tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post5387340541380117203..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Objectivism & Economics, Part 17Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-63305772008349365142009-01-27T12:35:00.000-08:002009-01-27T12:35:00.000-08:00"Because, in Thomas Sowell's terminology, Objectiv..."Because, in Thomas Sowell's terminology, Objectivists have an 'unconstrained vision' of human nature,"<BR/><BR/>Yes, that's quite true, but Rand's unconstrained vision is particularly unique in that, unlike most who share this vision, she was neither an anarchist nor a socialist. This gives her a near monopoly on all those who have an unconstrained vision but who can't bring themselves to be either socialists or anarchists.<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, Sowell mentions Rand in his <EM>Conflicts of Vision</EM>, indicating he doesn't know whether Rand embraced an constrained or unconstrained vision. Yet I believe Michael is right: Rand clearly embraced the unconstrained vision, as any examination of her views of human nature and history will easily demonstrate.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-57165283911068045462009-01-27T07:58:00.000-08:002009-01-27T07:58:00.000-08:00Michael,I just started reading A Conflict of Visio...Michael,<BR/><BR/>I just started reading <I>A Conflict of Visions</I>. Always enjoyed Sowell's columns and articles and this should be an interesting challenge to my thinking.JayCrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15565955869872328326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-44172379638015478722009-01-26T19:56:00.000-08:002009-01-26T19:56:00.000-08:00Why do the Objectivists want us to continually re-...<I>Why do the Objectivists want us to continually re-challenge previously established conventions of society?</I><BR/><BR/>Because, in Thomas Sowell's terminology, Objectivists have an "unconstrained vision" of human nature, as opposed to the "constrained vision" that would acknowledge the limitations of intellectual theorizing. <BR/><BR/><I>Surely our past experiences are valid incorporations into our legal corpus. </I><BR/><BR/>Yes, if we have the humility to recognize that the sum of shared human experience trumps the cerebrations of any one mind (or even a select group of minds), no matter how brilliant. But Objectivists, besotted with the unconstrained vision, refuse to see this. <BR/><BR/>Sowell's seminal work <I>A Conflict of Visions</I> works out this thesis in fascinating detail.Michael Prescotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963295565160636175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-76040799902032414572009-01-25T21:33:00.000-08:002009-01-25T21:33:00.000-08:00The argument over whether or not sensible regulati...The argument over whether or not sensible regulation is required is a very tired one indeed. <BR/><BR/>I am curious about the basis of this assertion: "In an unfettered free market the desire for profit is satisfied by honest, long-range, rational behavior"<BR/><BR/>Is this meant to include ALL market participants? How is this ensured? Surely perpetrators of fraud will always exist. <BR/><BR/>The tacit implication seems to be that if the market is unfettered such a fantastic amount of wealth will be created and this will ensure everyone has a satisfactory piece of the pie and no one will be reduced to fraudulent activity. This hardly seems plausible. <BR/><BR/>"It is the transparency and integrity of American financial markets that has made them such a magnet for foreign investment… That hard-won reputation was, to a great extent, the consequence of generally superb American market regulations, epitomized by the SEC"<BR/><BR/>Just as capitalism requires sound conduct of monetary policy our stock markets require regulatory action to ensure investors have the highest degree of certainty possible. Certainty that they will be as best possible protected against fraud and pernicious business practices. <BR/><BR/>Its a very good point that this safety brought by regulation would create markets more conducive to growth than "unfettered free-markets" wild and fraught with potential for disasters of fraud and speculation. <BR/><BR/>Our legal / regulatory structures have evolved out of a need for this type of regulation, taking a step backwards towards deregulation hardly seems intelligent. <BR/><BR/>Court cases create precedents that help create needed laws to eliminate the need for further redundant court cases, reducing the stress on the legal system and on society. Especially beneficial for those who lack money for court representation and rely on the State to ensure their basic rights are defended. <BR/><BR/>Why do the Objectivists want us to continually re-challenge previously established conventions of society? Surely our past experiences are valid incorporations into our legal corpus. Can they be proved otherwise? Damaging? Restrictive to prosperity? <BR/><BR/>George Soros in his "New Paradigm For Financial Markets" clearly lays the blame for the sub-prime debacle right at Greenspans feet and his "Ayn Rand inspired political views". <BR/><BR/>Rational self interest does NOT regulate effectively and markets do NOT trend towards equilibrium.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com