Atlas Shrugged

robindch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I see you've now added a new, additional condition to Person B's claim and person A's conclusion - naughty, naughty, you're not allowed to do that, Permabear, when constructing an analogy. Would you like to try again, this time with an analogy which is a little more honest?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And I've explained that her prose is unreadable junk and I've asked you to provide something that you think is good, but you won't - seems you're now worried that anything you choose will be cut to shreds. And I think you'd be right to be worried.

I'll assume that you're not happy to present anything in defence of Rand and people will be free to draw their own conclusions from that.

:rolleyes:

Valmont

robindch wrote: »

I see you've now added a new, additional condition to Person B's claim and person A's conclusion - naughty, naughty, you're not allowed to do that, Permabear, when constructing an analogy. Would you like to try again, this time with an analogy which is a little more honest?

To be fair, Robindch, that was the entire gist of your TGV point.

TGV is good, therefore France's government-heavy economy 'works'.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Valmont wrote: »

Brian, you're assuming there that without the state we would have no law or legal system. Ancient Ireland and Brehon law prove this isn't the case.

Who makes and enforces the laws?

marienbad

Permabear how about some answers to the questions I put to you

What would you do differently with cases like Bhopal Thalidomide and the Gulf Oil Spill

If corporations behave like this with regulation what would they do with little or no regulation ?

robindch

Valmont wrote: »

TGV is good, therefore France's government-heavy economy 'works'.

No, "TGV works" means that Permabear's "that is false" comment is itself, false.

I must hasten to add - since the Rand-side appear to think the opposite -- that I am specifically not claiming that government is always beneficial. I am claiming, with evidence, that it government can be beneficial.

Valmont

20Cent wrote: »

Who makes and enforces the laws?

See common law as opposed to statutory law. That the state has an iron-grip monopoly on the enforcement of certain contracts does not mean it would be beyond a private company to do so.

20Cent

Valmont wrote: »

See common law as opposed to statutory law. That the state has an iron-grip monopoly on the enforcement of certain contracts does not mean it would be beyond a private company to do so.

Making and enforcing laws requires a form of authority. Where would this private company get this authority? I'm sure private law enforcement is possible but why would it be preferable?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

To whom are you referring to?
Haven't seen anything remotely like that in this thread or anywhere else for that matter.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's like claiming that, despite rules against aggressive tackling in a sport, such tackles still happen, therefore sports would be better without such rules.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that regulation is a perfect and infallible way to prevent bad things from happening. The question is: if bad things happen in spite of regulations, why should we have confidence that fewer bad things would happen in the absence of regulations?

Vivisectus

You're not doing your "side" any favors by pointing out that despite countless regulations, incidents such as the Bhopal gas tragedy and the Gulf oil spill still happened.

That is very annoying trait that Randinistas seem to have developed. It is similar to a the way religious people explain away what they do not like:

Something good happened? God gave us a miracle!
Something bad? Peoples fault / mysterious ways / the devil did it.

By the same token: Something bad happens? Proof that regulation does not work. Something good? Galtian heroism in action and the invisible hand saving the day!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

...or industrial explosions.

Your argument seems to be that regulations can't possibly prevent industrial accidents. On the contrary, vast swathes of regulations exist for precisely that purpose, and the net effect of those regulations is a reduction in such accidents.

Bhopal, or BP in the Gulf, happen in spite of regulations designed to prevent them, not because regulation is inherently ineffective, but because it's shoddily implemented, usually in countries where business interests have a disproportionate influence over lawmakers and can deliberately weaken either the design or the implementation of the regulations.

The poster's question related not to routine infringements, but to freak events such as the Bhopal gas tragedy or the Gulf oil spill. His insinuation is that libertarians would do nothing to prevent such things from occurring -- and my response is that state bureaucrats can't anticipate or prevent freak events.

I'm not fully familiar with the conditions that lead to Bhopal, but the Gulf incident could have been prevented by the rigorous implementation of safety regulations.

My point is that, in the absence of even poorly-implemented regulations, it's intuitively obvious that even more and even worse incidents would take place than those that already have.

robindch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't think there's any point in continuing to discuss the TGV example with you as you don't appear to understand how logic works and I can't break it down into simpler, smaller morsels than I already have. I am however, glad to see that you've accepted that the TGV demonstrates that government can work effectively - and that's all I was claiming.

With respect to your much broader claim that French society is drawing its final breath, or something like it, and and that the government is to blame, I can't really say much more than making a claim is different from providing enough evidence to demonstrate the claim. Certainly, the items you mention are making headlines in many places, the majority of which are right-wing, but that doesn't prove much more than that the right likes to provide scare stories about the left.

Still waiting for that piece of Rand prose of your choice which demonstrates clarity of thought, deftness of expression and profound economic and philosophical depth. Your call if you feel that nothing in her entire output demonstrates this, in which case, we agree on Rand too.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

robindch

oscarBravo wrote: »

My point is that, in the absence of even poorly-implemented regulations, it's intuitively obvious that even more and even worse incidents would take place than those that already have.

I recall reading a lengthy paper on this some few years back - the topic was the effect of government regulation upon the manufacture and use of steam pressure vessels in 19th Century USA and the UK.

Pressure-vessel technology became available in the two countries around the same time and as with any potentially dangerous new technology, a string of fatal accidents took place. The UK chose to deal with accidents by implementing a range of increasingly stringent safety standards. The USA chose not to do this, as the government said that it believed that doing so would inhibit economic growth and that the industry would (a) successfully self-regulate and (b) implement good safety standards because legislation was already in place by which the injured and the families of the dead could sue manufactures were faulty products were to blame. So far as I recall, the paper also made the outlandish claim that some of the people involved with making, selling and using low-quality pressure vessels had made generous donations to the same politicians who opposed regulation. In any case, the mayhem largely abated in the UK in the first half of the century following industry regulation, while it continued unabated in the USA until the SS Sultana disaster which killed almost two thousand people. Public anger in the USA over this was such that the government immediately set to work, it ignored its "industry regulation will work" line and five years later, set up the Steamboat Inspection Service, after which injury and death began to decline to the levels seen in the UK decades before.

Unfortunately, I can't find that paper, but it was a fascinating read.

Valmont

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not fully familiar with the conditions that lead to Bhopal, but the Gulf incident could have been prevented by the rigorous implementation of safety regulations.

BP wouldn't have been in the gulf in the first place had another set of regulations not prohibited them from tapping the easily accessible oil reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

Why does 'regulation' have to be written and enforced by a state? There plenty of examples of certain industries having commonly accepted standards of practice which have not first been decreed by a legislator in government.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Naz_st

robindch wrote: »

I don't think there's any point in continuing to discuss the TGV example with you as you don't appear to understand how logic works and I can't break it down into simpler, smaller morsels than I already have

That seems a bit unfair.

Logically, it's perfectly reasonable to point out that a single example of something ("the TGV works well") within a complex system, is not sufficient to conclude the premise that "society works pretty well with government intervention, regulation and so on..."

It seems equivalent to the oft-proposed religious argument of "religious organisations give to charity" therefore "religion has a positive effect on society".

Turtwig

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No his/her insinuation is that libertarians are naive in assuming that companies/industry would regulate themselves and take precautions to ensure disasters don't happen - especially if there's no direct impact to their bottom line. It's nothing about liberatians intentions. Pretty much everyone has good intentions to a point. Both parties state and corporations take shortcuts without some form of oversight they'd taken even more. S/he'd like to know what preventative measures libertarians would use to ensure such shortcut taking is kept to a minimum.

Edit: And I really shouldn't have had to say this. It was pretty clear from at least 2 to 3 posts that this is what the poster was referring to you. Yet you somehow interpreted it as an insinuation that libertarians are reckless.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

marienbad

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You are still no answering my question !! Your method of argument is to set up false choices and tell me what you think 'my side' would do didn't do or should have done .

I am asking you a straight question - what would happen in your world in the case of Bhopal Thalidomide and the Gulf Oil spill ?

As regards the issue of built in obsolescence - I don't think you understand the principle . Maybe you had a granny endlessly going on about her cooker or washing machine etc still working from the day she married and your one gives out after 3 years or so ? Usually when the warranty is up . The difference is her machine was build to last , yours wasn't .

It is nothing to do with hindering new technology or encouraging consumers with new features , it is about building clunkers so that they take away that choice.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Karl Stein

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Allow me. Perhaps you missed it the first time.

Karl Stein wrote: »

Anyway, back in the real world the Airbus A320 Neo* has been rolled out of the hangar today sporting its new quieter, more efficient, Pratt & Whitney high bypass geared turbofan engines.

Airbus has its heritage in the transnational Concorde project which, although being an economic failure in the long run, paved the way for the world's largest manufacturer of commercial aircraft.

The new engines? Well they, dear friends, are a product of partnership between NASA, P&W and the FAA.

Yep, that's the 'innovation killing', all round pain in the hole for dogmatic libertarians, government R&D body called NASA up to no good again.

And then there's the evil government regulatory body who worked with NASA and P&W to reduce the environmental impact of the engines. Considerable noise reduction and double-digit fuel burning efficiencies make these engines the quietest greenest engines ever.

So there you have it folks, government/private sector innovation and regulation working together like a well oiled machine.

You claimed government 'wages war on innovation and entrepreneurship'. I responded with this:

Karl Stein wrote: »

Really? Governments plough billions into research and development knowing that 'private' industry will benefit from spin-off technologies.

Consider the modern smartphone. It simply wouldn't exist as it is without government driven research and development. Just about every component and capability of a modern smartphone was developed or rapidly advanced by way of public money being used in institutions like CERN and NASA.

The capacitive touch screen was developed for CERN. The digital camera has its heritage in NASA. The development of electric hand tools for NASA astronauts advanced battery technology. GPS is wholly attributable to government driven communication satellite technology.

Where were we? Oh yeah, you were saying something about government waging war on innovation and entrepreneurship....

*shrug*

And this:

Karl Stein wrote: »

A lot of the time 'Defence spending' is a euphemism for 'Government funded research'. The Pentagon supports R&D in Universities. It's basically the government making sure that the US stays ahead of its competitors technologically.

You'll note that approximately three quarters of MIT's funding comes from US Government sources.

The telephone, electromagnets, radars, high-speed photography, office photocopiers, cancer treatments, pocket calculators, computers, the internet, the decoding of the human genome, lasers, space travel . . . the list of innovations that involved essential contributions from MIT and its faculty goes on and on.

A survey of living MIT alumni found that they have formed 25,800 companies, employing more than three million people including about a quarter of the workforce of Silicon Valley. Those firms between them generate global revenues of about $1.9tn (£1.2tn) a year. If MIT was a country, it would have the 11th highest GDP of any nation in the world.

theguardian.com

I'm not sure there's any other institution on Earth that comes close to MIT when it comes to the technological advances we enjoy as a species.

The dynamic public sector, eh? Who would have thought it? Here's some more inconvenient truths for so-called 'libertarians'.

Below you will note how 'that darn gubberment' can enhance freedom, participation in the workforce, equality etc - all the factors libertarians claim government gets in the way of.

Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all share some common traits. These include support for a "universalist" welfare state (relative to other developed countries) which is aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy, promoting social mobility and ensuring the universal provision of basic human rights, as well as for stabilizing the economy, alongside a commitment to free trade. The Nordic model is distinguished from other types of welfare states by its emphasis on maximizing labor force participation, promoting gender equality, egalitarian and extensive benefit levels, the large magnitude of income redistribution, and liberal use of expansionary fiscal policy.

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

God damn those collectivist, government loving, freedom hating, innovation killing, socialist automatons.

Turtwig

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Which of course was the wrong thing to do. It's easier and more convenient to assume people's position but people aren't black or white. What you did is the similar to assuming all atheists have the same the reasons for disbelieving in God. There way be similarities however they're just that similarities. I find it most bizarre though that you'd do this. You have trouble with people understanding libertarianism yet in the same fell swoop you do the exact thing you accuse others of doing towards libertarianism.

There's shooting yourself in the foot and sticking your head under the blade of a guillotine. . .

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

robindch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

With respect to Atlas Shrugged, I can't really point out too many more times than I already have, without making you appear a trifle forgetful at least, that I've read (a) her novella "Anthem" (which I criticized at some length) and (b) something like 150 pages of Atlas Shrugged. I feel that these two outings are quite enough to establish that her prose is the literary equivalent of stabbing myself in the eyeballs with a rusty fork. And that I don't need to continue blinding myself to learn, with what I feel is a near-certainty, that the remaining few pounds of paper are as painful as the first.

So, for one final time, could you provide some unbroken stretch of Rand prose of a few pages in length which you feel demonstrates the qualities you admire most?

.

marienbad

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Of course not , but I would not expect my older technology to fail just because the developer wants to sell me the latest developments even though I have no use for them. Sell products on their merits to those that need them .

And built in obsolescence involves every industry now , not just the high tech sector , Hand tools, household appliances ,clothing , everything.

So if your philosophy have nothing to offer in areas like Bhopal Thalidomide and the oil spill etc what use are you ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig

“Making it” is almost never easy, but Mr. Santacruz found the French bureaucracy to be an unbridgeable moat around his ambitions. Having received his master’s in finance at the University of Nottingham in England, he returned to France to work with a friend’s father to open dental clinics in Marseille. “But the French administration turned it into a herculean effort,” he said.

A one-month wait for a license turned into three months, then six. They tried simplifying the corporate structure but were stymied by regulatory hurdles. Hiring was delayed, partly because of social taxes that companies pay on salaries. In France, the share of nonwage costs for employers to fund unemployment benefits, education, health care and pensions is more than 33 percent. In Britain, it is around 20 percent.

“Every week, more tax letters would come,” Mr. Santacruz recalled.

The government has since simplified procedures and reduced the social costs for start-ups. But those changes came too late for Mr. Santacruz, whose venture folded before it could get off the ground.

I guess quoting that bold section of the article that follows the snippet quoted wouldn't be objective.

oscarBravo

Valmont wrote: »

BP wouldn't have been in the gulf in the first place had another set of regulations not prohibited them from tapping the easily accessible oil reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

Because a Gulf-scale oil spill in a wildlife refuge would have been sooo much better.

Why does 'regulation' have to be written and enforced by a state? There plenty of examples of certain industries having commonly accepted standards of practice which have not first been decreed by a legislator in government.

There's nothing about government regulation that prevents industry from adopting its own, more stringent standards.

My point continues to be that industry will spend the absolute minimum it needs to on things like worker health and safety and environmental protection. If a business calculates that it's cheaper to pay compensation for the occasional death of a worker or chemical spill than to prevent those deaths and/or spills in the first place, then that's the rational approach for that business to take - which doesn't make it the right approach from a societal perspective.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian Shanahan

Valmont wrote: »

Brian, you're assuming there that without the state we would have no law or legal system. Ancient Ireland and Brehon law prove this isn't the case.

A) Ancient Ireland was far from being libertarian, Brehon Laws were intrusive on nearly every aspect of a person's life, i.e. the opposite of the libertarian ideal.
There was a state structure in ancient Ireland, albeit basic in scope, which was, again, in principle at least far more extensive than the libertarian ideal.

So your analogy fails, and fails miserably to try and paint a society having laws without a legal or state system in place to enforce them.

PopePalpatine

I wonder...what would happen to price-fixers and cartels in a libertarian society?

oscarBravo

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I wonder...what would happen to price-fixers and cartels in a libertarian society?

Apparently they'd be out-competed.

robindch

NYT wrote:

[...[] their country was marked by a deeper antipathy toward the wealthy than could be addressed with a few new policies.

A common misunderstanding amongst conservatives.

Liberals tend to distrust relative inequality much more than they distrust absolute wealth, or the people who have acquired it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian Shanahan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You know it is baseless assertions like this, which you constantly post, which make it pointless debating with you on the nature of libertarianism or society in general.

Like a YEC or a neo-classical economist you are a tunnel-visioned true believer who either ignores, discards or denigrates anything brought up which contradicts your point of view, no matter how well based in evidence it is (like the demonstrated fact that Rand's philosophy is in large part based off her admiration of psychopathy). And you will accept any lie or misrepresentation, and will have no difficulty repeating same ad nauseum, as long as it agrees with your chosen worldview (everybody to a greater or lesser extent does this, mind, but like the creationists you take this tendency to extremes) and, worst of all, you will distort and mangle the words of others in order to make their arguments look foolish, badly made or flat out wrong.

For these reasons, I have decided that I will neither post nor read anything else you put up on this website.

Turtwig

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Wow you really missed the point.

This is too much a political debate than an actual discussion. You're cherry picking and washing over points others make. (Others may also be guilty of the same.) I've no business in reading such tripe. It doesn't inform me, it doesn't help me understand the libertarian the position. It does absolutely nothing.

Brian Shanahan

oscarBravo wrote: »

Bhopal, or BP in the Gulf, happen in spite of regulations designed to prevent them,

More correctly these accidents cited have happened because companies have done everything in their power, bribery and regulatory capture in the case of Bhopal, and advancement of libertarian ideology amongst regulators and legislators in the case of Deepwater Horizon to ensure that regulation to enforce good behaviour is neutred.

This use of shady tactics to avoid general societal responsibilities alone is reason enough to conclude that regulation is a necessary government intervention to ensure that private companies don't misbehave, and that what is currently called the "free market" is more accurately described as a Lawless Market.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So Alcoa approached the calculus differently, and it worked out for them - that's good news for everyone concerned.

The problem is, you're arguing for companies to have the right to decide whether or not to put that sort of emphasis on worker health and safety, which means that some companies will crunch the numbers differently and decide that it's cheaper in the long run to skimp on it.

My non-libertarian view is that they shouldn't have that right.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

robindch

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I wonder...what would happen to price-fixers and cartels in a libertarian society?

So far as I can understand anything of libertarian thought, the concepts of price-fixing and cartels don't really exist. On the contrary, prices are simply what "the market can afford to pay" and cartels, if they're addressed at all, are probably handwaved as "groups of people co-operating" or somesuch.

Neither does libertarianism seem to approve of the related idea that a market functions more efficiently if the consumers trust the products being sold, the agents, manufacturers and so on. In fact, trust itself simply doesn't seem to exist as a meaningful concept in the first place. It's all about assets and transfer. Nothing about people.

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

A common misunderstanding amongst conservatives.

Liberals tend to distrust relative inequality much more than they distrust absolute wealth, or the people who have acquired it.

I don't think it's a misunderstanding, I think it's a rhetorical technique. Like one where any time inequality is mentioned the phrase 'class warfare' get's trotted out. Or like in Irish politics just about everything seems to create or cost jobs. It's politics after all.

PopePalpatine

oscarBravo wrote: »

Apparently they'd be out-competed.

I recognise that can happen in some (and perhaps most) industries, but what about industries in which the finances required to compete with these cartels are massive?

robindch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Here's the fuel market in Ireland attempting a little self-regulation:

http://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/car-talk/drivers-told-to-be-alert-for-petrol-stretching-30539815.html

Independent wrote:

Revenue Commissioners, Customs and Excise and Gardai have been investigating the practice after reports of significant fuel contamination in the west, border regions and midlands. Petrol stretching involves adding up to 10pc of kerosene to petrol before selling it to unwitting drivers. [...] Kerosene will damage an engine even more quickly than most laundered diesel and vehicles with smaller petrol engines are most at risk. The damage is so severe in many cases that engine pistons have melted and end up coated in carbon, leaving the driver facing massive repair bills.

Turtwig

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Like a YEC or a neo-classical economist you are a tunnel-visioned true believer who either ignores, discards or denigrates anything brought up which contradicts your point of view, no matter how well based in evidence it is (like the demonstrated fact that Rand's philosophy is in large part based off her admiration of psychopathy). And you will accept any lie or misrepresentation, and will have no difficulty repeating same ad nauseum, as long as it agrees with your chosen worldview (everybody to a greater or lesser extent does this, mind, but like the creationists you take this tendency to extremes) and, worst of all, you will distort and mangle the words of others in order to make their arguments look foolish, badly made or flat out wrong.

Mod.

Chill the tone a little.

Ta.