pug846

Bill, I thought I had read somewhere that you are an Objectivist (as in the Randian flavor)...

Bill Snedden

Not exactly. My take on epistemology and ethics has certainly been influenced by Rand, but I don't consider myself a capital-O "Objectivist". I disagree with Rand's views on the nature of aesthetics, strict laissez-faire capitalism, altruism, and a host of other issues.

I do agree with Rand on the existence of an objective moral standard, however her definition of "objective" does not mean "subject independent". As I understand it, she actually meant something closer to what Zar posted; something that is inherent in the common human experience, and thus universally recognized.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

jpbrooks

Theist. "Objectivist". Morality presupposes the existence of moral agents ("subjects"), and cannot be instantiated without them.

Bill, I don't want to turn this into a discussion about Ayn Rand. But if strict laissez-faire capitalism is wrong (or problematic), what form of capitalism, (that doesn't drag in governmental intervention and regulation), could replace it?

[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

Bill Snedden

I wouldn't say that it's "wrong", but it is certainly problematic.

I would agree with Rand that laissez-faire capitalism is the ideal, in the sense that it permits the maximum amount of free choice to all market participants.

However, the optimal functioning of such a system, and hence the best chance of permitting maximum freedom of choice, would seem to me to require perfect information flows between market participants. I have difficulty foreseeing such a system ever instantiated in reality...

I have come to believe that some amount of government intervention in the market is necessary in order to prevent market failures due to uneven information distribution.

Of course, the problem there is that once you let the government in the door bureaucracy seems to inevitably follow, but I just don't see any alternative. The key, it would seem, is to try to ensure that government intervention is kept to an absolute minimum. But how? I readily admit that I don't know, but I'm sure that a Nobel prize awaits whoever does.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

jpbrooks

Thanks for your response, Bill.

Bill Snedden:

However, the optimal functioning of such a system, and hence the best chance of permitting maximum freedom of choice, would seem to me to require perfect information flows between market participants. I have difficulty foreseeing such a system ever instantiated in reality...

I have come to believe that some amount of government intervention in the market is necessary in order to prevent market failures due to uneven information distribution.

jpbrooks:

But our markets seem to operate very well on their own, in spite of uneven or unequal distribution of information, without governmental "input".
(The stock market would be an example of such a market.) Market failures seem to be the exception rather than the rule. And if that is actually the case, governmental action to prevent market failures would seem unwarranted.

[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

Bill Snedden

But "our" markets (I'm assuming you mean the U.S.), don't operate on their own, not even the stock market. There are governmental interventions and controls all over the place!

There are numerous price subsidies, federal regulations, special tax incentives, federal mandates, etc, etc. The list goes on and on.

In the stock market alone, there are laws on what information can and can't be passed along (insider trading), controls on trading (computer trading thresholds), laws regarding corporate information disclosure (prospecti and SEC filings), among others. Ostensibly these are all necessary in order to regulate the flow of information and therefore keep the market open and free (and I'm not arguing here that they aren't), but they are all government interventions in what would be an otherwise completely free market (laissez-faire).

Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing whether the current level of regulation present in the U.S. market is good or bad. I've already admitted I don't know what the optimal level might be. I'm merely pointing out that the U.S. government regularly intervenes in its markets; what we have is far from true laissez-faire capitalism.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Edited to add: One of the forum moderators has now made at least two off-topic posts to this thread! (sorry, my bad ) J.P.: If we want to continue this discussion, we should take it into the Political Discussions forum. I'll look there for a response, should you care to make one.

[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

elwoodblues

"But "our" markets (I'm assuming you mean the U.S.), don't operate on their own, not even the stock market. There are governmental interventions and controls all over the place!"

Admittedly, but compared to the VAST majority of markets out there, the US market is freer and less restricted to a heavy degree.

jpbrooks

My apologies to everyone for taking this discussion off-topic.

Bill, I have posted my reply under a new topic in the political discussions forum.

Puttz

theist moral objectivists

Bill Snedden

You'll certainly get no argument from me.

Bill