Archive for the 'Capitalism' Category

Objectivism vs. Libertarianism & More (Show 063)

For Show 063, Objectivists Mosley and Arthur have a discussion with a Libertarian caller, Charles, about how Objectivism significantly differs with Libertarianism.

It begins as Arthur presents his basic criticisms of Libertarianism from an Objectivist point of view. Two of his mains points were that a) Libertarians generally hold that an underlying philosophy is unnecessary, implicitly if not explicitly, and b) because of this, they do not grasp the concept of individual rights, and therefore have no means by which to determine that which constitutes force, something they hold to be axiomatically bad (which it is not). These deficiencies are very destructive in that they lead to the improper defense and misrepresentation of capitalism.

The discussion then briefly moves on to the topic of cultural change. Mosley and Arthur talk about how to bring about capitalism, which is by changing the dominant ideas of our culture. The continued dominance of altruistic ideas is discussed here as well.

Then the conversation goes back to politics, which lasted for the remainder of a show. It was a very interesting conversation on the initiation force, the enforcement of contracts, and the nature of government. This was an excellent show and I highly recommend that you check it out.

Shows 053 & 054

Hello all, sorry for the delay in show notes. I was away for Spring Break this past week, but I’m back and so are the notes.

The Open Mind vs. The Active Mind (Show 053)
Mosley and Arthur discuss the term the expression “having an open mind” and what it actually means. They argue that having an “open mind” is not being open to reason, but disregarding it. It consists of granting equal plausibility to any claim, regardless of any knowledge that one may have that contradicts it. And so, they conclude, one should not have an “open mind” but rather an active mind. Their view corresponds with Ayn Rand’s position.

Corporate Responsibility/States’ Rights (Show 054)
Show 054 consisted of an excellent discussion of two topics suggested by a listener. The first topic dealt with how responsibility should fall on, and how justice should be served amongst, a corporation. The second topic dealt with states’ rights. I won’t try to rehash the arguments here. It was a great show and I highly recommend it.

Listener Questions & Comments (Show 052)

For this show, Mosley and Arthur responded to some of the listener questions and comments.

The first was a question posted on the website asking, “Speaking of capitalism, where are the Google ads?” Mosley explained that he does not use them on talkObjectivism because he would have little to no control over what would appear and does not wish to advertise for sites antithetical to Objectivism.

The second comment was from a listener who kindly inquired about Show 013 which seems to have been mysteriously replaced by another show, from another TalkCast, that is extremely vulgar. Mosley has contacted TalkShoe and is currently working to restore the original show.

For the remainder of the show, Mosley and Arthur discussed a post on talkObjectivism.com regarding Show 049. The essence of the post is contained in his statement saying, “I don’t know how you guys came to the conclusion that the Left would do less damage to Objectivism.” Mosley and Arthur do an excellent job of outlining the points why the Republicans are far more dangerous to Objectivist ideals in the long-run than the Democrats. For anyone still unclear about this, I would also highly recommend listening to Show 049 and reading Diana Hsieh’s post on the matter.

Capitalism Revisited (Show 051)

For show 051, Mosley starts by reading a quote from the essay What is Capitalism? in “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” by Ayn Rand. He then elaborates on this, discussing the basic nature of capitalism and its practical significance in our lives. Here is the quote below:

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

So what do you think? Do you have any arguments against capitalism? Feel free to share. This is a forum for people to express their thoughts and maybe learn something new.

Listen to this show and more at Talkshoe.


Powered by TalkShoe

Business & Integrity (Show 050)

Not until after the show did we realize, that this is our 50th show and that talkObjectivism has been around for about a year now! I know, it’s crazy! But I digress.

This show started with a discussion on an essay from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal entitled “The Assault on Integrity” by Alan Greenspan (who is no longer associated with Objectivism). Mosley gave the following excerpt which captures the essence of the essay:

Protection of the consumer against “dishonest and unscrupulous business practices” has become a cardinal ingredient of welfare statism. Left to their own devices, it is alleged, businessmen would attempt to sell unsafe food and drugs, fraudulent securities, and shoddy buildings. Thus, it is argued, the Pure Food and Drug Administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the numerous building regulatory agencies are indispensable if the consumer is to be protected from the “greed” of the businessman.

But is it precisely the “greed” of the businessman or, more appropriately, his profit-seeking, which is the unexcelled protector of the consumer.

Today’s common conceptions of greed and selfishness are wrong. There is nothing “selfish” about cheating and stealing from others in order to get as much as you can today, the short-term, while ruining any chance of earning more in the future, the long-term. Rather, this is destructive to the self, destroying not only any future potential for profit, but one’s integrity and self-esteem.

After discussing this, Mosley goes on to provide examples of the free-market at work and how regulation is not necessary when businessmen are truly greedy. He also mentions the topic for next week’s show, the introductory essay from C:TUI called “What is Capitalism?” We hope you’ll join us.

Also, we wanted to thank Mrs. Diana Hsieh for her gracious mention of the show on her blog, which I highly recommend. She updates it frequently with things that are both entertaining and educational, which will likely be of interest to any Objectivist or Student of Objectivism.

Listen to this show and more at Talkshoe.


Powered by TalkShoe

The Coming Election (Show 049)

Show 049 was an excellent discussion about the coming U.S. presidential election. Arthur explained his views starting with this question: Which party will do the least damage to Objectivist ideals? (I will try to summarize what he said, but please listen to the show for his own words.)

The Republicans essentially stand for religion. They consistently try to mix faith with government, of which even small amounts can be disastrous, and will lead to a theocracy. Furthermore, their religious altruistic beliefs conflict with the self-interest morality necessitated by capitalism, which they claim to defend. Because of this, they’re misrepresenting capitalism, making it disreputable and therefore harder to realize.

The Democrats stand for a disintegrated attempt at socialism (or pieces of it). But since the fall of the Soviet Union, communism and socialism are no longer the threat they once were. It has been demonstrated that such systems are horrendous. Moreover, since the Democrats’ views are disintegrated, they can not achieve long term success. So, in order to give Objectivism time, it makes the most sense to throw out the bigger threat, the Religious Right, and vote for the Democrats.

Many Objectivists will bring up a third option. What about the Libertarians? The Libertarians say they stand for liberty, but they have an anti-philosophical approach. Their guiding “principle” is the non-initiation of force, but without a proper underlying philosophy, no one can say what initiating force consists of. Politics is a derivative of ethics and must be treated as such. Otherwise, capitalism will continue to be misrepresented, which is immensely destructive. (For those interested, there is also a discussion of Ron Paul on the show.)

It was a great show and I highly recommend you listen to it. You may want to read Diana Hsieh’s post on the election as well.

Listen to this show and more at Talkshoe.


Powered by TalkShoe

The Organ Trade (Show 043)

For this show, Mosley and Arthur have a discussion based on the ARI op-ed, To Save Lives, Legalize Trade in Organs. It is only a paragraph long, so I have posted it below.

“Thousands of individuals waiting for transplants have died through the years because the law forbids the sale of human organs. To significantly increase the availability of organs, this murderous law must be scrapped and the trade in organs decriminalised. If the law acknowledges our right to give away an organ, it should also acknowledge our right to sell an organ. And if the law recognises our right to pay for a life-saving medical treatment, it should also recognise our right to pay for a life-saving organ for transplant. Individuals able to pay for organs would benefit at no one’s expense but their own. Those unable to pay would still be able to rely on charity.”

The right to life means both the right to the mind and body, organs and all. People are dying every day from not having the healthy organs that they need. Creating an incentive, by allowing trade, can save these lives. So what is holding us back? Listen to the show for more details about how this could work.

Universal Health-Care (Show 042)

The topic of show 042 was universal health-care. Mosley discusses how government health-care is wrong and the only moral health-care system is that which can be provided by the free-market. There was also a caller from Canada, where universal health-care is in effect, who is in favor of the system. It makes for an interesting discussion.

Here is the link to the essay that was mentioned on the show. And, coincidentally, Yaron Brook, the President of the Ayn Rand Institute, wrote an excellent essay about health-care just yesterday.

“You are free to see a doctor and pay him for his services–no one may forcibly prevent you from doing so. But you do not have a “right” to force the doctor to treat you without charge or to force others to pay for your treatment. The rights of some cannot require the coercion and sacrifice of others.”

What do you think? Feel free to comment.

US Federal Law: Let in the dogs, or else!

I love dogs, as many do, but they have their place, and it’s not at the dinner table. According to this article, however, it is in violation of the federal law for a disabled individual accompanied by a guide-dog to be refused service at restaurants.

Laws such as these can be very harmful to businesses. Restaurants can lose many customers in order to accommodate just one of these individuals. There are many people who are allergic to animals and some who just don’t want animals around while they’re eating.

The main issue here, however, is individual rights. It’s unfortunate if someone is disabled, but what gives them the right to impose their problems on others? Nothing. Just like anyone else, it is their responsibility to deal with their own problems. Otherwise, they can rely on the charity of others.

Once again, the government is going beyond its sole purpose of protecting rights and, instead, violating them.

The Writers’ Strike (Show 038)

Mosley and Arthur discuss the writers’ strike that has been making the headlines. Though, rather than focusing on the details of this strike in particular, the discussion mainly covered the underlying principles. Here are just a few that were mentioned:

  • Employment isn’t a war of employers vs. employees, masters vs. slaves. Employers and employees share a common goal — to be productive — and should collaborate if they intend to be successful.
  • Contracts are mutual agreements. When you choose a job voluntarily and sign the contract, you are morally obligated to abide by it. If you don’t like the terms, then don’t take the job! But if you change your mind and demand something outside of your contract, you have no right to break it and go on strike.
  • Think you’re worth more than you’re paid? Talk about it. Present evidence to your boss and discuss it. If that doesn’t work, you can threaten to take your work elsewhere. And if no one will pay you that much, you may want to reevaluate your worth.
  • The pie just got a whole lot bigger and I want my slice. If a company endures an increase in success, don’t think that means you are entitled to a larger wage because of it. If you feel you deserve it, talk to your boss, but that money is not yours yet. It may even be going back into the company so that it can become even more successful and perhaps eventually give you those benefits you’ve been after.

Listen to the show to hear more!

Please send us any comments you may have, including possible show topics. And of course, listen to the show every Sunday at 8pm!

Powered by TalkShoe