Why the devil not? The goal and endpoint of a good capitalist is a monopoly. That's what maximises your profit.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read the Fountainhead my Senior Year of High School, because I was looking for scholarships, and found one (from the Rand Society) that basically said read this book, and write an essay about it, and we'll give you money.
So I read the whole damn book, and then decided not to write anything, because I knew I wouldn't say anything that the Rand Society would want to hear.
My initial thought when closing the book was,
"Wow. I would think it would be nearly impossible to write a book more pretentious than this."
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Treason: By the way---"When I told her I was getting nothing out of it except the good feeling of helping someone who needed help, "
Now to quote myself : "When you do good for other people, does it make you feel good? Are you happy when you help someone? It is selfish to do these things."
Case in point.
No. Not a case in point. The person I was speaking to meant to ask what I was getting from it in a material sense, and clearly did not accept "good feelings" as selfish. Anyway, I wasn't doing what I did go get those good feelings, but because it needed to be done. The good feelings were merely an unintended side effect, well after the fact, because the actual doing cost me a lot of time, effort, and frustration - not to mention a bit of money.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To those that are fans of Rand, I recommend My Years with Ayn Rand by Nathaniel Branden. Branden was her good friend and leading Objectivist up until their split. I found his insight into Rand very useful in understanding her philosophy. He also explores what works and what doesn't about Rand's Objectivism. While the current Objectivist group denies his claim, that he had an affair with Rand, it seems incredibly obvious to me that he's telling the truth. His story creates too clear of a parallel to the incredibly odd relationships in Atlas Shrugged. In my opinion, Branden strips away the callousness of Rand's philosophy and replaces it with a more tempered understanding.
quote:which is deeply ironic given how much she claims to despise people who play the victim.
Her whole philosopy is against being a victim.
Hence my acknowledgment that it is ironic. She can state that her philosophy is whatever she wants to believe that it is--as OSC notes, there are our true beliefs, and then there is what we believe that we believe. Each one of her heroes is victimized at length by the evil, anti-objectivist, anti-individualist machine. And the only people who ever dislike her heroes for long are the takers who want to crush them. Therefore, her heroes are victims. We are more tempted to like them because we sympathize with them; we feel outrage at how shabbily they are treated for the simple crime of wanting to be self-made. Hello?? They are victims!
(Seriously now, can you find anybody who does not claim to oppose playing the victim? Come on. Give me an example. Just one. Everybody is opposed to playing the victim, they say, but look around and you'll see lots and lots of people doing it. So just because somebody says that's not what they're about is no reason to believe them. Look at what they do--or what happens in the stories they tell--not at what they say they believe.)
Posts: 289 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Goo Boy - "Therefore, her heroes are victims"
They are heroes because they REFUSE to be victims. They never see themselves as victims and I don't see them that way either.
littlemissattitude - "No. Not a case in point. The person I was speaking to meant to ask what I was getting from it in a material sense, and clearly did not accept "good feelings" as selfish. Anyway, I wasn't doing what I did go get those good feelings, but because it needed to be done. The good feelings were merely an unintended side effect, well after the fact, because the actual doing cost me a lot of time, effort, and frustration - not to mention a bit of money."
I didn't care what the person you were speaking to felt. I cared about the situation. I insist: You would not have done what you did if you didn't get satisfaction out of it. The time, effort and frustration were worth it to you, to feel like you were helping. You wanted to do it. Maybe it fit with how you want to see yourself, as a nice helpful person and it made you feel satisfied to know that you were. Maybe you cared about that person and wanted to make sure they were going to be OK. Either way, you got satisfaction out of helping. All I'm trying to say is that it was not a selfless act. We do what we want to do. There can be kind acts, and hateful acts, but no selfless ones. The only truly selfless act as I see it is doing things just so others see you a certain way, living your life for other people to judge you...and that's just disgusting. I try as hard as I can not to do that.
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saying that people are only altruistic because it makes them feel good is pretty much like saying that people only eat because it makes them feel good. It's absurdly reductionistic.
Altruistic behavior is not solely motivated by a desire for visceral pleasure. It's far more complex than that. The only way to fit reality of alturistic behavior to the "only do it because it makes you feel good" description is to reduce everything anyone ever does to the behaviorist model of "seek pleasure and avoid pain." Which destroys the very self-motivation that Randians so praise.
Like so many other philosophies, Objectivism works as a criticism, but fails as a positive foundation. Combing some basic game theory with social dynamics, you can show that you can't treat an individual's behavior in isolation and instead must consider it as part of a gestalt whole. Compromise and altruism are essential parts of the stable, productive society that Rand's ubermenches need in order to achieve much of anything.
It is much like how unrestricted capitalism leads not to a super-efficient, hyper-competitive wonderland, but rather monopolistic tyranny and slavery.
Also, and this is just my personal experience, the people who espouse Objectivism aren't generally the best and brighest and most productive. These people, if they are very selfish, don't need a second-rate philosophy to justify it to themselves. The Objectivists I've known are kinda whiny. They excel at playing the victim of a society that isn't organized on Objectivist or Libetarian principles. From what I understand, a true Objectivist would be doing crap, not complaining about how society should eschew collectivism and embrace unregulated capitalism because then their true greatness would be free to shine.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Treason: I insist: You would not have done what you did if you didn't get satisfaction out of it a selfless act....We do what we want to do.
A couple of things, Treason.
First of all, you might be lucky enough not to ever have to do anything you don't want to do. I have to do a lot of things I don't want to do. I have obligations- primarily to my family - that I did not ask for but must satisfy anyway, merely from the fact that I was born into a family.
And the other thing...I'm really, really tired of people telling me that they know my motivations better than I do. You don't know me, don't know anything about me, and therefore have no idea why I do the things I do. And you have no right to "insist" that you do.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick -"From what I understand, a true Objectivist would be doing crap, not complaining about how society should eschew collectivism and embrace unregulated capitalism because then their true greatness would be free to shine."
I've actually not complained about anything, I thought I was in a fun discussion about Ayn Rand.
"Also, and this is just my personal experience, the people who espouse Objectivism aren't generally the best and brighest and most productive."
I didn't call anyone stupid or lazy. I was putting my opinions out there without resorting to "subtle" name calling. I still don't think people are understanding the true definition of the word selfish. You don't have to be a jerk if you are selfish.
little - "First of all, you might be lucky enough not to ever have to do anything you don't want to do. I have to do a lot of things I don't want to do."
I am very lucky. I hate working at my particular job but I still "want" to go there because the gains outweigh the losses. If I didn't want to go I would do something else. I despise living with other people but I just got a roomate because I want one for the extra income he will provide. Doing what you want all the time does not mean everything will be sunshine and flowers. It means you know your priorities and want to accomplish something so you do things you may not like, but still want to do. I think you also are not seeing what selfish really means.
And now, I want to go to work to make money for this computer which I love.
Edited for PS: hey! That was my 300th post. Horray!
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was a big fan of Ayn Rand back in high school and read all her books. I basically lost interest in her later, though, when I realized that I totally disagree with her philosophy.
Reading this thread makes me want to dip back into the books and remind myself what I liked and didn't like about them. Also, I wonder how I would react to the books from the perspective of an adult, as opposed to the perspective of the teen I was when I first read them.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
Why the devil not? The goal and endpoint of a good capitalist is a monopoly. That's what maximises your profit.
And that's the result of a society in which individual achievement is not only dismissed, but actively scorned.
A capitalist can't have a monopoly unless he's delivering the best product. And if he is, let him have the monopoly. He'll lose it when he stops giving good value.
The only way you get coercive monopolies are when the government declares something a state-protected monopoly. Those are truly scary.
I care about my work. It represents me. You'll find very few creative people who are willing to deliver schlock for a paycheck, unless the system is stacked against them to the point that setting out on their own is next to impossible.
Or are you talking about modern corporations? Why aren't you out campaigning for the repeal of such insane ideas as corporations being legal individuals that somehow spare their owners from responsibility? That's the cause of corporate mischief; not the profit motive.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If would want help in a tight situation, then it stands to reason that I want a world in which people -- voluntarily -- help others.
I can't recall a moment in her books when this occurs, though.
Well, Howard does help Peter. Not for Peter's sake, of course, but because Howard can't stand to see Peter butchering another building. Dagny reaches out to her sister-in-law. Francisco reaches out to Dagny. Reardon reaches out to the kid who was sent to spy on him. Roark tried like hell to save Gail Wynand, but failed in the end.
But I agree that it's not the main thing that comes across. Though that does make some sense. Rand was fighting against an ethos that was the polar opposite of what she was saying. So she took an extreme stance against it. It was a lot more effective in its time than it is today.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Treason: I insist: You would not have done what you did if you didn't get satisfaction out of it a selfless act....We do what we want to do.
A couple of things, Treason.
First of all, you might be lucky enough not to ever have to do anything you don't want to do. I have to do a lot of things I don't want to do. I have obligations- primarily to my family - that I did not ask for but must satisfy anyway, merely from the fact that I was born into a family.
And the other thing...I'm really, really tired of people telling me that they know my motivations better than I do. You don't know me, don't know anything about me, and therefore have no idea why I do the things I do. And you have no right to "insist" that you do.
I think you're missing the point, though. Everyone makes choices. But you choose what is the highest value for you.
If I have to forgo a meal so that my daughter can eat, that is not a sacrifice. It is a choice between values. Rand once said that she'd take a bullet for her husband Frank (though apparently not stay faithful). That wasn't a willingness to sacrifice either. She felt that taking a bullet for him was more in her interest than his being killed. That was her choice.
No one is claiming that you don't do things that you wish you didn't have to do. That you don't want to do. But you want the result of not doing them less, or you wouldn't be doing them.
That's not talking about your motives, it's just a simple fact. If a person chooses to do A over B, then either A is more important to that person, or the person is utterly irrational.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ela: I was a big fan of Ayn Rand back in high school and read all her books. I basically lost interest in her later, though, when I realized that I totally disagree with her philosophy.
Reading this thread makes me want to dip back into the books and remind myself what I liked and didn't like about them. Also, I wonder how I would react to the books from the perspective of an adult, as opposed to the perspective of the teen I was when I first read them.
You probably won't like them.
I've noticed a very common occurrance. When someone reads Rand at an early age (particularly if they're an adolescent), they're likely to glom onto what they misunderstand as her philosophy and use it to strengthen their sense of independence. Then, when they grow out of adolescence, as most people do, they throw Objectivism out with the rest of the "You're not the boss of me!" stuff.
When someone comes across Rand's work later on (I was 31), they're more likely to be able to understand her work from an adult point of view, since they haven't poisoned it for themselves by stapling it to their adolescent rebellion.
That's why you so often hear people talk about how they were really into Objectivism in high school (or early college), but that they grew out of it.
That may be an overgeneralization, and I'm sure there are people who don't fit either of those. But I think it's pretty common for it to happen as I've described.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A capitalist can't have a monopoly unless he's delivering the best product.
That's not even remotely true in any system that approaches reality.
If you want to assert that, do you think you could give a counterexample? Or should we just accept what you're saying?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
starL, You seem to have a very simplistic view of economics. I'd counter-challenge you to show how just about any monopoly fits what you were saying. What, for example, is your view of the monopolies of the late 19th century? Are you seriously going to say that they acheived what they did based on the superiority of their product? Because I really doubt you could get anyone who knows about them to agree to that.
Success in a capitalistic economy is determined by who is best at utilizing their capital. Personal effort and ability and quality of product are components in this capital but are hardly the full story and very often have a relatively minor role.
In the question of monopolies, a quick look at pre-anti-trust America shows that the capital that people and businesses used to establish and maintain their monopolies had little to do with the quality of their product or service. Rather, they established strangle holds on competitive (and transportation) channels, employed physical force to sabotage or even kill their competition, used their superior position in the market to engage in anti-competitive activities, such as selling their products at below cost to drive their competitors who couldn't handle the loss of below cost pricing. They made use of captive consumers in one market to gain advantages in other markets against business that operated on a smaller scale.
And that's leaving aside the other facts of economics that enter into why one product dominates over another besides higher quality. Economies of scale, differential labor costs, markets that have different requirements, advertising, branding of consumers, etc. all tie into why one product may be more sucessful than another.
As I'm sure you'll ask for a concrete example, here you go. Company A owns both a plant manufacturing product X and all of the transportation systems that lead to a given market. Company B has developed a product Y which is superior to product X in all aspects. However, in order to sell it in the market, they have to pay for transporting there. Since Company A controls the transportation, Y will never supplant X and Company A will maintain their monopoly.
---
Monopolies are bad. They lead to higher prices and lower quality. However, they are also the natural result of an unregulated capitalistic economy.
If you want, we can also go into why saying that capitalism puts premium value on individual effort is a silly thing to do too.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: [You probably won't like them.
I've noticed a very common occurrance. When someone reads Rand at an early age (particularly if they're an adolescent), they're likely to glom onto what they misunderstand as her philosophy and use it to strengthen their sense of independence. Then, when they grow out of adolescence, as most people do, they throw Objectivism out with the rest of the "You're not the boss of me!" stuff.
When someone comes across Rand's work later on (I was 31), they're more likely to be able to understand her work from an adult point of view, since they haven't poisoned it for themselves by stapling it to their adolescent rebellion.
That's why you so often hear people talk about how they were really into Objectivism in high school (or early college), but that they grew out of it.
That may be an overgeneralization, and I'm sure there are people who don't fit either of those. But I think it's pretty common for it to happen as I've described.
That is definitely a misgeneralization. I think that at the time I read Ayn Rand I enjoyed the stories and liked some (but not all) aspects of the philosophy. I don't recall throwing out Objectivism as part of any of the "you're not the boss of me" experience that you are describing. I just plain disagreed with the base from which she builds all her other beliefs.
I am not really sure what you mean by that "poisoned it for themselves" remark either. If you mean you think I would have agreed with Ayn Rand if I had read her for the first time as an adult, I'd have to say I disagree. My values are just different from the ones she espouses and idealizes. That's all there is to it.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Treason: I think you also are not seeing what selfish really means.
And I think you are trying to control the argument by imposing your definitions. That isn't a power I'm willing to concede to you.
And starLisa, no, I'm not missing the point. I'm only missing the point that you want me to get, and I'll continue to miss the point, in your estimation, until I say that I agree with you.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oddly enough, both of you (economics debating ones) are right.
Many areas lend themselves towards natural monopolies -- ones involving limited markets, ones involving huge capital expenditures, et cetera. In these areas local monopolies will tend to appear in a purely competitive market. Excellent examples include landline phones, highways, certain sorts of complex and specialized manufacturing, et cetera. Occasionally the monopolist will change, but not the monopoly.
Many other things do not lend themselves to natural monopolies. The soft drink market, for instance, is fairly competitive.
Oh, and the notion that the company making the best product is the only one which can obtain a monopoly or even succeed in a market is pseudo-economic poppycock. Companies don't have advantages because of making the best product, but because of doing the best job at making a product, which is a very different thing, albeit with the quality of the product often being a significant factor in consideration. Its not the quality of the product that drives success in markets, its the quality of the process. In many areas, for instance, businesses which come to the market earlier with shoddier product succeed far beyond those which take their time. In others, skilled craftsmen make meager wages where mass produced inferior products sell billions.
Furthermore, what seems to be bantied about here as "pure capitalism", isn't. Pure capitalism exists only in a regulated state. As Adam Smith repeatedly drove home, people will take uncompetitive actions for personal gain, typically by using negative externalities. That is, they'll lie, cheat, steal, intimidate, threaten, et cetera. This has been abundantly born out by history.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think you're missing the point, though. Everyone makes choices. But you choose what is the highest value for you.
If I have to forgo a meal so that my daughter can eat, that is not a sacrifice. It is a choice between values. Rand once said that she'd take a bullet for her husband Frank (though apparently not stay faithful). That wasn't a willingness to sacrifice either. She felt that taking a bullet for him was more in her interest than his being killed. That was her choice.
No one is claiming that you don't do things that you wish you didn't have to do. That you don't want to do. But you want the result of not doing them less, or you wouldn't be doing them.
That's not talking about your motives, it's just a simple fact. If a person chooses to do A over B, then either A is more important to that person, or the person is utterly irrational.
Thank you! I was waiting for you to come in and say what I've been struggling to get out. I'm not an eloquent debator and can't say things with as much clarity as you can.
littlemiss :
quote:And I think you are trying to control the argument by imposing your definitions. That isn't a power I'm willing to concede to you.
Ok. Ps. On a side note, I find it highly amusing you sound quite a bit like an Ayn Rand character here.
Also, everyone..I was the one at the beginning of this saying I just wanted to talk about how much I like her fiction! Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Saying that people are only altruistic because it makes them feel good is pretty much like saying that people only eat because it makes them feel good. It's absurdly reductionistic.
Squick, I was trying to find the best way to say that, but then I saw you had found it, and used it, already.
I find these types of discussions are usually a statement of opposing views, and both sides take an expreme voiewpoint to make a point. Not that the original ideas are wrong, but ANYTHING in excess is not a good thing.
I found Rands works to be thought provoking when I was younger, but even then I could see they ewre pretentious, and that her ideas of "good" were not the same as mine. I think that the idea that not all selfisness is a bad thing was a very positive idea for me, but if you take it to the extreme, as she did, it doesn't work...and is in it's own way every bit as corrupt as what she claimed to be fighting against.
The rape scene was eweird, I could see where she was going with it right away, but that was a weak excuse for what she wrote against. While she MAY have wanted it deep down inside (and I am NOT sure of that at all) the fact remains that she WAS raped, in that she fought against him and his advances. That was inexcusable, in my mind.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: starL, You seem to have a very simplistic view of economics. I'd counter-challenge you to show how just about any monopoly fits what you were saying. What, for example, is your view of the monopolies of the late 19th century?
I assume you're talking aobut the robber barons and their railroad monopolies? If so, I suggest you study up on the subject. They were given unearned government grants of property and would never have managed to "succeed" as they did without government patronage.
If you're talking about some other "monopoly", I hope you'll share some details with us.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Are you seriously going to say that they acheived what they did based on the superiority of their product? Because I really doubt you could get anyone who knows about them to agree to that.
I said, and I'll repeat, that only government monopolies are coercive.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Success in a capitalistic economy is determined by who is best at utilizing their capital. Personal effort and ability and quality of product are components in this capital but are hardly the full story and very often have a relatively minor role.
Only in an economy that's been distorted by governmnet meddling.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: In the question of monopolies, a quick look at pre-anti-trust America shows that the capital that people and businesses used to establish and maintain their monopolies had little to do with the quality of their product or service.
That must be a wicked quick look, because I've taken a pretty long look, and don't see anything of the sort. Would you mind giving an example? Nothing exhaustive, mind you. I'm not asking for a dissertation or anything (unless you want to); I'd just like a single example of what you're claiming. If it was indeed a monopoly, and achieved that status without government patronage behind it and without providing the best service available, I'll concede the point.
Just one.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Rather, they established strangle holds on competitive (and transportation) channels, employed physical force to sabotage or even kill their competition,
Okay, now you're getting into things that you must know I find utterly immoral and unacceptable. Squick, it's not honest to argue against an idea by finding someone associated with that idea who did bad things. It's like condemning vegetarianism because Hitler was a vegetarian.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: used their superior position in the market to engage in anti-competitive activities, such as selling their products at below cost to drive their competitors who couldn't handle the loss of below cost pricing.
You say that it drove out their competitors. I say it gave the consumers a helluva deal. Since there's no coercion involved, what's the problem?
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: They made use of captive consumers in one market to gain advantages in other markets against business that operated on a smaller scale.
You speak in generalizations, and refuse to give a single detail. That being the case, all I need to say is "I disagree". You can hardly fault me for not giving my reasons.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: And that's leaving aside the other facts of economics that enter into why one product dominates over another besides higher quality. Economies of scale, differential labor costs, markets that have different requirements, advertising, branding of consumers, etc. all tie into why one product may be more sucessful than another.
Gee. Maybe I should have majored in Economics. Oh, wait. I did.
What you're ignoring is that pragmatism is never a valid excuse for coercing people. Of course it's more efficient in the short run to force people to operate the way you want. But it's not moral. You don't have any right to tell someone what they may or may not do economically.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: As I'm sure you'll ask for a concrete example, here you go.
How about that.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Company A
Do they trade on the NYSE? I asked for a real example. Not some theoretical mishmash you've invented.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: owns both a plant manufacturing product X and all of the transportation systems that lead to a given market. Company B has developed a product Y which is superior to product X in all aspects.
According to whom? And what's stopping Company C from transporting Company B's product to that market and competing? Maybe it's that the government decided there's no need for competing transport, because the CEO of Company A is the brother-in-law of a powerful congress critter. Or maybe there's nothing preventing it at all.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: However, in order to sell it in the market, they have to pay for transporting there. Since Company A controls the transportation, Y will never supplant X and Company A will maintain their monopoly.
You're very silly. I see why you declined to post a real example. Only your completely implausable and unexplained scenarios will fit your preconceived notions.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Monopolies are bad.
Government monopolies are bad. Private monopolies are inherently temporary, and only exist to the benefit of us all.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: They lead to higher prices and lower quality. However, they are also the natural result of an unregulated capitalistic economy.
Nope. Monopolies in real life are almost always the result of government meddling in the economic process.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If you want, we can also go into why saying that capitalism puts premium value on individual effort is a silly thing to do too.
Oh, do explain that to us, Squicky. Inquiring minds want to know.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa: a monopoly in economics is not where one company controls a market continuously, a monopoly is where a market, in periods of stability, is controlled by only one company. That company may change, perhaps even with moderate regularity, the key element is that only one company can reasonable survive in the market.
Monopolies are mostly local, too.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Only in an economy that's been distorted by governmnet meddling.
Can you demonstrate an example of a monopoly in a country completely free of government meddling, as proof of your claim?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Monopolies in real life are almost always the result of government meddling in the economic process.
The times in American history with the least government control over business (Gilded age, et al) and the most business autonomy .. happen to have the largest numbers and most egregious examples of monopoly, don't they?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Furthermore, what seems to be bantied about here as "pure capitalism", isn't. Pure capitalism exists only in a regulated state.
By "regulated state", do you mean a state that has laws? Because I hope you don't think I'm an anarchist.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: As Adam Smith repeatedly drove home, people will take uncompetitive actions for personal gain, typically by using negative externalities. That is, they'll lie, cheat, steal, intimidate, threaten, et cetera. This has been abundantly born out by history.
I don't understand your point. Of course there need to be laws against such criminal actions. What does that have to do with economic regulation? You're talking about fraud and assault. Obviously the government needs to prevent those. But what other kind of regulation do you think that a free market must have?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Treason: Thank you! I was waiting for you to come in and say what I've been struggling to get out. I'm not an eloquent debator and can't say things with as much clarity as you can.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: starLisa: a monopoly in economics is not where one company controls a market continuously, a monopoly is where a market, in periods of stability, is controlled by only one company. That company may change, perhaps even with moderate regularity, the key element is that only one company can reasonable survive in the market.
Monopolies are mostly local, too.
Okay, I can accept that. In that case, what on earth is wrong with that kind of monopoly?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Monopolies in real life are almost always the result of government meddling in the economic process.
The times in American history with the least government control over business (Gilded age, et al) and the most business autonomy .. happen to have the largest numbers and most egregious examples of monopoly, don't they?
You really need to learn more about that period of history. It was absolutely replete with cronyism and government giveaways to businesses.
You say there was less government control, and that's probably true. But there wasn't any less government meddling.
The irony is that it was government meddling that created the monopolies that so outraged people and led to the government meddling of anti-trust laws. Laws which outlaw non-coercive, temporary monopolies, but permit the really damaging, government sponsored monopolies, to go right on operating.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure there was plenty of cronyism, but the most egregious examples (Rockefeller and the like) really didn't need the kickbacks and the giveaways, and could have operated in the manner they did solely so long as the government was kept from impeding them. Even without the giveaways and the involvement, predatory capatalism (Gould, etc) and price bombing (Rockefeller, etc) are easily valid strategies, and even in an environment conceptually devoid of meddling, corporate hegemony can still devalue labor and create exploitation. It's not too terribly hard to imagine monopoly being a powerful and inherently abuseable reality in a conceptual objectivist state.
I'd love for the world to have an objectivist counterproof, a 'Libertopia' where the government operates only in the manner desired by objectivist axiom. I mean, then I would bet it's quite possible that you'd have the same problems begin emerging, even in an environment completely devoid of the typical sources of issue and blame.
Similar to what happened to political Anarchism: attempts at anarchist communes effectively acted as proof against their own idealistic notions.
Just ideas I'm throwing out, not trying to be too partisan.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa, Squick used an example that applies to AMNY companies in the past, rather than one example that could be easily refuted. The stratigies were used over and over again by many different companies, and nothing you have said to "refute" him has answered those problems.
Calling him silly isn't really a useful debate tactic, it just makes you you look silly as well. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, if you think a lack of regulation DECREASES cornyism, I would like to hear how.
Let propose a RL possibility. If Bill Gates took his money and invested it in a new tech, rather than giving it away to vcharities, and there was no regulation of this tech, what would stop him from creating a monopoly? I am not talking about land grants, or a government subsidy here, I am talking about the gigantic competitive advantage he would have right off the bat because of his wealth. If another company decided to try and compete against him, but he already owned the rights to the property, the macines, and the distrabution network, how would any of that work against him?
If a company owns the entire monopoly, how is it possible to compete? If a company wanted to start up a competeling company, say for distrabution for instance, all Gates would have to do is ship each item at a loss, making competition impossible. Gates would still be making huge profits from the rest of the monopoly so the loss from the shipping aspect of it would not matter in the least.
That is only one of the most SIMPLE examples of why monopolies are a bad thing, and how a company can defend their monopoly regardless of teh quality of their porduct. Once they own all avenues of production, the intellectual rights to a product, and control all methods of distrabution, prices usually rise and quality decline.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: starLisa, Squick used an example that applies to AMNY companies in the past, rather than one example that could be easily refuted. The stratigies were used over and over again by many different companies, and nothing you have said to "refute" him has answered those problems.
<sigh> Name one. That's all I'm asking. All you're doing is repeating the same assertion without giving a single example.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Also, if you think a lack of regulation DECREASES cornyism, I would like to hear how.
Actually, bad comedy is usually the source of cornyism.
What I'm saying, Kwea, is that government involvement in the economy is a bad idea. Always. If Rand got anything right in her books, it's that there should be a separation between government and trade exactly as there is separation between government and religion. And for the same reasons.
If you set up a regulatory commission, you make it more possible, and not less, for companies to get their friends in the government to give them protection and special status. Surely that's obvious.
The moment you have a government that's allowed to do anything involving economics, you turn elections into legalized bribery. "Vote for me, and I'll build a factory in your town." It's wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Let propose a RL possibility.
Another theoretical one? Can't you come up with one -- just one single example -- that actually happened?
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: If Bill Gates took his money and invested it in a new tech, rather than giving it away to vcharities, and there was no regulation of this tech, what would stop him from creating a monopoly?
Um... the fact that anyone else could invest in that tech as well. The fact that anyone else could come up with a competing tech.
What on earth could enable him to create a monopoly? We vote with our wallets, Kwea. I'm sick and tired of the viruses that keep hitting Windows. So I downloaded Xandros (a Windows-like Linux distribution). I still have Windows, though, because some software I like doesn't have equivalents that work in Linux.
I make my choices based on what's important to me. So does everyone else. If that results in Bill Gates making umpteen billion dollars, then good for him.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I am not talking about land grants, or a government subsidy here, I am talking about the gigantic competitive advantage he would have right off the bat because of his wealth.
Sort of like the gigantic competitive advantage Lance Armstrong has over me in a bicycle race. Or the gigantic competitive advantage a virtuoso pianist has over me when it comes to playing piano.
Have you ever read Harrison Bergeron? If not, you should.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: If another company decided to try and compete against him, but he already owned the rights to the property, the macines, and the distrabution network, how would any of that work against him?
Why should things work against him? Why is someone else entitled to some sort of handicap? Let someone else buy property, build machines, and develop a distribution network. Or buy those things. No one is stopping them.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: If a company owns the entire monopoly, how is it possible to compete?
I don't even understand the words you just used. How can someone own an entire monopoly? What does that even mean?
I wrote a story that's going to be published in an anthology at the end of November. Other than the publisher and myself, no one has a legal right to publish that story. How unfair! What if someone else wants to publish that story?
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: If a company wanted to start up a competeling company, say for distrabution for instance, all Gates would have to do is ship each item at a loss, making competition impossible.
How long could he do that? And as a consumer, why would I object? So I get a good value for less. I'll live.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Gates would still be making huge profits from the rest of the monopoly so the loss from the shipping aspect of it would not matter in the least.
So Gates would benefit. Buyers would benefit. Anyone making anything that works with the new tech would benefit. What's the problem? If someone comes up with something that's really better, I guarantee you that someone will find a way to bring it to market.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: That is only one of the most SIMPLE examples of why monopolies are a bad thing,
It's not an example. Don't you understand what an example is? It's not some theoretical story that you've made up in your mind. It's not something that you could could happen. An example is something that has happened. It's a piece of reality that isn't subject to debate. Doesn't it bother you that no one here has managed to produce one yet?
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: and how a company can defend their monopoly regardless of teh quality of their porduct. Once they own all avenues of production, the intellectual rights to a product, and control all methods of distrabution, prices usually rise and quality decline.
Give me an example. I don't think you can.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Andrew Carnegie made this practice almost a hallmark of U.S. Steel. The only way to move goods in bulk efficiently was by rail and he either bought or colluded with the railways so that his goods were shipped for much less than other companies.
---
On the predatory pricing thing, you've apparantly changed your criteria. I showed how people can get a monopoly that is not based on the quality of their product, which you didn't dispute. Your objection was "But the consumers get a great deal." which wasn't actually the question at hand. Do you disagree that predatory pricing can net someone a monopoly?
Also, there are aspects of this strategy that your characterization misses. First is that as son as the other company is driven out of the market, the monopoly holder drives up their prices to much, much higher than they would be in a competitive marketplace. So, it's a good deal for consumers for a short period, but then they get the short, pointy end of the monopoly shaft. Second, this strategy works almost better as a threat than it does in practice. People aren't generally willing to destroy their company in order to mount doomed challenges against a monopoly. They're out for profit. Knowing that a company has the resources and inclination towards doing this is often enough to keep people out of monopolized markets.
---
Capitalism is a great system for the slogans not only not agreeing with the theory, but many times being the opposite of it. A case in point is the idea that capitalism is set up to reward individual effort. None of the economic theorists I ever read thought this.
The way to accumulate wealth is to effectively exploit capital. Theoretically as well as practically, the capital yielded by wealth, control of strategic resources or positions, and the labor of others far outstrips that of individual effort. Only in very rare cases is an individual's own effort able to compete with this and that is generally when he creates something new, which is utilitzation of the strategic position capital.
People are not paid according to how hard they work. The foundres of capitalism spoke out directly against that idea. People are paid what owners of capital feel they need to pay them in order to get them to work. Labor is mostly another commodity and as such is determined by market price. People don't earn money for their work. It's only when an owner of capital agrees to exchange money for their work that a laborer gets anything.
In real life, the people who make large amounts of moeny don't do it by their own labor, but through say owning oil and making investments and paying other people to do or produce things and then taking in the lion's share of the profits. That's how you get rich. Not by working hard at your job, unless what you can do makes you a sufficiently rare reasource that supply-demand forces make you very valuable.
---
Out of curiosity starL, where did you get your degree in economics from?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, it took me a while to read all of this. There's a lot of content on these pages. Here's a couple of observations:
quote: And I can't figure out why a bunch of scifi nerds like us have such a problem with superhuman, black and white characters.
This is ironic coming from you, Frisco, because as far as I can see you're the biggest SOIAF fan out there, and the reason we all seem to like those books so much is because the characters aren't black and white.
On that point, my favorite character from either of the two "big" Rand books was Gail Wynand for the simple fact that he acted like an actual human being. He was confused, conflicted and waffled. He wasn't some robot spouting off Aristotelian theorems like "A=A" (sigh).
quote: StarLisa said: It's not an example. Don't you understand what an example is? It's not some theoretical story that you've made up in your mind. It's not something that you could could happen. An example is something that has happened. It's a piece of reality that isn't subject to debate. Doesn't it bother you that no one here has managed to produce one yet?
Doesn't it bother you, StarLisa, that you haven't come up with an example of a monopoly that came about completely free of government meddling, as per TomDavidson's request? The challenged was issued to you first and then you neatly sidestepped it by issuing one of your own. I, for one, am still waiting.
Posts: 194 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If someone comes up with something that's really better, I guarantee you that someone will find a way to bring it to market.
That's not actually true. You're neglecting all the various costs that are involved in bringing something to market. Your statement should read, if someone comes up with something that's really better and the costs of bringing to market are not prohibitive, they will find a way to bring it to market.
You also neglect the very real costs involved in development of new products and technologies. New products don't just pop up out of no where. They have start up costs, in many cases very large ones. They also can have resource requirements. A market domination or monopoly situation can make it so that no one is willing to bear these costs or that these resources are unavailable to new players.
Also, one of the main ways for new companies to raise capital is to offer stock. In tons of instances with regards to Microsoft alone, the larger company will buy up that stock to gain ownership of the potential competition and often dismantle it and bury it's product.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean laws which restrict how a company can conduct business -- the things it can tell employees to do, the ways it can treat employees, the things the company can do to the environment (and operate under other externalities which there is little to no incentive for the company to otherwise pay attention to), the sorts of deals the company can make with other companies, et cetera. Several of these were mentioned by Smith, as good ways for government to create an environment where competition can flourish.
A good reason is simple to produce. Say we're the soft drink manufacturers, and say that three of us control the market. While businesses will want to deal with all three of us, most businesses would agree to a deal whereby they can only sell from the big three if one threatened to drop the supply contract otherwise, and perhaps offered a decent discount. If all three agreed to pursue this shut-out strategy, then even if a competitive cola came along, it would never find a significant foothold. Note that no government intervention has been part of this at all, I have merely assumed the power of contracts.
Then of course there is the example of pollution. Much as I've heard libertarians say that polluters would bow to social pressure, there's hardly a lack of social pressure nowadays, and polluters for the most part fail to bow to it. In fact, they usually only bow to the law insofar as the government is able to monitor their outputs. A few companies have enough social conscience to keep low pollution, but that does not a healthy environment make.
Furthermore, you seem to have made the common mistake of equating economics with morality. Yes, government intervention in many markets increases inefficiency. So? Efficiency is not the end-goal of government, or of society. Government and society have many other goals, to achieve which an increase in economic inefficiency may well be an acceptable tradeoff.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
beta vs. VHS is the classic example of two competing products introduced nearly simultaneously, into a completely new market, and yet the technically inferior product (VHS) won... Beta ended up being used only in TV stations, not on the mass market, despite having better image quality.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Andrew Carnegie made this practice almost a hallmark of U.S. Steel. The only way to move goods in bulk efficiently was by rail and he either bought or colluded with the railways so that his goods were shipped for much less than other companies.
---
On the predatory pricing thing, you've apparantly changed your criteria. I showed how people can get a monopoly that is not based on the quality of their product, which you didn't dispute. Your objection was "But the consumers get a great deal." which wasn't actually the question at hand. Do you disagree that predatory pricing can net someone a monopoly?
Only temporarily. And I don't see the harm in it. You seem to be operating from the assumption that monopolizing an area of commerce is inherently bad. I don't accept that. Nor did Carnegie have a monopoly on steel, so I'm not sure what your point was there. And his collection of the various elements of bringing steel to market resulted in great benefits for the entire country (not that he requires this justification). It reduced the price of steel for rails, and made transportation that much cheaper, both for people and for goods.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Also, there are aspects of this strategy that your characterization misses. First is that as son as the other company is driven out of the market, the monopoly holder drives up their prices to much, much higher than they would be in a competitive marketplace.
When has that every happened? You mean that they could, if they wanted to.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: So, it's a good deal for consumers for a short period, but then they get the short, pointy end of the monopoly shaft.
It's not as though a manufacturer owes anything to anyone. Take Windows, for example. If Bill Gates hadn't developed Windows, we wouldn't have it. But all of a sudden, the government determined that people have some inalienable right to own Windows on terms other than those chosen by Microsoft.
Had Andrew Carnegie not combined so much of the steel industry, we wouldn't have had as much steel. Who has the right to tell him what he may or may not charge for it? If you don't want the product, don't buy it.
You act like people who produce are owned by people who consume, which is exactly the thing Rand was arguing was evil in her books.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Second, this strategy works almost better as a threat than it does in practice. People aren't generally willing to destroy their company in order to mount doomed challenges against a monopoly. They're out for profit. Knowing that a company has the resources and inclination towards doing this is often enough to keep people out of monopolized markets.
So you claim. I dispute your claim, but it doesn't even matter. Who cares? If someone wants to jockey for position that badly, let them. Who is harmed?
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Capitalism is a great system for the slogans not only not agreeing with the theory, but many times being the opposite of it. A case in point is the idea that capitalism is set up to reward individual effort. None of the economic theorists I ever read thought this.
Strawman. Capitalism is a moral system. If you want to use another name for it, fine, but if I set up a company and make widgets, I'm damned if I can figure out why it's anyone's business how much I charge for widgets. If someone else comes along and wants to make widgets, fine. If I cut prices so that he can't compete, again, whose business is it? Since when do people have some sort of entitlement to engage in any particular form of business. It's my money, my property, I have no power to force anyone to buy my widgets.
Hell, if you want to boycott me, go right ahead. Convince people that my business practices are mean and nasty and that they should stop buying from me until I stop trying to block competition. That's your right and that's their right. And then I can make choices correspondingly. But they're my choices.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The way to accumulate wealth is to effectively exploit capital.
A way. And "exploit" has negative connotations, which is, I'm sure, why you used it.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Theoretically as well as practically, the capital yielded by wealth, control of strategic resources or positions, and the labor of others far outstrips that of individual effort. Only in very rare cases is an individual's own effort able to compete with this and that is generally when he creates something new, which is utilitzation of the strategic position capital.
Again... so what? Labor is all over the place. So are other resources. The person who can bring them together to produce something is the motive force.
Suppose I invent a new way to make integrated circuits. A way that's far cheaper and far better. I still don't have the cash to make them. So I'll go and find someone to invest.
But suppose I can't find anyone who will invest in my invention? Do I have some basic human right to get my invention out there? Is someone obligated to help me? Hardly. And if someone does invest, they are a major part of the motive force behind the appearance of the new technology. Every bit as much as I am. They couldn't do it without me, but I couldn't do it without them, either.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: People are not paid according to how hard they work.
So what? You keep bringing up irrelevancies. When you take a job, you're offering your services in return for pay. If you don't like it, don't take it. No third party has a right to decide what's appropriate pay. If I don't like what I'm making at McDonalds, I don't have to work there. They don't owe me a job.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The foundres of capitalism spoke out directly against that idea.
Maybe you think this is a cult of personality, or something. Why on earth should I care what Adam Smith says about this? When he's right, he's right. When he's wrong, he's wrong. Nothing changes either way. If you want, don't call what I'm talking about capitalism. Call it freedom of commerce. You or Smith or anyone else can say that it's better if I pay someone according to how hard they work. That's an opinion. I can accept it or reject it. Ultimately, the only one who has a right to decide how much I pay is me.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: People are paid what owners of capital feel they need to pay them in order to get them to work. Labor is mostly another commodity and as such is determined by market price. People don't earn money for their work. It's only when an owner of capital agrees to exchange money for their work that a laborer gets anything.
That's called earning money for their work. Why do you suppose a laborer is entitled to get anything without it being voluntary on the part of the giver?
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: In real life, the people who make large amounts of moeny don't do it by their own labor, but through say owning oil and making investments and paying other people to do or produce things and then taking in the lion's share of the profits.
That is labor. If they didn't do that, your manual laborers wouldn't have any jobs at all, and they'd starve.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: That's how you get rich. Not by working hard at your job, unless what you can do makes you a sufficiently rare reasource that supply-demand forces make you very valuable.
Who died and made you the arbiter of what counts as hard work?
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Out of curiosity starL, where did you get your degree in economics from?
Washington University in St. Louis, 1985. Why?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: StarLisa said: It's not an example. Don't you understand what an example is? It's not some theoretical story that you've made up in your mind. It's not something that you could could happen. An example is something that has happened. It's a piece of reality that isn't subject to debate. Doesn't it bother you that no one here has managed to produce one yet?
Doesn't it bother you, StarLisa, that you haven't come up with an example of a monopoly that came about completely free of government meddling, as per TomDavidson's request? The challenged was issued to you first and then you neatly sidestepped it by issuing one of your own. I, for one, am still waiting.
Nobody asked me to come up with an example of a monopoly that came about completely free of government meddling. What Tom asked me was:
quote:Can you demonstrate an example of a monopoly in a country completely free of government meddling, as proof of your claim?
Since I don't know of a country completely free of government meddling, the answer is that I obviously can't. But as I answered him, I don't need to. Asking someone to prove a negative is common among people who hold indefensible positions.
I'm asking for a single example of a so-called monopoly that didn't get that way either through offering a better deal to customers or through government support. You can't give one, because there are none.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: But all of a sudden, the government determined that people have some inalienable right to own Windows on terms other than those chosen by Microsoft.
...
If someone wants to jockey for position that badly, let them. Who is harmed?
I these two snippets actually answer each other quite nicely.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: A good reason is simple to produce. Say we're the soft drink manufacturers, and say that three of us control the market.
Gawd! Does anyone here care that not a single real example can be found? You come up with these fictional situations as if they're a justification for telling someone what they can and cannot do with their own property.
I don't want to say that we're soft drink manufacturers, and I don't want to say that three of us control the market. I see off-brands in stores all the time. Somehow, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Schwepps haven't managed to keep them from churning out their products.
Damn... it is incredibly frustrating to have people spouting theories that have no real life examples, and that are, in fact, contradicted by realy life examples.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Then of course there is the example of pollution. Much as I've heard libertarians say that polluters would bow to social pressure, there's hardly a lack of social pressure nowadays, and polluters for the most part fail to bow to it.
I have no problem at all with someone polluting their own stretch of land. The moment a single molecule goes onto someone else's property, they should be shut down until they can stop it from happening.
That's actually a lot stricter a position on the environment than the EPA has, but it's an obviously moral one.
Automobiles are another case in point. The idea that even the emissions that are currently permitted should be permitted is appalling.
That has nothing to do with economics. It has to do with harming others. My freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose starts. Other than that, it's pretty much absolute.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Furthermore, you seem to have made the common mistake of equating economics with morality.
Actually, you're making the far more common mistake of separating them. Acts are moral or immoral. The idea that there's some domain called economics that's detached from this is bizarre. It is immoral for me to force the guy in the cubicle next to me to invest in my idea. It is immoral for me to force anyone to invest in my idea. It is immoral for me to force anyone to do business with me. If someone has entered into a contract with me, it is not immoral for me to force them to adhere to their contractual obligations. No contractual obligations can ever exist except by the free choice of those entering into them.
What's so hard to understand about this?
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Yes, government intervention in many markets increases inefficiency. So? Efficiency is not the end-goal of government, or of society. Government and society have many other goals, to achieve which an increase in economic inefficiency may well be an acceptable tradeoff.
There's no such thing as "society". Society is just people, and no one has a right to decide what to do with me and my life.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: beta vs. VHS is the classic example of two competing products introduced nearly simultaneously, into a completely new market, and yet the technically inferior product (VHS) won... Beta ended up being used only in TV stations, not on the mass market, despite having better image quality.
-Bok
Famous case. Very good. On what basis do you claim that Betamax is the better product? I have a VHS machine, and I don't have a Betamax machine. Seems to me that VHS is a better medium for me.
Or did you mean that the quality of the picture was better? Maybe, but that's only one aspect of the product.
Sony screwed up big time with Betamax. It's true. It probably is a better technology, and if it didn't win, it's because Sony screwed up.
Not that I think Macintosh is a better system than Windows (I don't), but had Apple been as smart as Microsoft and allowed every Tom, Dick and Harry to make Mac clones from the get-go, the market would look very different now. But they were dumb, and as a result, it's actually surprising how well they've managed.
You make marketing decisions. Sometimes they're good, and sometimes they're bad.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Does anyone here care that not a single real example can be found?
I'm still waiting for yours. Monopolies without meddling, please.
You asked for monopolies in a country that doesn't have government meddling in the economy. You know that there are no such countries. So you're really just engaging in lame debating tricks.
Asking someone to prove a negative is virtually a concession that you can't make your own point.
Find me a country that doesn't have government meddling in the economy, and I'll look into it.
In the meantime, we're stuck with the real world, and you've been making claims about things without being able to give a single example of those claims being true.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:There's no such thing as "society". Society is just people...
And yet you insist that there IS morality? By the same logic, morality is just things people do.
Not at all. Morality is not how people act; it's how people should act.
I guess that's hard to understand if you think that there's no objective right and wrong, and that all standards of right and wrong are determined by whoever has the biggest mob.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
