setting a price on something that is apparently very unique and thus intrinsicly valuable. There's only one Koh-I-Hor diamond, the owner has the right to set whatever price he wants. Assuming he wants to sell it, it will eventually be a price someone can afford, but it's his to sell in the end.

Although it is sad, no individual has a "right" to a cure, they can have a cure if they can create one or convince someone who has one to voluntarily sell or give them one. The inventor is not actively killing anyone, they are dying already. If he hadn't come up with a cure, they would have had no hope at all and no possibility of purchasing one. Until that inventor stretched out his mind and came up with a cure, "society" sure wasn't helping them at all.

Would I call him "good" for depriving people? No, not by my personal moral code, but the only alternative to him selling or giving it voluntarily is to take it by force (or threat of force, which is the same thing), and then we get into comparative evils.

If we coerce him to surrender his invention, we are committing theft, no matter how we wish to rationalize it. That cure may be the only thing he'll ever really produce and we suddenly decide we know the best use for it, not him? That's a greased up slope with a big fan at the top.

Now it's to save the life of thousands. What if the next genius cures something that afflicts hundreds? Tens? Just one child, YOUR child? Is that theft still morally right?

Will setting a precedent that a person's property can be taken for the good of some others cause MORE or LESS people to bother inventing anything?

Or will it cause them to, say, flee to a freer society where such property rights are respected?

If that society starts to rationalize theft for the good of others (or "all") will they flee again or just stop producing? Or will they begin to violently resist the theft of their property?

When does society become the extortionist, demanding all a person has in return for an uncertain (or no) return?

 

[Senator Jack]

If we coerce him to surrender his invention, we are committing theft, no matter how we wish to rationalize it. That cure may be the only thing he'll ever really produce and we suddenly decide we know the best use for it, not him? That's a greased up slope with a big fan at the top.

Now it's to save the life of thousands. What if the next genius cures something that afflicts hundreds? Tens? Just one child, YOUR child? Is that theft still morally right?

Will setting a precedent that a person's property can be taken for the good of some others cause MORE or LESS people to bother inventing anything?

Or will it cause them to, say, flee to a freer society where such property rights are respected?

If that society starts to rationalize theft for the good of others (or "all") will they flee again or just stop producing? Or will they begin to violently resist the theft of their property?

When does society become the extortionist, demanding all a person has in return for an uncertain (or no) return?

Ethics is gossamer, isn't it? All excellent arguments, Carebear. Congrats, you made this cynic rethink his position. (see what good old adult non-rebarbative debate can do?)

More after the movie.

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[carebear]

Ethics is gossamer, isn't it? All excellent arguments, Carebear. Congrats, you made this cynic rethink his position. (see what good old adult non-rebarbative debate can do?)

More after the movie.

Regards,

Senator Jack

Thanks Jack. I appreciate the discussion as well. If it helps, if I was the genius I'd probably sell that cure reasonably cheaply, make my money on the licensing and talk show circuit.

Next time I'm visiting the nephew in Queens (and not burdened by the folks like this Christmas) I'll stand you to a drink or three. You pick the bar.

Oh, in the interest of barbativity, "neener-neener, you're a poopy-head".

 

[jamespowers]

If that society starts to rationalize theft for the good of others (or "all") will they flee again or just stop producing? Or will they begin to violently resist the theft of their property?

When does society become the extortionist, demanding all a person has in return for an uncertain (or no) return?

Well we are at 50% (or more depending on your bracket)as it stands now when you add up all state, federal and local taxes. Off shore accounts, trusts and exporting jobs anyone? :eusa_doh: [huh]

Regards,

J

 

[carebear]

But we're not going there because we don't want to get political.

 

[Senator Jack]

Yes, James. we're at 50% meaning middle to perhaps upper middle class. Don't you think I resent it? Criminy, I make a pretty good living here in NY and I still can't afford a down payment on even a condo. (all right, a lot of my money does got toward clothes and carousing ) Meanwhile, the top 5% has more than they can possibly use.

And yeah, one may believe that it isn't fair to tax high-income households, simply because they have more, but to my, admittedly, warped thinking, they have more to lose should the North Koreans come walking down 42nd Street tomorrow. They should be paying more for a country that keeps them at bay.

(If you need explanation or this reasoning, see my latest post in the 'Where's my Cocktail?' thread)

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[carebear]

Yes, James. we're at 50% meaning middle to perhaps upper middle class. Don't you think I resent it? Criminy, I make a pretty good living here in NY and I still can't afford a down payment on even a condo. (all right, a lot of my money does got toward clothes and carousing ) Meanwhile, the top 5% has more than they can possibly use.

And yeah, one may believe that it isn't fair to tax high-income households, simply because they have more, but to my, admittedly, warped thinking, they have more to lose should the North Koreans come walking down 42nd Street tomorrow. They should be paying more for a country that keeps them at bay.

(If you need explanation or this reasoning, see my latest post in the 'Where's my Cocktail?' thread)

Regards,

Senator Jack

They have more for a variety of reasons, and many wealthy people got and stay that way because that "more than they can use" is invested, out there working for them. They "use" it to make more wealth. They may be able to, say, buy more suits than they can wear, but that isn't a crime either. It's their wealth, it wasn't taken from anyone else.

Accumulating wealth is not criminal and isn't a zero-sum game, them having wealth has no effect on others NOT having wealth. Wealth, unlike matter, can and is created by individuals all the time. If I invent a widget it takes zero dollars involuntarily from Steve Jobs and Bob the bum alike, yet I can get just as wealthy as Steve. Wealth can be created and the economy just expands.

As far as them having "more to lose", whether you have 10 million dollars or 10 thousand dollars, if someone takes it all away from you, they've taken all you have. The wealthy get no more societal services (paid for by taxes) than the less wealthy, in many cases less, and so should be taxed at worst equally, not more.

If the argument is that they get "treated better" by the police et al. that's a problem with society either providing its services unfairly (in essence corruption) or providing services to them it shouldn't provide to anyone, wealthy or poor.

Blame society or corrupt individuals for that, not individual wealthy persons.

 

[Senator Jack]

...them having wealth has no effect on others NOT having wealth.

Nah, nah, nah, nah, Matthew. This I can't accept. While true that it doesn't preclude anyone else form having wealth, it does take more from their wallet, accumulatively, so, in a sense, it does keep us from living more comfortably.

I'm going to enter psychology into this equation. Let's take baseball. Years ago, the owners were rich, and the players were hired hands, making an average living, and certainly not the multi-millionaires they are now. Yogi Berra tells of how he had to take the subway to the World Series (that he was playing in!) So the players finally get smart and say, 'Hey, we want our fair share.' But do the owners take a cut in their own salaries to pay the players? No. They just raise the ticket prices. 'The bugs will always come out to the game,' they say, and they are right. This is baseball, after all. The national past-time! So they keep raising the price of tickets and beer and hotdogs, knowing that the bugs'll keep coming. Sad to say, we do. They know we crave a day out at the park. How high can they eventually go? Who knows? I didn't think they could actually go higher than $5.25 for a beer, but I paid $6.25 this past summer. Same thing goes for the film industry. The actors were paid well and the producers were filthy rich. When the studio system melted, instead of just taking a cut to pay the new fees demanded of the actors, they just raised the ticket prices. There's a definite collective psychology at play here, and don't think that the industrialists don't know it. Why do you think they spend so much on market research, focus groups, et cetera?

Clothes, cars, food, entertainment. A lot of people up on top are soaking us in order to live high on the hog, even if it's at a quarter a throw.

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[carebear]

Nah, nah, nah, nah, Matthew. This I can't accept. While true that it doesn't preclude anyone else form having wealth, it does take more from their wallet, accumulatively, so, in a sense, it does keep us from living more comfortably.

I'm going to enter psychology into this equation. Let's take baseball. Years ago, the owners were rich, and the players were hired hands, making an average living, and certainly not the multi-millionaires they are now. Yogi Berra tells of how he had to take the subway to the World Series (that he was playing in!) So the players finally get smart and say, 'Hey, we want our fair share.' But do the owners take a cut in their own salaries to pay the players? No. They just raise the ticket prices. 'The bugs will always come out to the game,' they say, and they are right. This is baseball, after all. The national past-time! So they keep raising the price of tickets and beer and hotdogs, knowing that the bugs'll keep coming. Sad to say, we do. They know we crave a day out at the park. How high can they eventually go? Who knows? I didn't think they could actually go higher than $5.25 for a beer, but I paid $6.25 this past summer.

Then fight your cravings or redirect them, don't blame the wealthy.

Did they force the players to work for low wages or were the players willing to work for little, then finally get smart, organize and then get paid more?

Why should the owners cut then into their earnings if they can defray that added cost by charging you, the spectator, more for a ticket (or worse ding you twice by convincing your elected politicians it is somehow in "the public interest" for the city to buy a stadium and having you let those pols. raise your taxes?

There's no inalienable right to "watch a baseball game", no one is twisting your arm making you buy tickets. Sports is a luxury, if enough folks choose not to buy the merchandise and pay the ticket prices for MLB they all, owners and players, will have to adjust their income to adjust. If you want to watch cheaper baseball, teach the bastards a lesson and watch semi-pro or college ball.

You are voluntarily reducing your ability to use your wealth to gain more wealth by subsidizing the high cost of pro baseball.

Same thing goes for the film industry. The actors were paid well and the producers were filthy rich. When the studio system melted, instead of just taking a cut to pay the new fees demanded of the actors, they just raised the ticket prices. There's a definite collective psychology at play here, and don't think that the industrialists don't know it. Why do you think they spend so much on market research, focus groups, et cetera?

Clothes, cars, food, entertainment. A lot of people up on top are soaking us in order to live high on the hog, even if it's at a quarter a throw.

Regards,

Senator Jack

Same story, fight the power and take individual responsibility. Go see off-Broadway plays. Support low cost independent cinema. Delay your own gratification by waiting for the film on video.

Buy the generic brand, travel on the cheap, brew your own java. If the money saved was invested the same way wealthy folks do you would, in not too much time, be a wealthy guy yourself. If that was your choice. How any person lives is a result of their choices along the way, not the fault of those who chose differently and got wealthy.

Not all wealthy folks are born that way, some take risks in investment and are rewarded, some use their skills and talents wisely, some scrimp and save and pinch every penny and invest it, heck, some just get lucky. None of that should affect your income in any way. To the extant it may, I guarantee that I, or smarter folks than me, can point up where it is government intervention, in violation of the Constitution usually, that causes the harm.

edited to add: There is the fact that some people are dealt horrendous hands in life from day one, and often they get worse from there. Those people are starting out with a lot against them and that isn't their fault. But it also isn't the fault of the wealthy and successful. It's just life. Those are the people that one hopes the wealthy would (and often do) freely choose to help with a hand up.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Again, I'm keeping a low profile on this one - but enjoying all the posts! I'm really proud of some of you - you really seem to Get It! That is very encouraging to read!

I will add this; It's called 'Value for Value', whether it's baseball, movies or widgets. Nobody is owed one. Nobody can demand one. But everyone should be given the freedom to trade - 'Value for Value' for anything they deem worthy. And obviously, no one should be forced to pay for things they don't value (sports stadiums! Public Education! Gateway Archs! Moon shots! etc, etc.) and wouldn't trade for voluntarily. It is that simple and that easy. Why are there so many who fail to get it?!!!

-dixon cannon

P.S. And another thing.....wealthy people don't just bury their wealth under a rock and withhold it from others! They spend it! They invest it! They give it to charities! They bequeath it!

That wealth that makes someone wealthy, is what pays other people their salaries, commissions, fees and tips! Every wealthy person spends back into the economy that keeps other people employed and serving the manifest needs of others. Wealth is what makes an economy - which is the main reason we have one and so many other countries don't! (read Smith's 'Wealth of Nations')

 

[griffer]

Ethics is gossamer, isn't it? All excellent arguments, Carebear. Congrats, you made this cynic rethink his position.

Wow.:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

You should pick up a copy of Anthem. It is a short little read.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Wow.:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

You should pick up a copy of Anthem. It is a short little read.

...and might I suggest to all concerned, a little tome with a provocative title (as it was intended!) called 'The Virtue of Selfishness'. What may at first sound ugly, is in fact the essence of reason.

-dixon cannon

 

[jamespowers]

And yeah, one may believe that it isn't fair to tax high-income households, simply because they have more, but to my, admittedly, warped thinking, they have more to lose should the North Koreans come walking down 42nd Street tomorrow. They should be paying more for a country that keeps them at bay.

Hehehehh! Actually it is you and I that would be SOL if the North Koreans came walking down 42nd Street tomorrow because the rich have the ability to jump on their private jet and leave before anything happens. They will probably have advanced warning and even if they have to stick it out for a while, they can afford to buy their own private army to protect them. Think Howard Hughes in Vegas.
We, on the other hand, have to depend on public protection and the like. Oh, and their money is likely portable. They probably have money in all corners of the globe so if they lose some here, they just go to another country that is amenable to them and start all over. Who really gets the short end of the stick in all of this? The regular guy as usual.
Any efforts to punish the rich usually end up boomeranging on the getevenwithemisms. We are stuck here. They are portable---think Jane Fonda and her Patagonia comments. The rich always have contengency plans. That's what made them rich in the first place.

Regards,

J

 

[Feraud]

But what about the movie??!!

Is Angelina Jolie going to bring any of this heady discussion to a film?

Will anyone walk out of the film discussing the pros and cons of Ethics, accumulating wealth, individual responsiblitly, etc.?

 

[Senator Jack]

Yeah, I'll be questioning ethics. I'll be questioning the ethics of the Loews Corporation that is charging us $5 for .50 worth of popcorn with fake butter. :rage:

 

[griffer]

J-you know, you keep using that word, 'ethics'. I don't think it means what you think it means.

As to Jolie as Dagny Taggert, I can't see it. But I will be happy just to see it made.

Oh, the best argument I ever heard for graduated income tax to support the wellfare state came from a left winger. It was a self interested, almost aristocratic position. It went something like this:

"I would rather pay a fraction of my higher earnings to make sure the lower classes and the indigant poor never come up my street with torches to take my stuff."

Wellfare as a bribe, willingly paid. Wow.