What is official Objectivist policy?

Jay:

Let's try working this one backwards.

urQ "Since I've said probably more than a dozen times now that I never said all regulations are bad."

But you do have a very restrictive and and selective view of regulations, which I do not find consistent.

So you're saying I'm being inconsistent because I am too discriminating when it comes to accepting something as a good regulation? I don't see how that qualifies as being inconsistent. If my standards for restricting something changed over time, then yes that would be inconsistent, but I never did that. The problem with you is that you have provided NO standards for discriminating between good or bad regulations.

Your interpretations are quite restrictive also. Interpretations you accept for one form of regulation, you reject for another.

Of course they are restrictive because I've provided for you an objective standard. If they were unrestrictive, there would no longer be any standards for which to judge what is a good or bad regulation. Since you agree there are good and bad regulations, you should provide a standard from which to judge otherwise you have no idea what is or isn't a good regulation. You have only professed you have an objective standard, but you never articulated what that is exactly.

urQ "Regulations that restrict the kind of behavior that can risk another person's life and property are acceptable because no one has a right to endanger another person's life and property against their will."

Stupid economic errors - errors that we can recognize from experience to be harmful - may only hurt one or two parties when it is a one to one relationship. However, economies are many to many. Many people making the same stupid mistake not only CAN hurt many others who know and behave better, but WILL hurt many others. That is the concrete reality of it.

It can only hurt if those economic errors were done so through a coercive economic system. Today, when someone defaults on a loan, it hurts me because I am forced to pay taxes to bail someone out for his stupid mistakes that I had nothing to do with. Today, the currency and banking system is under one federalized umbrella of regulation. I can't escape it. Today, the government encourages people to make stupid mistakes, (a product of coercion) to which efforts to try to fix those mistakes means more of my money is taxed to fix someone else's behavior that should have never effected me in the first place had we lived in a laissez-faire Capitalist system.

Since you are not an economist or have any formal training in that discipline, I wonder how you presumptuously come to the conclusion stupid economic errors in a voluntary economic system would effect someone like me that had nothing to do with those decisions? Because today, the only observations I make (and I am an Economist) where I'm affected by someone else's stupid economic decision is only due to the fact I have to pay more taxes to bail some idiot out and subsidize some other industry to prop it up, or be forced to take a product against my will because the government has forcibly set up a monopoly (like currency). So no, I don't agree with you at all that stupid economic decisions should affect me. They only do so because the government forces me to pay for these mistakes that I never made. Let me pay for my own mistakes, and you pay for your own. You have no right to my life and I no right to yours.

If you do subscribe to the concept of protecting a person's property, then you cannot responsibly, objectively ignore the value of providing some protective economic regulation.

So in an effort to protect someone's property, you forcibly take a portion of his property? That's not protecting rights, that's violating them.

It is not very different at all from posting a speed limit. Irrational enthusiasm, whether applied to the pedal in a car or applied to bidding up futures in the market, still affects everyone dramatically

It is very very different. Driving recklessly is not an economic decision. It is a physical act that endangers the physical safety of other drivers and their property. A stupid economic decision under a laissez-faire Capitalist system would only affect the person making the stupid decision.

urQ "you are not in a position to judge what economic choices are better for me."

Not me personally, of course, but as indicated above there is a volume of economic knowledge every bit as well thought out as the details considered when setting speed limits. Employing this knowledge through regulation will protect me from large groups of you, and, as a bonus, benefit your guys too - even if you don't understand the benefit.

I want a set of regulations to protect me from people like you. Philosopher-kings that presume to think they know what is best for me. But I wonder, I have economic knowledge, would you entrust me to make these regulations for you? Since only a knowledge of economics to you is necessary for someone to force you against your will to give up a portion of your property to fix other people's stupid economic decisions?

urQ "why do you advocate regulations that disrespect individual rights? This is where we disagree."

Yes, we do.

I suspect that in society, under governments, that you have to be clear whether you are really protecting individual rights or harming individual rights by failing to codify certain hard earned knowledge.

Putting good regulations in place, I think, will always be more logical than putting no regulations in place, or, worse (and most likely), default to permitting/putting bad regulations in place.

Your standards on regulation have been more doctrinal. I'm saying that if you observe how things work, and how they could work, a MORE objective, fact-based solution can be reached, that better protects individuals overall.

So again, your basis for what is or isn't a good regulation is based on objective, fact-based solutions, yet you give no facts or solutions or articulate what exactly that objective standard is.

If I asked you what is a bad hamburger, and you said well what determines what is a bad hamburger should be based on objective, fact-based observations, did you tell me anything at all on what makes something a bad hamburger? No of course not. Saying something should be objective without articulating what that means exactly is nothing more than a floating abstraction. If you started articulating what is a bad hamburger, like a sour taste as opposed to a flavorful taste, too small a portion as opposed to a big portion, stale bread as opposed to fresh bread, over-cooked as opposed to cooked to 160 degrees internal temp, etc you at least made an attempt to articulate what those objective standards actually are. Otherwise, you leave a person with no basis for which to judge what exactly makes a bad hamburger bad.

(Edited by John Armaos on 8/05, 10:22am)

Post 81

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 - 10:43am

I would like add another question to Jay. When I told him:

you are not in a position to judge what economic choices are better for me

He responded:

Not me personally, of course, but as indicated above there is a volume of economic knowledge

I agree. So which knowledge would you use? Knowledge from Ludwig Von Mises or John Maynard Keynes? Or did you have some other body of economic knowledge you had in mind? Austrian school of economics or Chicago school of economics? Milton Friedman or Karl Marx? And who will make that decision which body of economic knowledge to use? You?

Post 82

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 - 10:43am

Having just taken an undergrad microeconomics course with an obviously socialist biased professor, I never the less found myself intrigued by some of the points made for regulation.

John, you said that you don't think all regulations are bad, which ones do you think are proper? I recall that Adam Smith opined that the Government should step in on cases that had major negative external costs, so perhaps something like pollution ought to require government regulation, but this might still be handled better with coase theorum or emission credits.

Libertarians like to think services like AAA, UL, and Consumer Reports would step in and take the role of governmet regulators watching over industry to ensure high standards. I find this argument reasonable enough. People like to complain though that 'too much choice' is crippling, (only when one embraces platonic idealism though, teaching people what 'good enough' means is sufficient) and that good market competition requires informed consumers - something difficult as the number of competing products increases.

To the extent which I've considered the question, I'd like to see the private groups handle most of the quality insurance, but a government agency, funded by the actual producers, could put a big G stamp on the food they've tested and approved. Those who don't want to spend the time and effort to discern which product is best for them can voluntarily leave it up to the government whose testing and certifying was paid voluntarily by the producer (if you don't want the government stamp, don't pay them to test your product)

Post 83

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 - 10:02am

Ted,

Yours is the best reply I've seen, but let me ask - is driving a car too fast a crime? or running a stop light?

These are stupid decisions that have an effect upon the life and property of others. They are (normally) against the law. But are they a crime of using coercive force against others? I would say no, but we all recognize the value of having regulations to prevent such potentially harmful behavior.

Perhaps the most important factor is that we know absolutely, from a body of evidence and experience, that certain actions WILL cause harm to others besides the participants. Laws and regulations aren't really necessary to protect participants from the stupidity of their actions. Laws and regulations are necessary to protect the lives and property of rest of us from their actions.

I someone knocks you down and kicks your teeth in, does it make any less objectionable to you that he did it because he mistook you for someone else. Laws and regulations govern harmful ACTIONS - the stupidity of the perpetrator is moot.

jt

Post 84

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 - 11:01am

Mike:

John, you said that you don't think all regulations are bad, which ones do you think are proper?

Good question. Only ones regulating an activity that is highly dangerous and can physically danger other people or their property without giving others the ability to give consent to that danger. Some examples:

a) I would regulate flying planes. Only a trained pilot that has passed a test demonstrating his ability to safely fly a plane. Otherwise an untrained reckless pilot is highly likely to kill someone on the ground that had no say in the matter.

b) I would regulate nuclear weapons. Only trained nuclear scientists and engineers are equipped to safely handle a nuclear weapon. It would require a burden of proof be met someone could safely handle a nuclear weapon and for the right reasons for having one (the reason being national defense).

c) Food safety regulations or health standards also I would classify as good regulations. Since a foodborne illness outbreak can spread a disease to others that had no say in the matter. For example if you ate at McDonald's and contracted a foodborne illness, you could pass that on to me even though I never engaged in that activity of eating at McDonald's.

Libertarians like to think services like AAA, UL, and Consumer Reports would step in and take the role of governmet regulators watching over industry to ensure high standards. I find this argument reasonable enough.

And this is precisely what regulatory bodies should be. The standards should be set by the government since it would require a set of objective standards, and the enforcement should be done by private entities. A regulatory private company can enforce regulations but they must abide by all standards for due process and enforce government approved sets of regulations. The office that gives you a pilot's license could be some private aviator organization, or a driver's license from a AAA office for example, just as now in CT with emissions, we get them done by a private automotive service company, and we have the choice of many different automotive service companies to choose from to do our emissions testing.

EDIT: I should have said more accurately there ought to be minimum standards, but that a private regulatory company could set stricter regulations if it wants to that other companies could choose to do business with. For example in my industry, the hotel industry, we choose a franchise brand and they have their own quality and safety standards that can exceed government safety standards, our insurance company is the same way.
(Edited by John Armaos on 8/06, 10:28am)

Post 85

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 - 12:32pm

John,

As I said before, your standards on regulation have been more doctrinal (not open to discussion). Plus you insist upon denigrating the concept of applying known good practices to establish 'good' economic regulations -even while maintaining that you would support 'good' regulations (just, it seems, not in the area of economics). Most of your arguments are pointed at questioning whom would decide such practices, your undertones suggesting undesirable philosophies or dictatorial styles would cloud such issue. I've answered this several times, stating the guideline is rational, objective application of known good practices. Democracy is necessarily involved, but if those guidelines are followed, good results can be achieved.

You also insist that stupidity in a laissez-faire market cannot hurt anyone except those perpetrating the stupidity, essentially postulating that only in a regulated market, could other individual's financial interests (property) be affected. This seems rather naive for a student of economics, and you don't explain how laissez-faire is somehow exempt from this phenomenon.

I am also surprised at your rankling against government setting up currency. My earliest readings of Objectivist thought included mention that Rand felt establishing a single currency as an instrument of trade was a legitimate government function. Of course, it should be soundly based upon the gold (or at least silver) standard. You'd have legitimate complaint about the 'floating' currency used today, but not the government's role in establishing a currency.

You also suggest that by restricting (regulating) individuals to good economic practices, we would be forcibly taking away a portion of their property. A portion of their stupidity, perhaps, but property - no.

Philosopher-king! Well, I don't think I've been called that before. However, your subsequent remarks also include much hyperbole. I believe you are grossly confusing what I am saying, with the sad state of events (regulation-wise) that you see in the current landscape. What you see today is the RESULT OF NOT SETTING objective, rational guidelines to the formulation of good regulations.

urQ "So again, your basis for what is or isn't a good regulation is based on objective, fact-based solutions, yet you give no facts or solutions or articulate what exactly that objective standard is. "

I think I've made my case clear. I'm certainly not trying to write the regulations, only to state that there MUST be clear goals and guidelines. I'd quite trust intelligent, open-minded objectivist/economists (in equal portions) to determine appropriately protective economic regulations.

As to your hamburger inquiry, I don't think we need to define what exactly being objective or Objectivist is. Certainly, though, I would say it is not dogma.

jt

Post 86

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 - 12:40pm

Michael F,

Interested in your comments. Regarding private, but independent industry authorities, there are many examples out there, and it is a good idea. Ultimately though, it should be noted that government(s) will tend to use/adopt these independent examiners standards* as regulatory imperatives - thus the effect is often the same.

jt

*It relieves them of thinking, an activity most government types find odious and confusing.

Post 87

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 - 3:08pm

Jay:

As I said before, your standards on regulation have been more doctrinal (not open to discussion).

That is absolutely ridiculous. Having a position doesn't mean I'm not open to discussion. In fact I've repeatedly asked you what is the objective criteria for what is or isn't a good regulation and you still have not given such a criteria, only that an objective criteria exists. What am I to make of that? Unless you articulate a position on what that means exactly, I see no reason to abandon my own. I have been persuaded before from people like Michael Dickey (on my thoughts regarding Vietnam) and from Bill Dwyer (on my thoughts to currency and the privatization of police) so the dogmatic criticism I believe is unfair. So, tell me why I'm wrong, and why you're right.

Plus you insist upon denigrating the concept of applying known good practices to establish 'good' economic regulations -even while maintaining that you would support 'good' regulations (just, it seems, not in the area of economics)

But there are lots of disagreements amongst economists. The Austrian school for example is quite libertarian in its economic theories. Why should they be excluded in favor of economists that are more statist like Keynes? Or Marx? Which economist do you want to make regulations? Because there is no consensus what is good economic theory. I don't mean to say none of them are right, only I think you and I would disagree on which theory would be right. But then again I'm not even sure if you are aware of any economic theories?

Most of your arguments are pointed at questioning whom would decide such practices, your undertones suggesting undesirable philosophies or dictatorial styles would cloud such issue. I've answered this several times, stating the guideline is rational, objective application of known good practices.

I think you neither know what these practices are that you want, nor do you know what makes them good. Because you continually insist you operate from a floating abstraction of a "rational, objective application of known good practices" but you still haven't define what that means.

You also insist that stupidity in a laissez-faire market cannot hurt anyone except those perpetrating the stupidity, essentially postulating that only in a regulated market, could other individual's financial interests (property) be affected. This seems rather naive for a student of economics, and you don't explain how laissez-faire is somehow exempt from this phenomenon.

Note, again, I did not advocate zero regulations. Only a particular kind. I reject regulations that determine economic choice because that is a coercive attempt to stop what would otherwise be a voluntary act to which the moral agent, i.e. individual, would accept the responsibilities from the consequences of that action. If you want an economic theory (not naivete) then read some Mises. He has laid out a brilliant structure of economic theory and knowledge to explain why coercive attempts to prevent free economic choices is damaging to people's wealth. You attempt to place the burden of proof on me to explain how laissez-faire Capitalism is exempt from people's property not being affected from someone else's stupid economic decisions, but the burden of proof is on you, to demonstrate how someone in a laissez-faire Capitalist system making a stupid economic decision would somehow affect me which would then warrant a regulation restricting economic choice. The burden of proof falls on the arguer proposing such a regulation or law, not the one who is demanding proof such a regulation is needed.

I am also surprised at your rankling against government setting up currency. My earliest readings of Objectivist thought included mention that Rand felt establishing a single currency as an instrument of trade was a legitimate government function. Of course, it should be soundly based upon the gold (or at least silver) standard. You'd have legitimate complaint about the 'floating' currency used today, but not the government's role in establishing a currency.

I wasn't aware Rand argued for a government monopoly on currency. Anyone else can you cite some sources on this? Even so, I would disagree with Rand.

You also suggest that by restricting (regulating) individuals to good economic practices, we would be forcibly taking away a portion of their property. A portion of their stupidity, perhaps, but property - no.

Again, what are "good" economic practices? By forcing someone against their will from making an economic decision he feels is in his own interest, you are assaulting the rights of that individual. The right to make decisions for myself is beyond reproach, and beyond negotiation. Either I have a right to my life or I don't, there is no middle ground on that. I don't care if someone knows better than me how to become more wealthy, it is nothing more than tyranny to try and force me against my will from making an economic choice.

Philosopher-king! Well, I don't think I've been called that before.

Perhaps I should more accurately say you believe in the concept of a philosopher-king, since you seem to be willing to give up your own liberty for someone else to make economic decisions for you. Plato would be proud.

I believe you are grossly confusing what I am saying, with the sad state of events (regulation-wise) that you see in the current landscape. What you see today is the RESULT OF NOT SETTING objective, rational guidelines to the formulation of good regulations.

Again, you don't say what is or isn't a good regulation or tell us exactly what are the rational guidelines to formulation of these good regulations. Your comments are circular.

urQ "So again, your basis for what is or isn't a good regulation is based on objective, fact-based solutions, yet you give no facts or solutions or articulate what exactly that objective standard is. "

I think I've made my case clear. I'm certainly not trying to write the regulations, only to state that there MUST be clear goals and guidelines. I'd quite trust intelligent, open-minded objectivist/economists (in equal portions) to determine appropriately protective economic regulations.

Your case is you don't know what good regulations are, but you trust someone else to make them for you based on an undefined set of criteria. Which is the very definition of abdicating your own freedom to a philosopher-king.

(Edited by John Armaos on 8/05, 5:39pm)

Post 88

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 - 8:25pm

By crime above I am referring to an actual violation of an individual's right. In the current situation, the acts might be negligent. Current law treats breaking traffic regulations as somewhat less than real crimes. One may be fined, not imprisoned unless there are aggravating circumstances. Ideally, roads would be privately operated, and one would consent to such regulations that govern them by one's use.

As it is now, roads for motor cars are a relatively new phenomenon. I am curious how horse drawn carts were regulated in the past, whether there might be a lesson to be learned. One can look at the Autobahn, roads in the US with no speed limits, and the European move to remove traffic signals in order to prompt drivers to take care for their own actions rather than to take care for avoiding tickets.

In the current circumstance, the best analogy I can see for regulating the road is to treat traffic violations as, in effect, contempt of court. I won't pretend to have a well worked out system. But I would suggest that a wide synchronic and diachronic comparison of driving laws would be more fruitful than trying to begin the argument based solely on a priori principles.

Post 89

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 - 11:17pm

John, I sanctioned you in post 87 for your patience, civility and clarity (whether you are getting any traction maybe another issue :-)

Post 90

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 - 8:31pm

John,

urQ "you operate from a floating abstraction of a "rational, objective application of known good practices" but you still haven't define what that means"

I feel absolutely no need to further define "rational, objective application of KNOWN good PRACTICES" any more than I would try to fine tune the definition of the expression "sound judgement". Nor do I see any value in sidetracking this discussion down various avenues of debate on specific practices, should I endeavor to name one.

urQ "you seem to be willing to give up your own liberty for someone else to make economic decisions for you "

urQ "Your case is you don't know what good regulations are, but you trust someone else to make them for you based on an undefined set of criteria. Which is the very definition of abdicating your own freedom to a philosopher-king. "

Frankly, this is usually called "delegation", however your clamorous descriptions are far more colorful .

urQ "I reject regulations that determine economic choice because that is a coercive... "

This is a concern. You clearly reject any and all economic regulation, painting them with the same old, worn brush. You use the same argument "coercive" in each post. You've also rejected discussing quite logical and reasonable analogies that would question your argument. I would need to hear far clearer arguments.

urQ "you don't say ...what are the rational guidelines to formulation of these good regulations. Your comments are circular."

Not circular, just repetitive. I think they bear repeating.

Regulations - including economic regulations - can serve to protect individual rights. Uniformly rejecting such regulations out of hand will not prevent them from being written, it will only prevent good regulations from being written. I would posit that your approach would doom us to more of the same bad policies that we're enduring now.

To the best of my knowledge, your approach (at least on economic regulation) is consistent with what might be described as official Objectivist policy (or at least Piekoff's version). I still think it fails to account for all the available facts and information - and that... that is not very objective.

I am not an economist, but neither am I ignorant or unread on the subject.

jt

Post 91

Wednesday, August 6, 2008 - 3:05am

Ted,

urQ "and the European move to remove traffic signals in order to prompt drivers to take care for their own actions rather than to take care for avoiding tickets."

Very curious. I'd like to read more on this.

urQ "But I would suggest that a wide synchronic and diachronic comparison of driving laws would be more fruitful than trying to begin the argument based solely on a priori principles."

This is the same as I am suggesting for economic regulation, which I consider valid comparison.

jt

Post 92

Wednesday, August 6, 2008 - 6:10am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout

Post 93

Wednesday, August 6, 2008 - 6:24am

Robert,

Thanks for the url. I have impression Ted may be talking about more dramatic changes in European traffic practices though. I found nothing on this in a quick search of the internet. Maybe Ted can provide more detail. I'm certainly curious.

jt

Post 94

Wednesday, August 6, 2008 - 9:57am

Jay:

John,

urQ "you operate from a floating abstraction of a "rational, objective application of known good practices" but you still haven't define what that means"

I feel absolutely no need to further define "rational, objective application of KNOWN good PRACTICES" any more than I would try to fine tune the definition of the expression "sound judgement". Nor do I see any value in sidetracking this discussion down various avenues of debate on specific practices, should I endeavor to name one.

You are under no moral obligation to explain what you mean by "rational, objective application of KNOWN good PRACTICES". But please keep in mind, a refusal to explain yourself leaves serious doubt from me and I would venture to guess from others as well as to whether you know what you�re talking about. This is after all a philosophy forum, you decided to come here and post your thoughts. If you are not interested in explaining them, I wonder if you are really interested in honest intellectual discourse, or you are more concerned with maintaining some pseudo-superiority feeling that you found a kink in Objectivist philosophy?

urQ "you seem to be willing to give up your own liberty for someone else to make economic decisions for you "

urQ "Your case is you don't know what good regulations are, but you trust someone else to make them for you based on an undefined set of criteria. Which is the very definition of abdicating your own freedom to a philosopher-king. "

Frankly, this is usually called "delegation", however your clamorous descriptions are far more colorful .

Delegation implies choice. When the government passes economic regulations restricting my economic choices, I never delegated such a power to them.

urQ "I reject regulations that determine economic choice because that is a coercive... "

This is a concern. You clearly reject any and all economic regulation, painting them with the same old, worn brush. You use the same argument "coercive" in each post. You've also rejected discussing quite logical and reasonable analogies that would question your argument. I would need to hear far clearer arguments.

Well that is your opinion, and one that I don�t agree with. Your analogy of traffic laws are not applicable because 1) All roads are public and not private, and we have no choice but to accept the government�s product of a public road system 2) Dangerous physical activity engaged in a reckless manner most likely would lead to the destruction of someone else�s life or property without that person having given consent to be exposed to that danger. No one has a right to do that, and safety regulations could help mitigate that violation of rights or by subsequent remedies such as torts.

urQ "you don't say ...what are the rational guidelines to formulation of these good regulations. Your comments are circular."

Not circular, just repetitive. I think they bear repeating.

Circular as in:

Proposition: �I want economic regulations restricting choice�

Question: �Why do you want economic regulations restricting choice?�

Answer: �Because it is in our best self-interests�

Question: �What is in our best-interests?�

Answer: �Economic regulations restricting choice�

Question: �Why are economic regulations restricting choice in our best self-interests?�

Answer:��uh......just because they are.

Regulations - including economic regulations - can serve to protect individual rights.

Again, how?

Uniformly rejecting such regulations out of hand will not prevent them from being written, it will only prevent good regulations from being written.

You're right in that I can�t always prevent a criminal from stealing from me. And certainly I can�t stop the government from doing that under our current mixed-economy culture. But that doesn�t make it right. I can only hope by spreading free market ideals that we can convince others that a mixed-economy approach is not in our best interests. In the mean time, attempts to mitigate socialist programs is not a fruitless endeavor, and supporting political candidates that believe in smaller government has worked in the past, and is the only rational approach now since we still have the power to speak freely and make attempts to persuade our fellow citizens to see our point of view.

I would posit that your approach would doom us to more of the same bad policies that we're enduring now.

Yet, it seems you give no justification to posit such a proposition.

To the best of my knowledge, your approach (at least on economic regulation) is consistent with what might be described as official Objectivist policy (or at least Piekoff's version). I still think it fails to account for all the available facts and information - and that... that is not very objective.

Yet you provide no other facts or information to demonstrate I failed to account for them.

I am not an economist, but neither am I ignorant or unread on the subject.

jt

But you freely admit you would trust others who know more than you about economics to restrict your freedom. The very definition of a citizen abdicating his freedom to a philosopher-king.

(Edited by John Armaos on 8/06, 10:11am)

Post 95

Wednesday, August 6, 2008 - 10:05am

Steve:

John, I sanctioned you in post 87 for your patience, civility and clarity (whether you are getting any traction maybe another issue :-)

Thanks Steve. My hope is to reveal to Jay he holds a proposition with unexplained premises. Specifically that economic regulations restricting economic choice is in our best self-interests. Perhaps at some point he will agree he has no clear justification for such an argument and realize instead his arguments are just circular.
(Edited by John Armaos on 8/06, 10:14am)

Post 96

Wednesday, August 6, 2008 - 2:14pm

Jay Abbott has mentioned regulations to promote safety. Maybe what else he has in mind, but has not named, is laws or regulations against fraud.

To the best of my knowledge, Rand wrote approvingly about laws or regulations dealing with other than force only one place. This is in Letters of Ayn Rand, page 580, where she wrote:

You ask: "Do you think there should be no laws dealing with tenant-landlord relationships?" Same answer: no laws except the laws of contract and the laws against fraud.

John A., do you think fraud prevention is a legitimate government function? For example, should a business selling or buying stuff by weight be subject to regulations that have penalties for using unfair scales?

Post 97

Wednesday, August 6, 2008 - 2:51pm

Merlin:

John A., do you think fraud prevention is a legitimate government function? For example, should a business selling or buying stuff by weight be subject to regulations that have penalties for using unfair scales?

Yes. But I think Jay doesn't just include fraud, but also restricting what would otherwise be free economic choices. There is no choice involved when someone defrauds you.

Post 98

Wednesday, August 6, 2008 - 3:49pm

John,

urQ "You are under no moral obligation to explain what you mean by "rational, objective application of KNOWN good PRACTICES". But please keep in mind, a refusal to explain yourself leaves serious doubt from me and I would venture to guess from others as well as to whether you know what you�re talking about. This is after all a philosophy forum, you decided to come here and post your thoughts."

Okay, if you can provide an explanation of the philosophical underpinnings for setting a speed limit of 35 MPH instead of 50+ mph on a broad four-lane country road, I will provide an explanation of a specific economic regulation which I might consider a "known good practice".

urQ "If you are not interested in explaining them, I wonder if you are really interested in honest intellectual discourse, or you are more concerned with maintaining some pseudo-superiority feeling that you found a kink in Objectivist philosophy?"

An ad hominem?

What I feel is disappointment that Objectivism might be used to justify ignoring pertinent facts.

urQ "I never delegated such a power to them."

This begs another argument entirely, that is probably not worth discourse. We were both, presumably, born under this system that our forebears established, and which did delegate those powers. And since it does not come up for a re-vote every year, neither of us has ever had that opportunity. Our only choice is to conform - although we can voice out protests through the normal, legal mean - and, if we are willing to pursue the matter, attempt legal reform (the scrappier among us can always try revolution).

My suggestions might sometime be achieved by legal reform. Yours, honestly, would more likely depend upon a successful revolution. This, of course, has no bearing upon the relative values of our ideas... only upon their practicality.

urQ "Your analogy of traffic laws are not applicable because...without that person having given consent to be exposed to that danger. No one has a right to do that"

You stick to the same argument about economic regulations being 'coercive'. Yet all laws and regulations are by their nature coercive. This renders your specific examples of justification for traffic laws moot. You are willing to make special exemption for traffic regulations because of a, b, & c, despite their use of coercion, but you are not willing to make any exemption of economic regulation. The analogy is quite correct, whether you chose to acknowledge it or not. Thus there is a huge inconsistency in your argument, that you have not yet satisfactorily addressed.

urQ "Again, how?"

I don't know how many adjectives it would take to provide enough emphasis to KNOWN GOOD PRACTICES to make you consider that regulations might be reviewed one at a time on their own merit to assure that individual's property interests (rephrased for clarification) are protected.

Your end comments are well taken, although you still love speaking in extremes (criminals & government stealing). I would applaud if a society such as you wistfully wish for could be established. However - and I don't think I'm being overly pessimistic here - I think it is a pipe dream. I also think Objectivism is capable of providing more than just a simplistic approach (how I must still categorize your sole argument) to issues such as economic regulations.

jt

Post 99

Wednesday, August 6, 2008 - 4:52pm