• In total there are 3 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Force

#111: Sept. - Nov. 2012 (Fiction)
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: Force

Unread post

It's difficult to see how the principle of upholding the rights of flesh and blood individuals (to a healthy and safe environment as two examples) against certain activities of amorphous legal entities is a violation of individual rights.
I'd like you to address the point I made earlier. I'm trying to figure out how, in an economy without regulations or taxes, an individual's rights are protected against the "right" of limited liability corporations (or other fancified financial entities) to increase profits by dumping poisonous chemicals into the water table or skimping on worker safety, etc.
User avatar
Mr A
Wearing Out Library Card
Posts: 243
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:46 am
11
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Force

Unread post

The dumping of toxic or even nontoxic waste in a river that is owned by someone, or on their property on land, would violate their property rights. Throwing garbage on another property or whatnot, can violate property rights.

As far as worker safty, if you think a job is not safe enough for you to work at, seek employment elsewhere, or argue for better conditions for you before or during employment with employer. The market has a mechanism that can work to improve conditions without the use of force, as in governmnetal intervention. If no one wants to work because they feel conditions are not safe, that employer either improves conditions, or they may go out of business with no workers. No rights are violated either way. The principle of individual rights is always the guiding principle in law in laissez-faire capitalism. There would be no governemtnal agencies like OSHA, JHACO, but there is much people can do to improve conditions without the use of force, governmental force. Be outspoken, dont deal with them in any way, dont work for them, a number of such market mechanisms. There will potentially then be a huge market for safe work places instead of unsafe ones, etc.

Also, consumer reports/reviews, even private agencies that could inspect and so forth, but they must not be done by force. If a business doesnt want to be inspected by private agency, might hurt its business, etc. Many different things can be done like that, that does not violate the principle of individual rights.
"Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self."
- Cyril Connolly

My seven published books are available for purchase, click here:
http://www.amazon.com/Steven-L.-Sheppard/e/B00E6KOX12
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: Force

Unread post

The dumping of toxic or even nontoxic waste in a river that is owned by someone, or on their property on land, would violate their property rights. Throwing garbage on another property or whatnot, can violate property rights.
What if no one owns the river? Doesn't a faceless financial entity have the right to max profit while rendering property useless for future owners = brown fields or super-fund sites? Is dumping poison on your own land is OK, even if it seeps into the ground water and causes cancer all over town? Any restriction on the right of owners to max profit and use their own property is evil, so it's difficult to see how this would be prevented.
As far as worker safety, if you think a job is not safe enough for you to work at, seek employment elsewhere, or argue for better conditions for you before or during employment with employer. The market has a mechanism that can work to improve conditions without the use of force, as in governmnetal intervention.
Wow, that's very naive. We have long experience with this. Witness the meatpacking industry before The Jungle was published or fire safety prior to the Triangle Shirtwaist fire. Market forces did not correct those horrific abuses.
_______________________________________________________
When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you; even though you multiply your prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood.
Isaiah 1:15

But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 21: 23 - 25
User avatar
Mr A
Wearing Out Library Card
Posts: 243
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:46 am
11
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Force

Unread post

I have no knowledge about those last things you mentioned, but it always comes down to the principle of individual rights and objective law.

Think of how one decides on a job now, even with any regulatory agency, one still makes the choice to work for a price they are willing to work at, and job they are willing to do, in a certaon workplace environment they choose to work in. Some people work as an electrician, fireman, police force, some people dont think its safe enough or too mich of a risk, which is their choice, they can work in retail, offices. The point is we already decide on these issues when seeking employment somewhere, it would be the same in laissez-faire capitalism, except no force no coercion no rights violation will occur because there would be no governmental intervention into such matters. Only in regards to any actual violation of individual rights.
"Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self."
- Cyril Connolly

My seven published books are available for purchase, click here:
http://www.amazon.com/Steven-L.-Sheppard/e/B00E6KOX12
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: Force

Unread post

You should look into those abuses and many others - they happened under laissez-faire capitalism, which could not correct them.
User avatar
Mr A
Wearing Out Library Card
Posts: 243
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:46 am
11
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Force

Unread post

There was never laissez-faire capitalism in the entire history of the world, as there has never been a market or economy that wasnt regulated in some way by political economic systems.
"Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self."
- Cyril Connolly

My seven published books are available for purchase, click here:
http://www.amazon.com/Steven-L.-Sheppard/e/B00E6KOX12
User avatar
etudiant
Masters
Posts: 467
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 3:33 pm
14
Location: canada
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 174 times

Re: Force

Unread post

I'm beginning to think, Mr A, that your experience with the world of employment, labour, and civil rights has been limited to a favoured book, and you have thereby become invested in a laissez-fairy tale.

The writings of Charles Dickens probably provide a reasonable approximation of the capitalism on a long leash that you seem to advocate, and would provide a useful counterpoint to Ms Rand. One of the most prominent themes in human history, from the industrial revolution to the '50s, at the very least, has been the struggle of the powerless and unrepresented to survive and gain basic rights and security in the face of the greedy and unscrupulous. A companies wages or safety standards don't meet one's personal comfort level, so just move on, you say? Tell that to the factory workers in 19th century England- if they were able to find another job, it would be under the same conditions. Or the coal minor in '30s West Virginia- maybe the next mine up the road would be more altruistic, or else they could horn their way to the front of the unemployment line for another job (ahead of the 25% of the population then out of work and desperate). Or the Chinese garment worker today, labouring in a sweatshop for $80 a month- she could go back to the tiny family farm plot, and subsist on meager rations I suppose.

It is always easier to control things from the top down, rather than from the bottom up. Decisions made in a head office flow downwards through established lines of communication. Millions of workers seeking change must first somehow establish a complex web of communication, and then come to a consensus on how to proceed. Organization of very large numbers of people is always difficult, a factor well recognized by exploitive management in the past, and a reason for their ardent anti-unionism.

The idea of the perfect, self-regulating market has been exposed as myth by all reputable economists, from JM Keynes to Paul Krugman. It is promoted still as it handily serves the interests of a few ultra affluent and well connected, the "one percent" as it has recently been described.
"I suspect that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose"
— JBS Haldane
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Force

Unread post

MrA, you should look to Libertarianism or something a bit closer to reality.


Objectivism violates many 'rights'. The right of a family not to have to submit their children to labor to make ends meet. The right for fair and equitable pay. The right to safe working conditions. The right not to be nickel and dimed by big banks. The right to expect a fair product from a chemical manufacturer that doesn't poison us. The right for a car to have certain minimum standards when it crashes. The right for a woman to be paid the same as a man if she is equally qualified. The right to employment without religious descrimination. The right to take out loans that aren't tricked up with volatile fine print.

Objectivism is tyranny. You protect the "rights" of the upper class, thereby shitting on the lower and middle classes. Every alteration has a consequence, yet objectivism believes it's changes would have zero negative consequences, and all positive consequences. It's a fairy tale.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Force

Unread post

I have to admit I'm curious to read Atlas Shrugged and see if I can understand how Rand convinced so many readers that her ultra laizzez-faire could exist in our world. The economic activity of individuals has been regulated since day one of economies. To Randians, this means we haven't reached a state of perfection, but I think it just shows that such a thing is impossible.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Force

Unread post

Well, we haven't had such a system wholesale, but we have in pieces. Financial regulation for example. We took it away and the world exploded. If we switched in every way to full-scale LF, I doubt we could recover.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
Post Reply

Return to “Atlas Shrugged - by Ayn Rand”