Yaron Brook on Capitalism, Question 9 - Ayn Rand Institute

[dantean]

You can't really be against lying, stealing and cheating without coming to the conclusion that the U.S. was neither unpopulated nor unutilized when "America" was declared and the indigenous population "resettled" at gunpoint. Claiming to be for liberty without force is rationalizing for a state of affairs (i.e., present-day property relations) that are precisely the result of force. Argue for the objective morality or ethics of what we have now, but force is how we got here and YOU favor it.

[Amerifacts]

I think that rationally self-interested individuals share the same values, but may differ in opinion on to how apply those values.

[lashkaretoiba]

How does he not know about ENRON?

[jtorresguevara]

Paul's right.

Liars and thieves are weak and dependent in the sense that they NEED the victim to supplement their own despair and self-defeat. They also cloak themselves with values yet do the very thing that goes against them in futile to find their happiness.

[jpbalkenende]

That's some very eloquent bullshit I must say, bravo.

Rational self interest doesn't imply any sort of morality. Morality would have to flow out of it not the other way around. You are supplementing a flaw in your theory with an external moral sense. Basically making your theory useless.

[shovelcharge]

She looks pretty cute :)

[PaulMcKeever]

When asked about liars, thieves, and rational self interest, I've tried to stay away from saying: "In the long term, they'll go to jail, lose other peoples' trust" etc. The rebuttal always seems to involve an anecdote about how someone lived a life of crime and never paid the price. I find two other points more difficult to rebut:

1. To attempt to live by lying or stealing is to place your fate in the hands of others; to make oneself a powerless dependant; and (cont'd)

[PaulMcKeever]

2. Values obtained viciously may relieve one of ones pain, but they do not provide one with happiness. The happiness comes not from the value alone, but from the virtuous achievement of it.

Do not infer from my comment, however, that I disagree with Yaron's points. I do not.

Cheers,

Paul

[soitoldhimno]

Well said.

[legendre007]

Not only are thieves dependents, but they are dependent upon the wealth created by honest, self-interested entrepreneurs. A thief would prefer, if it's feasible, to steal lots of money from a self-made businessman, than to steal the meager belongings of a Buddhist ascetic. Were it not for self-interested producers, everyone - thief & ascetic alike - would perish.

[legendre007]

My point is not the Adam Smith/Dinesh D'Souza-styled claim that the justness of self-interest profit motive of entrepreneurs is contingent upon the benefits it confers upon the entrepreneur, as that "justification" for capitalism makes the assumption that the entrepreneur's happiness is somehow of lesser importance than than happiness of the entrepreneur's employees & customers.

[legendre007]

I'm just pointing out that the self-interested entrepreneur is much more competent at living & satisfying his own long-term self-interest than is any thief.

[legendre007]

I made many typos 2 comments ago. It should have said, "My point is not the Adam Smith-styled utilitarian claim that the entrepreneur's self-interest is only morally acceptable because of the benefits it confers upon the entrepreneur's employees & customers. That 'justification' makes the assumption that the entrepreneur's happiness is of lesser importance than the happiness of the entrepreneur's customers & employees."

[jpbalkenende]

@legende007

You are pointing that out as if it is a fact but you have nothing to back that ludicrous claim up. I'm sure there are many thieves more capable at acting in their rational self interest than many honest workers. Maybe it's a statistically insignificant number (probably not) but your claim is bullshit either way.

[hapspir]

I think what legendre means is that the average thief has a harsh life in comparison to the average businessman. It would be even harsher if law enforcement focused more on property crimes rather than victimless crimes like pot smoking. But still, thieves depend on the productivity of victims in order to survive. The more they take, the less will be available to steal and more precautions against theft will be made. Honest people don't worry about getting whacked or arrested on the job.

[jpbalkenende]

Ah so you want government (law) to accommodate the flaws in your ideology? Gotcha.

Otherwise people looking out for their 'rational self interest' sidestepping the earthly law will remain proportional to given risks and rewards such behavior gives. And yes there has to be a certain proportion of hosts and parasites. But the parasites still exist. And act in their own 'rational self interest'.

[hapspir]

You mentioned earthly law. Would you say that earthly law is flawed in comparison to divine law? I am guessing that the reason you are offended by the term 'rational self interest' is because you believe that God's interest is paramount. Am I right? I am also guessing that you believe the existence of thievery is directly related to man's rejection of God's will in favor of his own. I do not seek to end your belief, you are free to believe what you wish. Am I free to think?

[jpbalkenende]

Wrong, I don't believe in god. I mentioned earthly law because YOU seem to be arguing for some absolute set of moral perspective everyone is supposed to be aware off. You don't explain this perspective in the least. In fact it's your libertarian ideology that seems almost religion like.

[hapspir]

The basic philosophy of libertarianism states that your life belongs to you. How is that like a religion?

[jpbalkenende]

@haspir

Because libertarians deal in moral absolutes.

[hapspir]

"Because libertarians deal in moral absolutes."

You are concerned that libertarians are issuing commandments. I understand. I wouldn't want people commanding me either. But as I said, the basis of libertarianism is the self ownership principle. You own your life therefore you (and nobody else) decide what to do and how to live. Morality (deciding btw right and wrong) is entirely in your hands. The only limit: everyone has the right to their life so you can't interfere with the life of another.

[jpbalkenende]

Most libertarians believe in a strong state law. With a very strong and disturbing bias toward private property rather than life. All they have to back these ideals up are either inherent 'rights' that they think to be self evident or god given rights. What's also religious about libertarianism is how it is faith based since libertarianism has never proven an ounce of it's worth (and won't get any chances to any time soon). Modern economics also disregard a great deal of libertarian dogma.

[hapspir]

If you think that private property is the opposite of life then I suppose you will continue to believe that you have a claim upon the property of your neighbors. What will you do when your neighbors become too poor to support you?

[jpbalkenende]

@hapspir

A straw man is the device of choice of an intellectual vacuum like yourself.

[hapspir]

I wasn't joking. The only reason that a person could possibly wish to weaken or abolish property rights is to take the property of others against their will. I don't know what you meant when you said that laws should protect life instead of property, but I'm telling you that each person's life IS their property. To deny this is to claim that a person's life is the property of others. A person who doesn't own his own life is a slave. I know that's not what you want to be.

[jpbalkenende]

I never said laws should protect life instead of property you fucking moron.

[hapspir]

"Most libertarians believe in a strong state law. With a very strong and disturbing bias toward private property rather than life."

Then could you please explain what you meant by this? I don't want to be a moron.

[Bigturns33]

Because you have a strong philosphy about something does not make it a religion. Theism is a belief in some god. Ya some libertarians believe in some kind of a god. I am an objectivist and dont believe in a god but i hold to a philosphy that is without belief in a god. Because you believe in something strongly does not make it religion. Thats flawed logic. Religion deals with theism. Plain and simple. You believe somthing because you believe a deity wants you to believe such a way.

[jpbalkenende]

@legend

So? Without 'rational self interest' there would be no thieves? Great! I know that's not what you are trying to say but you are pulling something in a macro context to distort the micro because it doesn't jive with your theory. These crooks were acting in their self interest. What their victims did is irrelevant to that fact.

[squaretriangle]

Do you have a problem understanding the argument for principled adherence to rational self-interest, or just for arguing for it to others?

[PaulMcKeever]

squaretriangle: To whom are you directing that question?

[squaretriangle]

You.

[qtronman]

Excellent incorporation of altruism and egoism at the end there: "I don't think I have to take care of you," exactly.