| | I've been having difficulty accepting an idea that Ayn Rand holds as an ethical necessity for objectivist thought. According to her, there should be a decisive, definite division between government and the economy, because only with such an arragement could humans condcut free trade, benefit and prosper by a sound system of reciprocality, and compromise for no other reason then to acheive a medium between differing stakes between two traders. At a glance, this idea seems entirely justifiable.
However, when we examine this model in America today, I can see some examples of the model which are entirely anti-objectivist and for that matter, anti-ethical and anti-moralist. The separation between government and economy means that the flow of the economy is directly controlled by the companies that particiapte in the economic trade. Generally, this means that the economy is controlled and directed by the "major participants", who are the big corporations and brand name giants. And if the economy of America, which, I must add, is the most vital function in domestic America, is controlled by giant corporations whose agendas are dictated by the unhapmered pursuit of wealth, how can the implications of this be pro-objectivist? If you examine it, ginat corporations will forfeit any right of humans to reap a profit, and this means issuing "capitalist propaganda", excessive advertising, indirect thought control, and other intellectually and morally demeaning tools, how can this be ethcially correct? Free trade is an admirable quality, but the freedom can be abused within the parameters of what freedom constitutes, and this can mean that the ethical value of humans can be tread over, and all of this done legally. I can understand how communism is not a resolution to the problem, but I believe Rand has not exactly suggested the ideal mode of an economy.
Furthermore, it seems that hte only way to succeed in such an economy is to deploy such methods. To cut advertising, brand names, sponsorship, and propaganda would mean to cut the corporate lifeline, and to bring death upon the business. Ethical negligence is the only way to succeed in this system, and I certainly hope it can be reformed without manifesting into communsim.
|
|
