Mr A- I have been ruminating on my past employment experience, which now spans many decades, and assessing private versus public ethics, at least as I have seen them. I've worked in the public sector, in the non-profit sector, in the private sector; I've been an employer, and employee; I've hired and fired, and been hired and fired; I've been a member of a big, militant trade union, and also managed a small company.

I've been trying to think of a work situation in the private, for profit sector, in which I haven't experienced some sort of lying, cheating, and/or at least an attempt to steal in some sort of way. Short of going way back to the '60s or '70s, I can't think of one. This has been modest in some cases, not so modest in others. In the other sectors, my experience has been that altruism is significantly more in evidence, as has honest dealing. Not to say there weren't inefficiencies, and sometimes bad decisions, but the overall tone was always much more inclusive, rather than exclusive and self dealing

Maybe this is not so surprising. If one says: Get the money! Now! A certain paradigm will arise. If one says: Let's think about social goals! Another will likely arise. You seem to have a fundamental view of economics, as though it flows solely from an introductory textbook on the subject, and a certain novel.

I think the elevation of the business sector to the quasi-religous image you seem to contemplate quite ignores human psychology, and the historical experience to date.

Mr A wrote: you cannot force men to deal with someone that they do not want to deal with. If you disagree Rand and would like to force people to hire people they don't want to, sell to people they don't want to trade with, then that's your right to hold such a view.

Mr A, I don't think opposition to affirmative action for racial employment quotas can be called racist, but allowing formal racial policies in business trading is another matter. I gave the example of a railway company having a policy not to carry blacks. Such a policy should not be legal.

It brings to mind apartheid in South Africa, where firms could have an explicit policy of not trading with blacks on solely racial grounds. My opinion is that if you say that such a policy is acceptable, as Rand appears to do, then you make yourself complicit with racism.

You argue that such complicity is not racist, since Rand is just defending the freedom of the firm to decide for itself, and would herself disagree with such a racist policy. My view is that you should look to the consequences of things you advocate. Overtly treating people as second class citizens on the basis of the colour of their skin abrogates their human rights.

Rand argues that restricting public racism is not important enough to be a matter for any legislation. If you have a reckless disregard for how such a principle will affect people, then you share some culpability in how it is applied. Governments have a right and duty to regulate business freedom to achieve social goals.

Robert Tulip wrote: " Governments have a right and duty to regulate business freedom to achieve social goals."

And that is your view.

Rand does not think that the government has such a right or duty to.

That's that then.