Ayn Rand, Objectivism, Capitalism, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

I’ve changed my mind about you. Bye.

 

Very good quote. Hayek's aim is to justify market de-regulation that prevents monopolies and imperfect monopolies (oligopolies).

Hayek's anti-rationalist philosophy assumes that General Stochastic Equilibrium Theory of Markets. This is to say, economist of this school assumes that economic depressions are the result of the market (buyers and sellers, monetary infrastructure) is in dis-equilibrium causing the demand/production market relationship to be out of balance by too much supply and too little demand or the reverse. In fact, the natural state of the market is dis-equilibrium. It takes massive coordination and control of money capital, labor (variable capital), interest rates, technology, distribution, marketing to be in balance and not spiraling downward. This is true for the different creatures of penny capitalism, corporate capitalism, and global capitalism.

Also, the entire Fundamentalist Free Market Theory is based on the logical Fallacy of Composition.

This is a very common error in reasoning made in many discussion of “The Market,” and between the micro and the macro. A person cannot logically infer something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole: “If someone stands up out of his seat at a baseball game, he can see better. Therefore, if everyone stands up they can all see better.” The Fallacy of Composition is essentially fallaciously reasoning that claim attributes of the parts of the whole are also attributes of the whole itself. The fallacy can have various forms such as “the machine is made of many light weight parts; therefore, the machine as a whole is light weight.” Or one might say, “The lead actor in the play was excellent so the play as a whole was excellent.” Another example the composition fallacy is, “Each aircraft in the squadron is ready for combat; therefore, the whole squadron is ready for battle.”

In each case the fallacy confuses the “distributive” and “collective” use of a general predicate term. One can say that college students are only allowed to vote once in a general election; however, it is also true that college students cast millions of votes in a general election. Of course in the first proposition the predicate term “vote” is used distributively, but in the second proposition the term is used collectively. There is a difference between a collection of elements, and a whole constructed out of those elements. A pile of bricks is not a house.

Likewise, a collection of individual buyers and sellers making directed voluntary choices do not make a market possessing those same human attributes. Market forces are assumed to have the same characteristics as persons: rational, acting freely, and knowledgeable. In other words, market fundamentalists anthropomorphize mass-market movement. The Pathetic Fallacy attributes human attributes of volition, and rationality to non-human entities such as the mass market. The market can stay irrational (dis-equilibrium) longer than you can stay financially solvent. Without economic intervention dis-equilibrium is the market's natural state of being.

 

Somebody spray the Febreeze.

 

I should of added this important sentence in red font.

 

And I didn't even serve up the Coup de Grace counter-argument to your Ayn Rand "Wantism" that asks, "Why should I do what is right and instead act only in my own self-interest like a good Randian cultist?

It is impossible to give a reason in accordance with your interest for acting contrary to your interest. That would be a contradiction in terms--a self-contradictory request. The self-interested egoist asks for a reason of self-interest to justify an act that would be contrary to his interest. In other words, the self-interested Randian egoist wants a moral (nonself-interested) reason to justify an act of pure self-interest. They run in a never ending circular contradiction looking for the answer.

 

I must of ended the debate with that last argument.