Objectivisim: To The Ramparts

Good Work Fangbeer. You nailed it.

Amen, Brother

 

Great book.

 

You keep bringing up the problem without providing any evidence of a functional solution. I've laid out numerous arguments against the proposition that poor productivity needs to be subsidized by those capable of higher levels of productivity. Minimum wage arguments, universal income arguments, re-distributive value arguments all fail due to the reasons I've given. In short, you can't force individuals to re-calibrate how they determine value.

That said, I don't deny that the problem exists. There is a significant portion of society (10 - 15%) that is incapable of producing value commiserate with the amount of value they consume. There are multiple reasons why this is the case, some of which have nothing to do with their potential to do so, and some of which that have everything to do with it. There exists lots of historical evidence to show that there is a danger that these people will lose faith in the value system itself and attempt to tear it down. The outcome of that choice is bleak for everyone involved. In the effort to wipe out the so called greedy elite, the consumers end up all staving to death when they attempt to replace the people they wiped out. But again, out of the ashes of that disaster always rise the next 20% of the population competent enough to be producers to reestablish the exact same value structure we've constructed since we crawled out of trees.

This doesn't have to be a dichotomy though. When the problem is that there are 10% of the population that is not equipped mentally, or physically to be productive, the solution can certainly be to invent new ways to be productive, and to better understand the ability to engineer human potential. In my view, the idea that we have to dump value on people incapable of producing value is a rather pessimistic understanding of the potential of people. Instead of more pay for less value, why not create in them the ability to produce more value?

 

And while they wait for this new way of production to be invented, those 10% just starve to death, right?

 

Who's starving to death? On the contrary, without the producers in our society, a lot more of them would be dead. In systems that are more flat, there is less excess value to spare for people that only consume. Life is a lot harder for the bottom 20% in such societies. The poor in our society consume spare value that is regarded as luxury in other less advanced and more controlled societies.

As I've already pointed out, there's much greater risk of a much greater number of people starving to death if you try to impose a value system that is different from the one that exists naturally. Producing value is hard. That's why less than 20% of the population is any good at it. If you limit or or create disincentives to their ability to produce, everyone suffers, not just the people at the top.

History is replete with examples of attempts to ameliorate natural inequality through redistribution. Every instance results in more inequality and more tragedy.

 

How many poor had their lives saved with narcan injections last year?

How many poor had a heated meal in a heated indoor space last night?

How many poor had clothes on their back and shoes on their feet every day of their lives?

Do you think that number would be the same if we tore down the drug companies, the energy companies, and the wal-marts in our society that produce so prolifically that their goods are even remotely accessible to people who cannot produce enough to survive?

 

I'd pay them a decent amount or clean it myself

 

It is "a conceit"...and it doesn't frighten me. Utterly stupid things are not frightening

 

"Decent" is an expression of negotiated value. You would pay them based on the value of a clean toilet to you, and not based on the amount of money you think they need to survive the day, the week, or the year. After all, cleaning the toilet yourself does the other person absolutely no good at all, and is clear evidence that zero wage is actually the minimum.

 

Wrong. I would not employ someone at a rate that is unsustainable.

Otherwise I would clean the toilet myself.

If for some reason I had more toilets than I could clean myself (for instance in a school) I would pay them NOT the least amount I could but an amount that an adult could sustain himself on. Currently that means no less than $15/ hr.

Anything less and I would be stealing that man's labor. It would be akin to economic slavery

 

Unsustainable for whom?

And zero is certainly sustainable for one of you...

 

But obviously not for both. So Objectivism is based on stealing human labor?

 

And frankly I'm a bit confused how you think you're helping people who clean toilets by cleaning toilets yourself for free.

 

Objectivism is based on value voluntarily negotiated between two individuals. If the rate is agreed to its not theft. Why would you refuse someone's offer based on the premise that you know better than they do regarding what they need to charge in order to remain viable?

Go back to my original question on the subject. If you think it's best to pay someone based on what they need, and not on what they produce, then why have you not hired everyone who needs? Why can't you pay them all a living wage to do something non productive, like count grains of sand on the beach to solve the problem?

 

Yet you know nothing about it and refuse to learn simply because it frightens you

 

When one party is on the edge of survival, "voluntary" isn't exactly the case.

When those with the most money manipulate the economic system in order to force wages lower...wage owners have lost the concept of "voluntary"

When you hire someone, you have not only taken their time...you have taken their ability to do something else. You OWE them. To expect someone to do what you can not or will not do for an amount of money that can not sustain them in a decent manner...you have taken advantage of a skewed system

 

Take a moment to listen to your argument in practice.

Service person: "sir, would you like me to clean your toilet for 5 dollars?”

You: "5 dollars can't support someone like you on the edge of survival, but $30,000 is a bit steep to clean a toilet so I think I'll do it myself."

Service person: "Look man, I just need a job. 5 dollars is what I'm asking to clean up for you."

You: "I'm sorry, but you just can't accept that. It would be theft. I suggest you leave."

Service person: "Thanks for nothing."

You: "You're quite welcome my good man."

 

Service person: "Good afternoon, sir, can I interest you in a clean toilet?"

You:”How many children do you have?"

Service person: "What?"

You:"I need to know how many children you have to figure out what you need to earn to clean my toilet."

Service person: "Don't worry, sir. Its only 5 bucks a John.”

You:" Look, if you’re going to be difficult I really have no....

Service person (interrupting):”My 2 daughters are the best thing that ever happened to me.

You:"do you have custody?"

Service person: "What the hell kinda question is that?"

You:"Look man, I'm only trying to figure out what you need."

Service person: "It's 5 bucks”

You:"I'm sorry, this isn’t going to work out."

 

Service person: "Hello, can I interest you in a clean toilet? Only 5 bucks"

You:"How much is your rent?"

Service person: "My parents don't charge me anything."

You: "You live at home?”

Service person: "I’m not sure what this has to do with..”

You:" How do you expect me to hire you unless I know what you need to survive?”

Service person: "So....yeah...I'm really just looking for a couple of bucks to take my girl to the movies so I can get laid.”

You:”What's your parent's situation?”

Service person: "Fine, they’re fine. Do you want me to do this thing or?

You:”I don't know”

Service person: "Whatever, bro. I'll just wait until my trust fund payment next week.”

You:”Trust fund? Why didn't you say so? When can you start?"

You:"On second thought you had better get the job done in 20 minutes our I won't be able to live with myself."

 

Brilliant quote.

 

Fangbeer,
What's the purpose of your saintly patience? This person you are arguing with is, in my opinion, a fraud, i.e., he is not the ignorant looking for enlightenment, but a fool exposing his agenda of smearing that which names him for what he is, a parasitic thug.

 

Yes, the second part of my post was directed to Spooky. S/he hasn't responded yet. Seemed like a good subject to argue about. So let me ask you, what quibbles do you have with Ayn Rand? (Note: While Ayn Rand used her maiden name for her books & public appearances, she was married. Not sure whether to call her Mrs. O'Connor or what, but "Miss Rand" seems vaguely wrong somehow.)

I'm curious how you'd go about creating an ability in essentially useless people to produce value. If you're waiting for a pill that will increase IQ, you may have a long wait. You're talking about people who are unable to count change.

 

Who is saying there should be zero producers? Are there zero producers now? We have a welfare system, unions, regulations, taxes, and other things that make objectivists cry yet producers still make record profits.

 

Service person: sir, would you like me to clean your toilet for 5 dollars?

Objectivist: I will only pay you $1.50.

Service person: But that only barely covers the cost of my materials and I can't make enough to survive on that wage.

Objectivist: I don't care about your peasant problems. I have a monopoly on this job and you will take what money I choose to give you or you can starve. No take it or leave it, you are interrupting my cocktail party where we all talk about how great this one guy is because he burned down a forest rather than let it be made into a park.