======================================================

 


> You're probably tired of hearing about objectivism by now (I know I am), but
> from your third essay on Objectivism and Jefferson:
>
> "The Trader sets out naturally to get the better of the other person to the
> trade. Without law and regulation, every trade tends to become, not a
> respect for human beings, but an attempt to cheat the other"
>
> This statement is loaded. The trader wants to maximize profit, but does not
> necessarily cheat unless, say, he sells shoddy parts while giving the
> impression that he is selling quality parts. The other agent does not have
> to engage in a mutually exclusive agreement - that is, buy - the product if
> the price is too high, or the parts are of low quality. In this case it is a
> non zero sum game where both parties benefit.

By taking the above quotation out of context, you lose the essential point
that is being made.  Below is a little bit more of the context, which
addresses the point more fully.

~~~~~~~
Rand describes the ideal social relations as follows:

"The symbol of all relationships among ... men, the moral symbol of respect
for human beings, is THE TRADER." --from Galt's speech, in Atlas Shrugged.

This contains a certain appeal to justice and fairness in it as we think of
two individuals both interested in exchanging value for value, each wanting
something else and willing to give up something of their own for it. On
paper, it can have a kind of symmetrical beauty to it. But anyone who has
lived through even the brief span of childhood knows that is pure fantasy.
The Trader sets out naturally to get the better of the other person to the
trade. Without law and regulation, every trade tends to become, not a
respect for human beings, but an attempt to cheat the other.
~~~~~~~~~~

This is not an examination of the relationship of the Trader, per se, but an
examination of that relationship as a kind of IDEAL human relationship,
which, I contend, it is not.  Human relationships consist of more than
swaping what I have for what you have, though proponents of that theory find
clever ways of converting all relationships into precisely that.  Thus, we
are not talking about a relationship that necessarily or inevitably involves
cheating, but rather one that easily and frequently lends itself to that.
Moreover, it could be said to "naturally' tend in that direction, as anyone
with the least experience in business relationships knows.  True, the buyer
is not forced to buy.  But is not a transaction based on deceit and
deception a form of force?  Rand probably would not think that it was, but
that, in my view, is a measure of the real morality of her position.

> Capitalism is not moral or immoral. One could argue about unequal
> distribution of wealth, but no system exists which can promote progress
> without providing  freedom by which one must become self sufficient and
> therefore motivated to obtain an income. Before money existed,
> hunter-gatherer societies would share food to maximize survival, but they
> would also scold or exile the unmotivated.

Of course Capitalism is neither moral nor immoral, anymore than is sex or
government.  These are venues in which human beings relate to one another,
and the morality or lack thereof derives from the manner in which the
relationship is conducted.

> Goverment necessarily exists to make and enforce laws that protect
> individuals and business from wrong doing.

But that begs the question.  What is wrong doing?   I think a better
explanation sees government, in a free society, as protecting the
inalienable rights of each member of society, from other members and from
government itself.  That is the true meaning of liberty.

> It also provides systems by which
> the economy is stabilized in the event of a bust resulting in recession or
> depression. Without arguing for welfare or against self interest, it is
> evident that this is good for business and the people in the long term
> because it maximizes freedom and progress for all the individuals in a
> society respective to each other. There are of course differences of opinion
> regarding how and what to govern and how cheaters should be dealt with, but
> the general principle is sound. Systems which believe that there should be
> no government are only replacing it with big gangs analogous to the
> dictatorships in several countries.
>
> Anyway, when you characterize capitalism resulting in cheating, one could
> also characterize those on welfare as cheating. Obviously it isn't as simple
> as that, given that a decrease in welfare would likely result in an increase
> in crime, which would cost in law enforcement and decrease personal
> security. This does well to illustrate the compromise involved.

ANY relationship between human beings can result in cheating, and Capitalism
is no different from other forms of relationship.  From that perspective,
the idea that Capitalism should be unregulated (laissez-faire) is
antithetical to a civilized society, especially a free one founded on the
inalienable rights of each member.  A society based on the morality of The
Trader is one of isolated individuals, each concerned only with getting what
he can, and with no concern for the wellbeing of others.  Welfare is not a
compromise, but an attempt to establish a reasonable, civilized approach to
human problems that an advanced civilization should address.  The fact that
it is frequently misused is no more reason for getting rid of it than for
getting rid of Capitalism -- or sex. ;-)

> I know what you are trying to say, but objectivists may take it as an ad
> hominem argument. As it is written, it may seem ambiguous whether you are
> arguing against capitalism, or that capitalism is not a perfect system,
> which is why unregulated laissez faire capitalism is invalid.

"Ad hominem," I have learned recently, has two meanings: one, criticizing an
argument because of the character or other attributes of the person offering
it; two, arguing on the basis of an appeal to human sensibilities.
Obviously, I don't criticize Rand's system because she was a bitch.  But if
I am seen as criticizing a system because it is deficient in sensitivity to
one's fellow human beings, I have trouble seeing that as something
reprehensible.  I am 100% for capitalism, and believe it is a natural
outcome of a free society.  But I am equally 100% against any kind of
interrelationship between members of society that is beyond the reaches of
the law and that disregards the inalienable rights of all the participants.

======================================================