I received very interesting comments on my previous post, The Fountainhead. . Although I have read the novel many times, these comments gave me a whole new insight into Ayn Rand’s philosophy. Absolute capitalism, without any governmental intervention is one of the core principles of Rand’s philosophy. While capitalism is one of the best systems we have today, it is not without its flaws. I had mentioned about difference between Adam Smith’s and John Nash’s theories to highlight this point. Sukumar requested me to elaborate on this and I am doing this post in response to his request.
Adam Smith is considered the father of economics. In his book written in 1776 titled “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”, he introduced a concept called invisible hands. The basic premise of his theory was that if each person worked towards his self-interest then the interest of the entire world will be served.
Smith says“….By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.” If you notice, this is pretty much what Rand says too, altruism for its own sake does not serve humanity as much as self interest does. This is also the foundation of capitalism.
For example, I run a company, I want to maximize profits and ensure its survival. So I produce the best quality goods at the lowest possible prize thus the consumers are benefited. In a free market, I cannot afford to have very high prices because I will soon be obsolete’ed by competition, I cannot compromise on my quality because I will lose my customers. On the face of it, it looks like a perfect system. In fact Adam Smith thought of it as a work of god. His invisible hand was a metaphor for the way god administered the universe in which human happiness is maximized and also the interest of the world was served.
Those of you who have watched the movie, “The Beautiful Mind” would have heard of John Nash. He is an expert in game theory and he formulated a theory for a category of games called non-zero-sum games. Game theory was founded John von Neumann, to understand the general logic of strategic interactions. Its application can range from war strategies to pricing. Before John Nash most of the theories were centered around zero-sum games, interactions where one person wins and the other loses. There is absolutely no benefit in collaboration. Examples could be of two countries at war or two companies fighting for the same contract. Game theory uses mathematics to identify the best strategy to be employed in such situations.
From an economist’s point of view, most of the situations are not zero sum. In most instances there is some benefit in collaborating. Even in war situations, diplomacy has a role to play. Before John Nash there was no good models for non-zero-sum games. The most famous example of a non-zero-sum game is the prisoner’s dilemma (I have written about it in this blog and how Dawkins applies it in his theory of evolution).
According to Nash, the best choice for any player would depend critically on what he thinks the other players might do. You would notice this factor in the prisoner’s dilemma too. Take for example, two companies are bidding for the same contract. All things being equal, what would each party do to maximize their chances; try to underbid the competitor? We have seen this situation is ugly prize wars, which harms the players in the long run. A better thing to do would be to form a cartel and artificially fix the prizes. Some thing of this nature happened in India last year, even though the duty on cars was reduced in last year’s budget, the manufacturers did not pass on the benefit to the customers and instead chose to increase their profit margins. What was even more amazing was that it was happened during a time when the competition so stiff. New brands and models appeared every day.
In short, Nash concludes that the optimal choice that a person makes, given his beliefs of other people’s choices, may not always serve his best interest or that of the society.
One of the reasons I believe that absolute capitalism without any checks and bounds will not serve the interest of the society. Does Adam Smith have any answers for global warming?
If you want to know more you can refer to the following sources
Note :
This a layman’s understanding of the theories of these great men. Please feel free to correct me if I have made a mistake.
[...] capri wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt [...]
Hi Archana,
Adam Smith primarily made the practical case for capitalism: he pointed out a fact, namely, that self-interest in economics translates into widespread societal benefits. This fact is observable and has been proved in history (think East Germany and West Germany, North Korea and South Korea, Chine pre-1970 and now post 1970, etc.).
The rise of the Indian economy from technical bankruptcy in 1991 to the second fastest growing is just one new instance of this fact.
However, notice that Smith’s practical defense of capitalism from observation also serves as a backhanded nod to altruism. That is, capitalism is good *because* it somehow ends up helping *others*. Indeed, Smith was so reticent to regard self-interest as a moral virtue that he explicitly stated that the self-interest of an economy must be tempered by a Christian moral ethic, i.e., an altruistic moral ethic.
This is where Ayn Rand diverges significantly from Adam Smith. She pulls the figurative rug from below Smith and reveals the moral and philosophical *foundations* that make the practical success of capitalism possible. She points out that capitalism should not be tempered by altruism, but that it should be left free–laissez faire. Why? Because capitalism is an economic-political system based *fundamentally* on individual human rights—inviolable human rights, rights that every human being possesses.
Ayn Rand was the first philosopher to observe the success of post-industrial capitalist production and trace its roots to *morality*: a morality of egoism. If you investigate further into Rand’s moral system, you will see the full grandeur of her project: of tracing capitalist politics down to egoistic moral ethics, then down to objective epistemology, then down to rational and volitional human nature, and finally all the way to objective metaphysics.
I wish you all the best in your studies!
Archana,
Thank you very much for taking my request and posting the review just 1 week after my request. Much much appreciated.
I didn’t know that the non-zero-sum-game was the key focus of John Nash, notwithstanding my wide-eyed admiration for the movie Beautiful Mind.
I should read some more on his theories now that you have piqued my interest. Thanks very much.
Good post, Archana, thank you. Knowing little about Adam Smith, you’ve given me a good introduction, one I find helpful because of your comparison with John Nash’s work. And like Sukumar, I too had admiration for the film, A Beautiful Mind.
“In most instances there is some benefit in collaborating.”
Good Heavens, ’some’ benefit in collaborating? All trade is a collaboration, between two individuals or corporations to *mutual* benefit, provided both are well-informed and honest. When trade is protected by a valid contract laws, it is the essence of capitalism! It is both moral and peaceful. Ayn Rand agreed that it confers a benefit society as a whole, but pointed out that that is a secondary consequence! What matters is that the individuals are free to make their choices, to adjust their lives to make the best choices they can, and can therefore enhance their lives as much as their intelligence and the ability permits. Under capitalism, even those significantly lacking in intelligence and ability can find the niches where they can live well. It may not take a lot to be a janitor, or a 16-year-old student working at McDonald’s, but both are able to make money, and even a living, because the hiring company has a use for them. And still, both parties benefit! And, your property (money) is not taken to support them.
Any government intervention in that relationship necessarily undermines it. Minimum wage laws, for example, make it more difficult for the company to hire such people and they may assign the work to an existing employee. This shuts out the very people capitalism could most help.
Unfettered Capitalism, in a political system that respects individual rights and contracts, is the !only! moral system. All others undermine progress, human happiness and, yes, even and lives. Often those losses are hidden, because no one can see how capitalism might have been a benefit to them.
Imagine if St. Paul had not promulgated Christianity so successfully ~2000 years ago and, instead, the ideas of Aristotle had dominated. It was Aristotle’s ideas that brought the Enlightenment, and put Man on the Moon 300 years later. Where would our world be today if that process that begun 2000 years ago??? Imagine the technological advances that would’ve taken place had there been no Dark Ages! Consider how many people would live better today had there been a thousand years of ever improving medicine, agriculture, transportation, education, technology etc. etc. The potential that has been lost boggles the mind.
Ergo – Thank you very much. You make objectivism sound like a religion. I need to read up more on Ayn Rand’s philosophy to fully appreciate your comment. My knowledge is limited to my reading and interpretation of Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and We the living.
Richard – The “Some benefit in collaboration” was used in the context of zero sum games. The point I was trying to make was even in extremely adversarial situations like war, there are befits in collaborating.
I agree in principle to all the points you made on capitalism. Didn’t I say it is the best system we have in place although it may have it’s flaws. The only point I don’t appreciate is your view on minimum wages. I feel human rights will not be protected if we do not have government imposing certain standards. Have you heard of slave labour employed in China? I think that country is a standing example of capitalist forces fully unleashed without the stabilizing effect of democratic forces. By democratic forces I mean, protecting the right of the underprivileged.
Let me give you an example of capitalism at play in China. Are you aware that China is the largest consumer and producer of tobacco. More than 70% of its economy depends on tobacco, not withstanding its huge exports. Chinese government does not want to ban cigarettes or any regulation what so ever on the tobacco industry because it will destabilize its economy. As a result, china is heading towards a huge health crisis. This is what I can unfettered capitalism at its worse.
Sukumar – Thank you very much, it is my pleasure. I would recommend the book “The beautiful mind” if you want to know more about John Nash and his theories. Although the book is not as entertaining as the movie, it is very detailed and gives a more realistic view on the man. Definitely worth reading.
Dr.Frank – So good to meet you here again. Thank you. Gald you liked the post.
Archana,
You are wrong in calling China an unfettered capitalist state. Infact, it is diametrically the opposite. It’s a State corporation–a command economy, with a small but powerful group of Party bureaucrats taking the major national decisions.
Indeed, even as late as 1992, only 14 percent of Chinese industrial output was privately owned. This lack of privatization in ownership of industries and manufacturing is hardly what you can call capitalism–let alone “unfettered” capitalism!
The Chinese State sector was responsible for nearly half of the output, while the rest were made up by local-government townships and village enterprises. The key is, in this command economy, all these industries were forced to compete in the market on a relatively level playing field. This competition in the marketplace gave rise to self-correcting prices, adjustment of production and sales to demand, and driving down of scarcity power.
Perhaps you may wish to read Tim Harford’s “The Undercover Economist” and Edward Luc’s “Inspite of the Gods” on the rise of the Chinese and Indian economices and the extent to which they have become free markets.
>Chinese government does not want to ban cigarettes or any regulation what so ever on the tobacco industry because it will destabilize its economy. As a result, china is heading towards a huge health crisis. This is what I can unfettered capitalism at its worse.
One has to ask two questions here: is it really capitalism, and is it really wrong (in other words should we forcibly prevent it from happening)?
The tobacco industry in China is a mixture of trade and government control, so it is not entirely capitalist. It is ruled over by a government-enforced monopoly, and probably is supported and protected by the government.
But even if it weren’t, if the market for tobacco in China were entirely the result of capitalism, then I could not have anything bad to say about capitalism. If freely acting people choose to harm themselves by buying and smoking tobacco, the best you can do is to try to wage a campaign of education to try to convince them to do otherwise. It is hardly capitalism’s fault that many people do not know or choose to ignore good health practices. Capitalism simply consists of people trading for whatever they want, so ultimately this is a criticism only of individuals’ choices.
As far as a health crisis goes, usually the problem is that the government is left footing the bill, and therefore it deems it necessary to control people’s lives in order to reduce its costs. But government should not be in the health care business any more than it should be in the tobacco business, and should not be telling people what to do to avert a crisis of its own making (because it should not be providing health care in the first place). So really, the problem is not capitalism, but the areas where capitalism is *not* in operation, such as government-provided health care.
>In short, Nash concludes that the optimal choice that a person makes, given his beliefs of other people’s choices, may not always serve his best interest or that of the society.
The discussion of Nash is intriguing (and A Beautiful Mind was a great movie). I will admit up front that my knowledge of his game theory is very scant.
But it seems to me that if Nash defined an optimal game outcome as something other than a person’s best interest, then it cannot be applicable to trade and to the real-world problem of building a successful business. Although there is an element of uncertainty in establishing pricing which mimics this pattern, one has to make an a priori choice to align the short-term choice with the long-term goal of business success. In Nash’s terms I guess this would mean deliberately losing the game, to gain long-term success.
What underlies trade is real people seeking value in exchange for value. It may be that cartels can provide the best price for a group of suppliers, and certain tricks may provide a temporary advantage, but when people are free to buy and sell, ultimately they will not stand for anything but the best value, and so power will flow to those who offer it. Money does not beget power, those who buy grant power, and they will only buy from those who keep them happy. That will be the only suitable long-term strategy.
>One of the reasons I believe that absolute capitalism without any checks and bounds will not serve the interest of the society. Does Adam Smith have any answers for global warming?
Tort law.
There is already a considerable body of law devoted to how to compensate people for damages done to them, and this is another such case. Pollution and any ill effects of global warming (assuming the unlikely event that such damage can be proven) is no more permissible under capitalism than dumping garbage in front of someone’s home or taking an axe and ruining the outside of their house. In fact, under true capitalism, the pollution of rivers and air that is now commonly cited as a failure of capitalism would have never occurred, because there would be laws to properly protect private property (and most or all property would be privately owned).
If damage due to global warming can be scientifically proven in a court of law, then damages should be awarded to the plaintiff to compensate for it. On a global scale, governments should permit such lawsuits to be filed by foreigners. The problem as I see it is that most societies have totally lost sight of a just notion of what such damage means, are either beholden to corporations or are hostile to the, and would therefore either be too lenient or too harsh, for example by awarding damages where no real damage had actually occurred. But, that’s the risk. That is the method that would be applied under laissez-faire.
Archana, you wrote, “The only point I don’t appreciate is your view on minimum wages. I feel human rights will not be protected if we do not have government imposing certain standards. Have you heard of slave labour employed in China?
On minimum wage, put yourself in the position of the employer, then think through how such a law forces his hand to alter his decisions. Aside from the obvious denial of liberty, consider the full consequences. What I have described is exactly what does happen, and is not a matter of idle opinion. When minimum wages are broadly applied to an economy the only consequence is harm to all concerned, with the greatest harm being done to those it seeks to help. Jobs become less available AND the cost of living goes up because employers must sell the services at higher prices. It’s basic.
One does not have a right to a job, or a right to some arbitrary pay scale. One only has a Right to Life, Liberty, Property and Pursuit of Happiness, Rights give a man freedom to act as he chooses so long as he does not undermine or take away the rights of others. The instant a government passes a law that favors one group of individuals, it reduces the Rights of those not so favored (who are taxed &/or limited in their actions). When that Pandora’s Box is opened Both sides of that zero-sum game ultimately lose, because no neither one is safe from the next state intervention.
The slave labor in China is not a consequence of capitalism, but of state requirement. Chinese struggle to get work with muli-national companies because the pay was/is so much better than is available anywhere else in their country. Only those families leeching off citizens via its privileged government bureaucracy did better. The privileged I refer to are those running the nation, its provinces, its counties, its cities, its towns and industries.
In fact, the removal of 1/3 or 1/2 of a man’s pay by taxation today is a more severe form of enslavement (in terms of economic theft) than was experienced by the slaves of the Southern States of America. The Black Slave family, freed, would have had to work all day on their little farm, to make food and clothes, and would have little else. As slaves they worked all day and were provided with food, clothing and shelter. Their ‘tax’ was less than an ordinary worker faces today. Slaves who had non-violent owners often preferred to stay with the owner!
Your tobacco statistics are wildly misleading. The 70% figure refers to the little South-west China province of Yunnan only. It is by far the poorest province of China, with a GDP per capita of only US$1,160. By comparison, Taiwan’s is ~US$25,000. Yes, the Chinese government cooperates with that industry otherwise the above stats would be even worse. But it does not signal the health costs you infer because a) much of the tobacco is traded to nearby countries such as Myanmar and, b) the Chinese, especially in such outlying areas, hardly get the kind of health care you are imagining.
Heed Jeff Montgomery, and also read some serious work on the nature of capitalism: Capitalism: the Unknown Idea by Ayn Rand is a great primer. Also, be a bit more skeptical of, and careful with, the facts and arguments you pick up from the media, and the Internet. Always ask, what contextual information may have been ignored? what if the opposite were true, how would things pan out? etc. Quite often the most emotional sounding issues, like slave labor, are quite the opposite of the activist mouthpieces claim & the media uncrtically accept as newsworthy.
I thought I would revisit your site and am disappointed to see no new comments and no new posts. Darn. (I rather like what you do and enjoy how well you write, so I came back.)
I think I will throw in a couple more points, now that I am here.
You wrote:
the manufacturers did not pass on the benefit to the customers and instead chose to increase their profit margins.
Think what that decision by the auto manufacturers actually means. They decided that they had an opportunity to pass on their gains to their investors. Were it not for their investors they could not survive very long. Their investors a) serve as a buffer between good and bad times, and b) as a warning if the company is really doing something unproductive. Thousands of investors benefit from choosing the most rational and productive, in a monetary sense, company. The company is not in the business of charity. Charity is something a rational person does, with money (time etc) one has, that does not incur personal harm. The same is true of corporations. By maximizing profits, and by benefiting their investors, the auto companies are ensuring their ability to continue producing vehicles through the support of their investors. If their cars are still selling, then that is the right, morally right, decision.
The principle is: “the best way to help the poor is to not be one of them!” One’s economic actions in that respect accomplishes two things in a truly free market. First, it constitutes not make the choices that lead to failure and poverty. Second, it enables survival of a business that provides considerable value to its customers. In the latter case it enhances their lives. To enhance lives sacrificially is to ruin one/s own life and, subsequently, the lives of others.
There is another issue worth raising. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a preposterous fraud perpetrated on a trusting and non-scientific public. I have been following this fad since 1968, when the claim was that human technology was going to cause a new Ice Age. Did you get that??!!
The key is to distinguish the fundamental (what really matters) from the derivative (what contributes little or nothing, as against the fundamental). BTW that is an important aspect of Ayn Rand’s epistemology.
The Earth is subject to a number of cycles. Its orbit moves from a near circle to an ellipse. Its vertical axis slowly wobbles (something called “precession”) and the solar energy it receives varies with cycles within the sun itself. Sol, has a cycle of sunspots. This cycle has been tracked since the time of Galileo. Recently researchers examined the logs of ship’s captains sailing in the Norther Hemisphere. The found a 99% correlation between solar energy output and the extent of the Arctic ice field. The more solar output, the more northerly the limit of Arctic Ice. This was a very important consideration for ship’s captains, so it was tracked quite closely.
Another fundamental is the fact that CO2 levels have always risen AFTER the Earth’s temperature has risen, even since the Industrial Revolution. Graphs such as those presented by Al Gore and others are always presented on using an X scale that is so large that such a distinction cannot be readily identified. Nonetheless it has been that way for 800 million years!
Yet another fundamental is that 1000 years ago the climate of Scotland was the same as that of Southern France. Think about that! Scotland had vineyards, and produced wine. The Norwegians (Eric the Red, and Leif Erickson) sailed to Greenland and found verdant valleys and shorelines that were suitable for habitation. Imagine how far back the Glaciers must have melted. Imagine how little ice there must have been in the Arctic Ocean… certainly far less than there is today. Heck, the Polar Bears made it through the whole thing!
Archana, my dear, none of your concerns about Laissez Faire (there is no other kind) Capitalism and Global Warming are not well founded. They are echoes of the politiks of Karl Marx and the evil view of Man, (altruist) morality, and subjectivism (irrational epistemology) of Immanuel Kant. Kant and Hume still dominate University schools of thought, to the intellectual destruction of students around the World.
Although reading Ayn Rand’s works can be trying for some, she offers the only true antidote to the poison Kant and his ilk promulgate. Start with the key fiction works (The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged) then delve into the non-fiction. I suggest “Philosophy: Who Needs It?”, then “Capitalism The Unknown Ideal” and “For the New Intellectual”. The latter is awesome because Galt’s Speech (from Atlas Shrugged) is presented apart from the plot of Atlas. Suddenly it is a statement of fact, that cannot be denied. That separation, from Plot, enables one’s mind to actually face the ideas as matters of reality, rather than as matters of the storyline. It was, to me, stunning.
I hope that you, Archana, experience the same impact. You are clearly, to me, a bright mind and honest thinker. If you take the route I suggest, you will have an opportunity to use your mind, in an introspective sense, that you have never previously experienced.
How much I wish you the best in that particular endeavor. I hope you will post new and profound thoughts in the near future. Great minds, over all of the trillion(s) of humans who have existed are rare. May you be one of them.
Darn, I messed up some tags. Sorry. I wish wordpress allowed previews.
Wow, I produced of a lot of text, but here is the link I failed to create —copy and past it into your Browsers address field.
“http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=AR21B” without the double quote marks/
R
Maybe this belief “that self-interest in economics translates into widespread societal benefits” is key to explaining how many people in position of hierarchical power reject evidence of an expanding ecological crisis?
These two beliefs are apparently incompatible. If “self-interest in economics translates into widespread societal benefits” then it cannot be true that societal benefits are being undermined by as self-interest induced ecological crisis.
Thank you Mark.
Smith says “….By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.”
That means if I’m interested in writing poetry or playing music or building kites or gardening, then there should be nobody impeding the pursuit of my interest.
Note that Smith also say “frequently” not “always”, because some people, unfortunately, have interests which interfere with the rights and freedoms of others. Capitalists, for example, “who affect trade for the public good” belong to the category described as “I have never known much good done.”
Quoting Smith as if he supported the “privatisation”, appropriation and control of natural resources by force, and the subsequent establishment of corrupt property rights designed to maintain the power and privilege of thieves, is an abomination comparable with using Jesus Christ as an incitement to hatred, war and violence.
Rather than maximising competition, capitalism constantly works to eliminate it by concentrating wealth and power, working ever onwards towards monopoly. “Ownership” of the gifts of nature bestows the right to deny access to those “resources” and therefore brings the power to extort the rest of the population who may need to access the resource. The game of 100% capitalism would have to start every newborn with an identical share of equally accessible natural resources – air, water, minerals, energy and land of equivalent productive capacity – but the idea of imposing any rules destroys the very notion of 100% capitalism. Any system of rules would mean the game requires a government. The system would need a state to protect the collective interest of the people – at the very least, to prevent the “winner takes all” dynamic of capitalism, running too fast towards its logical conclusion of “game over”.
R2
What does this mean?
“If you investigate further into Rand’s moral system, you will see the full grandeur of her project: of tracing capitalist politics down to egoistic moral ethics, then down to objective epistemology, then down to rational and volitional human nature, and finally all the way to objective metaphysics.”
Sounds like the rise of die Ubermann or something from a fateful speech at Nuremberg.
I *can* comment on this next one.
“All trade is a collaboration, between two individuals or corporations to *mutual* benefit, provided both are well-informed and honest.”
Fair enough. Agreed, with the constraint that “well informed and honest” means this rarely occurs in the real world. If the author was “well informed and honest”, he would acknowledge a high level of extortion exits in practice. If he does not possess these two attributes, then there is no “mutual benefit” to be had in trading with him.
“It may not take a lot to be a janitor, or a 16-year-old student working at McDonald’s, but both are able to make money, and even a living, because the hiring company has a use for them. And still, both parties benefit! And, your property (money) is not taken to support them.”
Everybody’s property is taken to support businesses and corporations, however. Capitalism treats our common heritage, the gifts of nature, providence and culture, as if they are a private creation, a personal property belonging to very few. Natural resources include not only every material and energy input used to satisfy human needs, but also the wastes polluting, despoiling and corrupting the living and geophysical systems of our unique planet.
“Any government intervention in that relationship necessarily undermines it. Minimum wage laws, for example, make it more difficult for the company to hire such people and they may assign the work to an existing employee. This shuts out the very people capitalism could most help.”
When “industry” pays every person for their share of sustainably managed natural resources used in conducting their business, every person will receive a basic income, or minimum wage providing a minimal ration of the necessities of life. Given a basic income means that workers are no longer enslaved to buy back the resources stolen from them, I would concede that there should be no requirement for minimum wage laws. Indeed, people should be allowed to work voluntarily for non-monetary reward, if they so desire.
“Let me give you an example of capitalism at play in China. Are you aware that China is the largest consumer and producer of tobacco. More than 70% of its economy depends on tobacco, not withstanding its huge exports. Chinese government does not want to ban cigarettes or any regulation what so ever on the tobacco industry because it will destabilize its economy. As a result, china is heading towards a huge health crisis. This is what I can unfettered capitalism at its worse.”
I can’t believe that 70% figure. It is insanely impossible. It totally destroys the credibility of this anti-capitalist commentator.
“You are wrong in calling China an unfettered capitalist state. In fact, it is diametrically the opposite. It’s a State corporation–a command economy, with a small but powerful group of Party bureaucrats taking the major national decisions.”
So China has already reached the pinnacle of corporate capitalism! Did these guys never play Monopoly? The biggest corporation always wins. China Inc hopes to beat the other command economies, er, transnational corporations, at their own game. It would be a hopeless dream for any individual starting this late in the game. By failing to heed the warnings of Adam Smith and others, we are at the stage where the individual is being assimilated into the global corporate collective.
“As far as a health crisis goes, usually the problem is that the government is left footing the bill, and therefore it deems it necessary to control people’s lives in order to reduce its costs. But government should not be in the health care business any more than it should be in the tobacco business, and should not be telling people what to do to avert a crisis of its own making (because it should not be providing health care in the first place). So really, the problem is not capitalism, but the areas where capitalism is *not* in operation, such as government-provided health care.”
This guy has fully rationalised his drug dealing enterprises. If people are stupid then let them all die! Plenty more suckers where they came from. The Nanny State should get out of the road traffic business too. No traffic lights, stop signs, pedestrian crossings, speed restrictions nor road rules, for that matter. It is a basic violation of human rights to tell people what side of the road to drive on or how fast. In fact there should be no public roads, they should all be private property with “keep out” signs and automated machine guns for those who don’t pay the demanded fees. Road maintenance will be unnecessary because most vehicles will evolve quite naturally into military tanks, to help drivers resolve disputes such as who goes first. If its not already private property, its mine, or it doesn’t exist!
“In fact, under true capitalism, the pollution of rivers and air that is now commonly cited as a failure of capitalism would have never occurred, because there would be laws to properly protect private property (and most or all property would be privately owned).
If damage due to global warming can be scientifically proven in a court of law, then damages should be awarded to the plaintiff to compensate for it. On a global scale, governments should permit such lawsuits to be filed by foreigners. The problem as I see it is that most societies have totally lost sight of a just notion of what such damage means, are either beholden to corporations or are hostile to the, and would therefore either be too lenient or too harsh, for example by awarding damages where no real damage had actually occurred. But, that’s the risk. That is the method that would be applied under laissez-faire.”
Of course. I see. All natural resources would be privately owned. Like I said, if its not already private property, its mine! The atmosphere, the oceans, the sun, moon and stars, all mine, mine, mine – or else you will all get nuked! So shut up. I’m the craziest bastard the planet has ever known. It is all mine, mine mine – or I’ll blow it all up! – so you can’t have any of it. I will do it too – I will – just try me.
Sign all the legal stuff by 5pm on Friday or there’ll be no more weekends for anybody. Yep. Private property is the way to go – for everything. Suits me just fine.
OK. Well, thank you governments of the world. I knew you’d see sense. As owner of the atmosphere, I instruct you to cease dumping your waste into my property forthwith. You can expect to be sued for past pollution and, not only that, I demand restitution. You will remove the last 150 years of accumulated greenhouse gas emissions over the period of the next ten years, otherwise you will forfeit all your lands as well as the planets oceans. As you can see, by serving my own interest, I am promoting interests of society in general.
Oh no! Now I read that same old climate change denial claptrap. Must have got a high score in catechism class, this one. Another borg assimilated into the corporate collective.
R2
(beware of imitations)