Everyone is selfish, even non-Objectivists

Robert: I disagree. If you believe in competitive markets and if all seniors paid full admission, the cost would drop.

Also, If everyone was like Dale the seducing programs such as tax deferral IRAs would just dry up. Self-sufficient people don't need to be encouraged to save for their future.

Sam

Post 61

Monday, October 15, 2007 - 8:23pm

Mr. Dale Reed,

It is a pleasure to make your acquaintance on this forum. I strongly agree with and admire your position on this issue. I participated in a discussion here almost two years ago where I voiced similar opinions:

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0701.shtml

Cheers,

Mike Erickson

Post 62

Monday, October 15, 2007 - 8:25pm

Dale wrote,

Bill, Social Security is the *forced* transfer of wealth from younger salary earners to geezers. There is no "Lock Box."

Yes, and your wealth was forcibly transferred to someone else. Now you have a chance to reclaim some of it. Look, we're all victims of the system. If you refuse the money, it will go to someone else. It's not going to be returned to the people from whom it was taken.

Still on the "selfish" thread is when I am offered a "Senior" discount at the Seattle Zoo, entrance to a National Park, local hardware store... I refuse saying that I want to pay full price because I do not approve of age discrimination.

Dale, there is nothing wrong with price discrimination. Seniors are offered discounts to attract their business, because they don't have as much money as non-seniors. So by offering them discounts while charging non-seniors full price, a seller can increase his profit. He gets seniors in at a lower price who otherwise would not have purchased his product, and still attracts non-seniors at the higher price because they can afford to pay it. The same principle governs lower prices for children under 12. Some parents cannot afford to pay full price for their kids, so it's way for the movies to attract more viewers and fill up the seats. It's for this reason as well that movies charge lower prices for matinees. Not as many people attend movies during the day, so it's a way for the theater owners to attract more viewers during the least popular show times.

There is nothing wrong with this kind of discrimination. It is a perfect example of how flexible pricing under free-market capitalism can benefit both producers and consumers. In your world, there would be no price or age discrimination, and as result, both buyer and seller would be worse off. Fewer customers would buy the product if they had to pay full price, and fewer sellers would get the extra revenue from the added business. Your prohibition against price and age discrimination is an example not of self-interest, but of self-sacrifice for both producers and consumers.

- Bill

Post 63

Monday, October 15, 2007 - 8:39pm

Bill, I still generally disagree with you on the Social Security issue, although I think your position has some merits that I would like to flesh out when I have some time. I sanctioned your last post because of the way you eloquently desbribed the "justice" of discrimination. Nicely done!

Post 64

Monday, October 15, 2007 - 9:21pm

Bill:

There is nothing wrong with this kind of discrimination. It is a perfect example of how flexible pricing under free-market capitalism can benefit both producers and consumers.

While the above is true from an economic point of view, it is patronizing and it diminishes the self-esteem of all those who are seduced. (Including me when I do.)

The unmistakable message is that you aren't as capable as the rest of society and need special consideration.

Sam

Post 65

Monday, October 15, 2007 - 9:36pm

Howdy Mike, for sure we think along similar lines on this issue.

I am sorry that I cannot make myself clear to most of you about what I wanted to discuss. I guess I threw a curve ball, as my Daddy used to say.

I wondered what you folks thought Ayn Rand's definition of "selfish" was. I used Social Security and Geezer Discounts only as examples of my attempts to define myself. I realize that you younger folks have not thought much about those two examples but I am sure you have experienced other "selfish" decisions and will experience many others in the future in your work, in your family, and elsewhere.

One more attempt to clarify *my* interpretation of Ayn's "Virtue of Selfishness," I told my two sons if either of them kills someone(for whatever reason) he is a "killer," if they "lie" they are "liars," and if a Social Security or Unemployment Check is deposited in their checking account then they are On The Dole. And their self-esteem will suffer.

Or to put it another way. When my cousin David(a couple years older than I) get together we enjoy telling each other stories about the times we told The Man:

NO!

I will *not* do what you just asked me to do.

When you get to be my age you will be reviewing your life including its mistakes and successes. And your biggest smiles will result when you remember acting selfishly. "Selfishly" as defined by Ayn Rand if I interpret her ideas correctly and even if I have not understood her correctly I know it is true. Dale

---
$ dale-reed@worldnet.att.net Seattle, Washington $

Post 66

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 12:53am

I wrote, "There is nothing wrong with this kind of discrimination. It is a perfect example of how flexible pricing under free-market capitalism can benefit both producers and consumers."

Sam replied,

While the above is true from an economic point of view, it is patronizing and it diminishes the self-esteem of all those who are seduced. (Including me when I do.)

It's not patronizing, nor should it have any affect on your self-esteem, unless you base your self-esteem on how much money you make relative to other people. Different people can afford to pay different prices for goods and services. The less money you have, the less willing you'll be to buy an item that someone with more money might be willing to buy. The fact that a seller charges you a lower price than someone else, because he doesn't think you'd be willing or able to pay the higher price should have no affect whatsoever on your self-esteem. It should not tell you that you're not as good a person as someone who is willing to pay the higher price. Nor, if he charges you the higher price, should that tell you that you're a better person than someone to whom he charges a lower price.

The view that you're expressing is the same one that tells people that if they don't have as nice a car or as expensive a house as their neighbors, they're not as good as they're neighbors. In order to maintain their self-esteem, they have to strive constantly to keep up with the Joneses. Material or economic parity becomes their standard of self-worth. This is not the Objectivist concept of self-esteem.

The unmistakable message is that you aren't as capable as the rest of society and need special consideration.

You're assuming that the reason a seller charges you a lower price is that he feels sorry for you -- that he's patronizing you. That's not the reason. He's charging you a lower price, because he doesn't think you'll pay a higher one, and because he wants your business. Not everyone has the same level of economic capability or buying power, and if sellers could arrive at finer levels of discrimination, they would employ them and charge nearly everyone a different price, depending on what they thought the customer would be willing to pay. Price discrimination by profit-seeking sellers should have no effect whatsoever on your self-esteem. Authentic self-esteem rests on an entirely different foundation.

- Bill

Post 67

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 6:38am

Bill:

You've missed the point entirely. It has nothing to do with money. The situation is exactly the same if someone offers to tie your shoe laces for you when you are a fully capable of doing so yourself. If you buy into it you're acknowledging that you are their inferior (at least in that respect). Children know this and once they have learned to tie their laces they fiercely resist help.

Self esteem has a basis in efficacy and independence. Fully functional adults who acknowledge that they need help and encouragement from government programs to plan and save for their retirement can't help but lose some pride. This is very insidious and destructive to the national character.

I'm very proud that I have never borrowed a penny in my life except for house mortgages. Instead of borrowing money from my parents for my education I took a year out from my studies to earn enough to return. And I have never understood why Objectivists haven't cottoned on to the adage, "Debt is the slavery of the free" as it makes one dependent � and Objectivists value being individualists and you can't be an individualist if you're dependent.

So there.

Sam

(Edited by Sam Erica on 10/16, 6:49am)

Post 68

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 12:12pm

Dale,
You said you drive "older vehicles". That means you have car insurance, right? Now, I assume that you have no choice in the matter; that is, the state forces you to have liability insurance. So, to be consistent, if you caused an accident, you would refuse to let your insurance company pay the other driver, and you would pay out of your own pocket. Is that right? If not, then what is the difference in principle between this and not taking money from a retirement plan that you were forced to pay into?

Sam,
Why do you exempt mortgage loans?

Thanks,
Glenn

Post 69

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 12:23pm

I assume Sam would exempt mortgage loans because if you don't pay a mortgage you have to pay rent anyway.

I agree with those who accept the Social Security checks but understand why others may not want to.

Jim

Post 70

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 12:52pm

Glen: James is correct. A mortgage is an alternative to a lease � but both are obligations. The other big distinction is that mortgages are not like consumer loans � they can be considered to be investments that don't depreciate as all consumer items do.

Wrt the hypothetical car insurance of Dale's � this is a different kettle of fish. The mandatory insurance isn't protecting you. It's protecting the person you have injured; thus it's not patronizing.

More with respect to debt � why would anyone who values independence undertake personal debt, which is by definition and obligation and a duty? I was mightily impressed by Tennessee Ernie Ford's, "I owe my soul to the company store."

!6 Tons

Let me be clear. I don't think that there is anything inherently wrong with taking advantage of government programs that you have been forced to contribute to because you have to survive, but you pay a psychological price. If you don't think so then you're rationalizing. I take advantage of some of them and I think most others do, too.

Sam

(Edited by Sam Erica on 10/16, 12:58pm)

Post 71

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 3:48pm

Sam,

You wrote,

You've missed the point entirely. It has nothing to do with money. The situation is exactly the same if someone offers to tie your shoe laces for you when you are a fully capable of doing so yourself.
No, it isn't! That was the very point I was making -- that it's not the same.
If you buy into it you're acknowledging that you are their inferior (at least in that respect). Children know this and once they have learned to tie their laces they fiercely resist help.

So, if someone offers you a lower price, because you're a senior and he thinks he can attract your business better than if he offered you a higher price, are you saying that if you accept the lower price, you're acknowledging that you're his inferior?? Seriously.

Suppose that the owner of an Indian restaurant wants to attract more non-Indian patrons, so he offers them a discount. Would you refuse to pay the discounted price, because by doing so you're acknowledging that you're his inferior? And if not, then how is this any different from the senior discount? You say that your refusal to accept the senior discount has nothing to do with money (i.e., with your level of income). If not, then's what the difference?

Self esteem has a basis in efficacy and independence.

I agree. So how does being a beneficiary of price discrimination rob you of your efficacy and independence?

Fully functional adults who acknowledge that they need help and encouragement from government programs to plan and save for their retirement can't help but lose some pride.

Who said anything about the beneficiaries of price discrimination acknowledging the need for help and encouragement from government programs??

This is very insidious and destructive to the national character.

Of course, it is. So now that we've settled that, how about we return to the point under discussion? :-)

I'm very proud that I have never borrowed a penny in my life except for house mortgages. Instead of borrowing money from my parents for my education I took a year out from my studies to earn enough to return.

What's wrong with borrowing money? It's way of obtaining goods and services sooner rather than later.

And I have never understood why Objectivists haven't cottoned on to the adage, "Debt is the slavery of the free" as it makes one dependent � and Objectivists value being individualists and you can't be an individualist if you're dependent.

Borrowing money to obtain something sooner rather than later is not an act of parasitism or a failure of independence, since one has to pay the money back out of one's own production. A loan is a service for which you pay a price, and as such is no different from any other service that you pay for.

Sam, I cannot fathom where you got these ideas against price discrimination and borrowing money. There is nothing wrong with either. They are both important and beneficial features of capitalism that improve people's lives. Yes, you have to be responsible for your debts and pay the money back. If you can't trust yourself to do that, then you shouldn't be borrowing money in the first place. But that doesn't mean that for anyone to take out a loan constitutes a failure of independence. You are still paying for the loan (with interest). You are still giving value for value.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 10/16, 3:55pm)

Post 72

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 4:48pm

You are still paying for the loan (with interest). You are still giving value for value.

It is a time investment, with the anticipation of the reward being greater having it now and using it, than foregoing until whenever can save the money for it, the interest being the set-up cost of not defering the aquisition.....

Post 73

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 5:00pm

So, if someone offers you a lower price, because you're a senior and he thinks he can attract your business better than if he offered you a higher price, are you saying that if you accept the lower price, you're acknowledging that you're his inferior?? Seriously.

But this offer is based on the generalization that seniors require special consideration.

Suppose that the owner of an Indian restaurant wants to attract more non-Indian patrons, so he offers them a discount. Would you refuse to pay the discounted price,

No, because I would assume that he wanted to introduce Indian food to a broader ethnic group and not because of any perception that non-Indians weren't capable of paying the regular price.

how does being a beneficiary of price discrimination rob you of your efficacy and independence?

It is an acknowledgement that you, yourself, also believe that you are not efficacious and independent.

Fully functional adults who acknowledge that they need help and encouragement from government programs to plan and save for their retirement can't help but lose some pride.
Who said anything about the beneficiaries of price discrimination acknowledging the need for help and encouragement from government programs??

If I didn't say it explicitly I'm saying it now. Government programs such as IRAs and all the other tax deferment schemes are designed to "help" fully functional adults who undoubtedly could have the discipline and foresight to provide for their future. By participating they tacitly acknowledge that, "Yes, it would be nice for them to take the responsibility of making financial and investment decisions off my shoulders."

What's wrong with borrowing money? It's way of obtaining goods and services sooner rather than later

A loan is an encumbrance, i.e. a constraint, by definition. Those who value independence and freedom shun encumbrances. It constrains their options and flexibility in dealing with life's little vicissitudes

Capitalism, as an economic system, doesn't depend on consumer credit � consumer credit just grew out of it. Capitalism was thriving long before the advent of credit cards. If all consumer credit were voluntarily and gradually diminished, the benefits of capitalism would still accrue.

But, putting it all in perspective, there's more to life than trying to obtain some ideal of perfection of independence and there has to be compromise with the practices of the day.

Sam

Post 74

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 5:31pm

Glenn,

Brilliant question in #68.

Post 75

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 5:48pm

Teresa:

What's the matter with my brilliant response in post #70: :-)

Sam

Post 76

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 5:58pm

Late next year, I will be taking out a loan on a project that will have 3 times, or more, defintely not less, the return on the amount of my loan.. I definitely wont feel encumbered. : )

(Edited by Gigi P Morton on 10/16, 6:02pm)

Post 77

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 9:06pm

A business loan is an investment. It's not consumer credit. I have no problem with business loans. You and your lender will both profit.

Congratulations on your business venture.

Sam

Post 78

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 9:50pm

Thanks Sam : )

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 12:27am