About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Monday, March 13, 2006 - 5:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Tibor:

Thank you for another fine,  insightful, and true essay.

Take care.

Ed


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Monday, March 13, 2006 - 10:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tibor,

I happen to like Law & Order, Special Victim’s Unit. The protagonists are moved by a high sense of morality and decency. They are devoted body and soul to their concept of right within the field of police work. They also have pretty good private lives.

But I fully agree that the businessman remark was an unnecessary cheap shot. Still, I see this partly as a reflection of the word "businessman" being aligned with some very poor examples that are still in the public memory: Enron executives, for example.

I saw a wonderful film a while back that appealed to me because business ethics was at the source of the drama (the newspaper business). It was Meet Joe Black.

I sometimes get the urge to cry in films, but the final scene of that film still gets to me just on remembering it, where Anthony Hopkins asked Brad Pitt (death) if he had anything to be afraid of (before going on to dying), and the response was, "A man like you? No."

There's some good stuff out there in entertainment, but I agree that a perception of moral businessmen needs more exposure. Keep writing about it. You're doing your part - in spades. (I'll be working on my contribution, also, with fiction-writing.)

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 3/13, 10:31am)


Post 2

Monday, March 13, 2006 - 4:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Not only does this bias pervade the entertainment industry and other segments of American society, but it influences dim wits who imagine themselves to be engaged in business.

For example, years ago I entered training for a telemarketing job for a "business" owned by two people, one of whom was a female "psychologist". It soon became clear that this woman, who posed as a sort of contemporary "ethical-spiritual leader" and worked hard at displaying the made-in-Hollywood image of female psychologist, was entirely willing to deal with prospective customers in ways that were dishonest. It gradually became clear to me that her attitude seemed to be: "Hey, I didn't invent the rules here; the system is just corrupt."

Recently, I ended a business relationaship with some bad performers in their early thirties. One of the three of them was a woman who was particularly reckless in her accusations and choice of language, and who was willing to lie without hesitation whenever she thought doing so might advance her interests. Near the end of long negotiations, as we were signing our "business divorce", she looked at me with a perculiar expression--as though she expected that her performance would command my admiration and respect!

It dawned on me that here again was a person who thought that business people flourish by cheating, one who was proud of her ability to commit fraud.


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Monday, March 13, 2006 - 9:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Tibor, I enjoyed your article and I am grateful for the defense of business.

I own a small business.  It is a materials analysis laboratory and I have customers who are usually scientists and engineers in industry.  They are good people to work with since they deal fairly directly with reality.  Where I have problems is with politicians, who seem to believe that every business is a big business and probably run by evil management.  Being evil, I am out to treat my employees, who are viewed as helpless, despite the fact that all of mine are well educated and have challenging jobs that demand a high level of rationality.  So, I am required to post about 25 posters informing them of their many 'rights' by virtue of being employees.  I am saddled with all of the reporting requirements on their payroll taxes, even while I am supposed to support the fiction that the employers contributions to payroll taxes did not really come out of their pockets.  It is supposed that they, the politicians, have a greater interest in the safety of my employees than I do, though I have invested my time and money in training them and given them the equipment and environment that will allow them to earn a living as a scientist or engineer.  Then, there is the fact that when income is not enough to pay the bills and payroll, I am the one to go without pay.  Well that is fitting, since I am the evil one and I can have no care for my employees because I am management.


Post 4

Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 4:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Maybe, then, the structure of business needs be changed, so there are no employees.
(Edited by robert malcom on 3/14, 4:13am)


Post 5

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 3:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The idea of independent contractors or companies of associates, instead of employees, has always struck me as a viable option. Instead of labor unions, there could be labor corporations, on the model of partnerships, perhaps. It may be a historical accident alone that has lead to this "employer/employee" division, with the result that the legal system has petrified it in most societies (vie departments of labor and commerce, etc.). 

Post 6

Tuesday, December 6, 2011 - 8:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think that employers and their union employees need to conduct negotiations in a non adversarial atmosphere.
Perhaps if the owners can show the members ok this is what we have.
This is your current production and these are the costs of production including wages payrolll taxes and all overhead.

Now if you boys can help figure out a way to increase production so we as a business can continue to make a profit then we can work out an increase in your wages and or benefits.

I don't believe all unions are bad.
The unions I cannot stand are those unions that are in government held corporations like postal unions were the business that runs it has no basis in free market economy and because they are government employees can and do make demands in their negotiations that have no basis in reality but because they are paid by the government often get whatever they want without non union competition to act as a check and balance to their demands.

Also it is my belief that the businessman like the individual is the most maligned and misunderstood of all minorites on earth.
(Edited by Jules Troy on 12/06, 8:47pm)


Post 7

Friday, December 9, 2011 - 6:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Crime dominates the mass media.  Fiction is about conflict or at least challenge.  Biographies are interesiting only because of achievements, rather than lives of gentle ease and assured comfort.  So, we thrive on stories of conflict.  The problem is the "mass mediated hyper-reality of crime." 
The CSI franchise, the Law & Order franchise, the NCIS franchise (will there be a new show, NCIS: Port to Port?), these are businesses that sell fiction as closely related to criminology as Star Trek is to physics.
 

Corporate executives do not kill each other - in real life, deaths come from corporate irresponsibility and the victims are anonymous and many. 
 
Eastern Michigan University professor of criminology Gregg Barak is responsible for several innovations in the sociology of crime.  Most recently, he and his collaborators, Prof. Young S. Kim, and Hon. Donald E. Shelton, published a series of papers on the "CSI Effect"  (summary here.).  Among Dr. Barak's other investigations is "newsmaking criminology" the relationship between the mass media and the reality of crime.  




Jules is correct when he suggested, " ...  that employers and their union employees need to conduct negotiations in a non adversarial atmosphere."  (Though as Prof. Machan notes, above that, thinking is petrified.)   I have recommended here on RoR a book brought to our state numismatic convention Educational Forum by a lawyer from Heritage Auctions, Getting to Yes.  The first thing is not to sit on opposite sides of the table, but on the same side. 

For a paper in a Social Problems class (linked here), I wrote about Objectivist ethics as applied to business.  I found these papers to have been useful.  They were the Objectivist side of a multifaceted debate on business ethics.
  • Locke, Edwin A., “Reviewed Work(s):A Review of Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand,” The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 1. (Jan., 1989), pp. 100-103.
  • Becker, Thomas E., “Integrity in Organizations: Beyond Honesty and Conscientiousness,” The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 1. (Jan., 1998), pp. 154-161.
  • Locke, Edwin A., and Thomas E. Becker, “Rebuttal to a Subjectivist Critique of an Objectivist Approach to Integrity in Organizations,” The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 1. (Jan., 1998), pp. 170-175.
  • Locke, Edwin A., and Thomas E. Becker, “Locke and Becker's Reply to Weiss,” The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 3. (Jul., 1998), pp. 391-392.
  • Locke, Edwin A., and Thomas E. Becker, “Objectivism's Answer to the Sad, Old World of Subjectivism,” The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 4. (Oct., 1998), pp. 658-659.
Broadly, it is easy to claim that Objectivism is being understood and taught, though, of course, the old fallacies still dominate.

Ayn Rand's works sowed many fields. Further evidence of that influence can be seen in the success of Deirdre McCloskey's studies on bourgeois morality.  However, as the mass media and mass entertainment are by definition directed at the most common buyers, we must wait for them to catch up. 

This is, of course, a known problem, as outlined in von Mises's Anti-Capitalist Mentality.  The intellectuals complain that murder mysteries sell better than their books - they distrust of the open market.  At the same time, those murder mysteries portray the upper classes as morally bankrupt. 
The paradox of capitalism is selling the rope that will hang you, though we do like to think of the immense profits from unlicensed intellectual property in the form of Che Guevara T-Shirts.  Von Mises was referring to Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie.  The Law and Order junk was 50 years in the future.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 12/09, 7:06am)


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.