I’m definitely with you on the personal attack thing. I enjoy good conversation, free people exchanging ideas; afterall, that’s the American way. It’s regretable we can’t talk sometimes in a rational way.

GTG, have a pleasant afternoon.

itsspideyman on March 11, 2009 at 1:22 PM

Thanks, itsspiedeyman, for bringing in more facts into the debate. I generally agree with what you and Doctor Zero said, and also generally agree with the broad principle that Ayn Rand espoused. I always like a debate on such topics which are based on facts and/or theories, hence I normally fail to hide my frustration when I get replies which are just talking points and personal attacks.

On to the point of monopolies : the Alcoa example you gave was very relevant, and in fact representative of how monopolies created by perfect competition *should* be. However, 2 facts create a problem:

(1) perfect competition is *perfect* only when all entrants start off in a level playing field. It has been shown in economic theory that if the competition is imperfect, the differences between the competitors rise exponentially, and will ultimately lead to the creation of a “major player”.

(2) It is unquestionably true that most (if not all) major players become major because they are the best for that product at that point of time. However, once they have reached that status, in a lot of cases, they tend to invest more in monetary expansion as opposed to R&D to create better products, so their product quality suffers. The tech sector, being R&D intensive, has seen multiple examples of such major players which in fact poison innovation (ala Microsoft’s bullying of Netscape, or AT&T charging enormous tariffs on phone lines prior to their split).

Ayn Rand’s main point was to promote capitalism by rewarding innovation (equal player assumption as stated in (1)). Having established major players which poison innovation by bullying smaller companies, is directly antithetical to that concept.

Case in point, the Alcoa case of 1947 brought by the federal government against the Alcoa company. There was no competition in the aluminum manufacturing market because Alcoa charged prices at very low margins because they were highly efficent in their production processes. The government argued that because they were so good they should be broken up for the sake of competition, let in its history never showed any of what we would consider to be unfair competitive practices. They were just the best.

Will a purely capitalistic society, practicing a laissez-faire captialism succedd? Will we always have an “underclass”? I don’t know that answer. Safe to say we will never have a perfect society. Worse is the danger of having a society that provides for its people but never answers the question: to what end?

How far do we go in helping our fellow man? I believe in the values I was taught, believe we should be there when there are those in need, but free men are also responsible for themselves and must accept their burdens when needed. If we are all part of a society, then it’s up to each one of us to be as little a strain on the society as possible.

My opinion and no one else’s, is that the best form of government is one that puts as few burdens on society as possible, allows free people to realize their own dreams, and takes care of those who can’t, but draws realistic lines as to how far those burdens can be carried by the government (which is we the people). This is not far from what Obama is saying, but unfortunately he is adding a hopeless burden on the backs of all of us.

Somewhere we have forgotten to ask what is the proper role of government, and the responsibility of our citizens. Ayn Rand spoke of the ideal and it’s right for any leaders of an idealogy to do so (does God compromise with the Devil?) I want my son (and all our children) to inherit a world where they are free to choose their futures. Only in a society that is free will that be possible.

Either way, government intervention in the hospitals, or any sector of the economy for that matter, is immoral. Although frankly a Catholic hospital should not ever receive public funds for any reason.

“…The Law of nations, by which this question is to be determined, is composed of three branches,
1. The Moral law of our nature.
2. The Usages of nations.
3. Their special Conventions.
“The first of these only, concerns this question,…

dogsoldier on March 11, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Dogsoldier, I appreaciate the fact that you responded, however I wish there were more facts in your rebuttal.

(A) monopoly argument: I am intimately familiar with the technology business, which is why I gave that example. My point is: when you have a very large player in *any* industry, it is easy for that player to churn out crappy products and get away with it. I know for a fact that Intel got away with charging ridiculous profit margins in the 90′s for server parts even when they had substandard chips (ask anyone involved in OEM’s like Dell or HP, and they can confirm what I am saying).

(B) pareto distribution: that is a theoretical result which is well known in economics. As I mentioned later and Doctor Zero agreed to, having a large underclass is counter-productive in a social setup, and is a roadblock to implementing Rand-ism “as-is”.

You need to read a book. What our socialist government does by taking my money by force and giving it to people who didn’t earn it is REDISTRIBUTION.

This is being personal. I believe it should be obvious from my comments that I have read this topic in some detail. If political talking points are all you have to offer, please refrain from responding.

“As regards protection of this world’s good, the first task is to save the wretched workers from the brutality of those who make use of human beings as mere instruments for the unrestrained acquisition of wealth.”

Apart from abortion and traditional marriage, Rome has been on the side of the Left (open borders, gun control, social spending, minimum wage, palestinian moral equivalence, anti-Iraq War, etc.) too often.

You lie down with the dogs, you wake up with fleas. Don’t come crying to us now.

The true issue is that they are apparently willing to cut off all emergency, required medical support to their individual communities because they do not agree with restrictions and legislation passed by the lawfully elected government of the United States.

It is not only that we as Catholics disagree, it is that FOCA would force us to commit an act of murder. To pro-choice people abortion is a political issue, to us it is the taking of a human life. If I worked in a hospital I would quit before I participated in an abortion. You could throw me in jail and it would still be NO from me.

Spot on F15Mech. Those who have no religious conviction have no understanding of its power.

I can’t speak for her (no one could) but she would possibly be not only accepting but consider it logical. Howard Roark didn’t look at the granite but the buildings that could be created from them. For her the product of man’s achievement was the rational mind, not the businesses created, which were the outward sign.

No, this is not possible. Entrepreneurial pressure is too high. Just because you don’t know the names of other web browsers, doesn’t mean they don’t exist and can’t supplant IE.

“(B) Any purely capitalistic society theoretically results in a pareto distribution of wealth”

More BS. Look If I create a company, sell a product and get wealthy thats not wealth redistribution. Thats acquisition by merit.

You need to read a book. What our socialist government does by taking my money by force and giving it to people who didn’t earn it is REDISTRIBUTION.

The difference is choice. No one has to purchase my product, the government steals by force.

Lt, good job on AS, you are spot on.

peter_griffin on March 10, 2009 at 6:18 PM

I thought you made a good point about the deregulation of CDs on the other thread. Government must have a careful regulatory role in the free markets, because otherwise they’re not really free – a consumer is not making free choices when he’s being defrauded, which pretty much every aspect of the subprime debacle boils down to. The trick is to keep government regulatory without allowing it to become participatory. The current system asks us to accept a government which is both the referee, and the biggest, meanest player on the field.

It’s not easy to maintain the proper separation of government and free enterprise, because the temptation to manipulate the rules is hard-wired into every tough competitor. Every hard-charging stock trader daydreams about the millions he could make if a certain regulation was bent a little, or if a certain government official he occasionally plays golf with would be a little more willing to divulge priviledged information. Likewise, every government official savors the power and wealth he can accumulate by selling his influence to the highest bidder.

The rise of information technology has only blurred the lines between free-market competitors, monopolistic entrprises, and government further. I wonder what Rand would have said if she had lived long enough to see the world’s richest man build the world’s largest company without manufacturing any physical products at all, and achieve near-absolute market dominance without technically becoming a monopoly.

I don’t think the system can ever be fine-tuned perfectly, but it seems clear that a massive decoupling of government from private industry – through reduced taxation, regulatory reform, tax simplification on the scale of a flat tax, and privatization of bloated government-run industries – is necessary to undo the madness we see playing out before us. Government controlling a massive, high-tech free market is like a clumsy, neurotic giant trying to thread a needle – its endless failures only frustrate it, and make it resort to increasingly frantic and counterproductive efforts.

Just as with the farmers, all the government can do is negotiate with them to find ways to keep them in business, but government has no right to force a private business to remain open — or to offer services to which the proprietor objects.

Thirty years ago I was living in Evansville, Indiana (a very strong Union area). My neighbor had a medium size company that was constantly being besieged by Union demands, wildcat strikes, and grievances. He finally reached the point where it was no longer feasible for him to manufacture his product and meet his deliveries. He decided to quit and close his factory.

He was informed, by the National Labor Relations Board, that he could not close his business until all the issues with the Union had been successfully arbitrated.

Why is the cover of Atlas Shrugged on the front of this post?

Read the comment thread.

:-)

I’ve not read Atlas Shrugs, but I hear it’s a great counter to communism. I should start reading it.

FontanaConservative on March 10, 2009 at 6:55 PM

I recomment the Blackstone Audiobooks version. It is much better heard than read. Some books are like that.

keep the change on March 10, 2009 at 5:59 PM

So you are saying that anyone who gets any government money for anything must submit to the government authority for everything?

A hospital charging Medicare for geriatrics (a charge for services, not a grant) must perform abortions?

How about, in the interests of seperation of Church and State, we pass a law forbidding recipients of SocSec, Welfare, and the EIC from donating to their church?

darktood on March 10, 2009 at 9:47 PM

How is this for a concept….

Allow the Catholic hospitals to operate in a way that does not go against their dogma, at the same time allow state run hospitals offer a choice.

I see nothing wrong with that.

Somehow it still causes issues.

General and emergency health services (above and beyond abortion or family planning) are, if anything, even more important than a steady supply of fuel, food or waste disposal.

I’m sure we could all survive without hospitals, or even doctors, as mankind has been surviving without hospitals since… well, since the dawn of mankind. But I’m more than certain we would perish on a steady supply of hospitals (free clinics, whatever) without that steady supply of food. I won’t run you through the same on the waste disposal (EWwww! Give me a toilet and treatment plant over a hospital!)

We the people still, maybe not for long now, but as of this moment we are still allowed to follow our own conscience.

Barack Obama and his government does not own the conscience of the Catholic Church. Nor does this totalitarian government own my conscience!

The solution here would be for the government to have a HIPPA style ‘informed consent’ regulation. That, if asked, the Catholic hospitals would provide written information about ‘the alternatives’… to be found elsewhere.

Old Country Boy on March 10, 2009 at 10:18 PM

The point is freedom of conscience. And from your response, you would burn the building down while it still had people in it. Which is not what I said.

Close the hospital, and burn down the building.

Not, “Close the hospital by burning down the building.”