FEE: Ayn Rand Predicts its Intellectual Bankruptcy
FEE or the Foundation for Economic Education has proven to be intellectually bankrupt. For instance, their position against patents and Intellectual property shows that they do not understand property rights or rights generally. They also revere the work of the philosopher David Hume, who argued “cause and effect” does not exist, induction is just correlation, and that a rational ethics is not possible (the so-called is-ought problem). This means that Hume undermined reason, science and ethics. Despite this FEE thinks Hume is a great guy. FEE also promotes Matt Ridley who denigrates human achievement in science and engineering, calling Nobel Laurites in science and inventors frauds, for more click here.
The hand waving of Rand and Peikoff about modern physics and other philosophers is pathetic.
You refuse to acknowledge independent invention which is the philosophical weak link in the property rights argument to the fruit of your own intellectual labor. Note, I am not saying simultaneous, simply independent.
I am saying "right" IS the object, not the right TO an object.
She in no way contradicts me: a right to action, then is the "object" required to carry out that action.
The reason they do not have those rights, is because those "rights" endanger others, or society at large.
I'm looking at a "right" as an achievable and praiseworthy goal. It is related to individualism, or the individual ability to attain "that which is necessary for a full life.,"
Only this; America will not be taking the leadership role in those improvements.
And of course she couldn't talk about the science of economics as she had no training in it.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I sometimes feel that Objectivists take everything Rand has said or written as Gospel truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-V_HK...
For example, the course title of the master's class I took in global macroeconomics was "International Finance", the professor explaining it was a "pragmatic approach to global macroeconomic theory". A very intelligent friend of mine told me that that had to be an oxymoron.
I was referring to "intellectual capital", not intellectual capitalism, a phrase which seems meaningless to me.
Before we commence an argument, we should define terms. For instance, you probably have a different interpretation of what a "sound business decision" is, than I do.
For example, running a business into the ground in order to either achieve rapid growth or perhaps "gut" the company, is not "sound". (Look up Billy Durant and the history of General Motors. Generally speaking shareholders, the actual owners of corporate property, should want to protect their rights, but rarely do. I would consider this a countervailing power to control by a directorate.)
John D. Rockefeller's "business practices" were neither "sound" nor moral, and resulted in MORE government regulation, not less.
Credit Mobilier of America, again, was neither "sound" nor moral.
Bernie Madoff was not interested in playing a game; he was a crook, pure and simple.
Can you give me a brief precis of your book, "Source of Economic Growth"?
Then we can establish "rules of argument".
Unfortunately, there are no schools or sciences of economics that are right or consistent with Objectivism. I have developed one. My book Source of Economic Growth lays the foundation and I have a series of blog posts under the tag of "intellectual capitalism" that explain other aspects.
Answer: None. They all stand around and wait for the Invisible Hand to do it.
Don't get the idea I am a Keynesian economist from that post.
Instead of my explaining again why I believe she felt all businessmen made sound business decisions, maybe you can tell me where she ever said otherwise.
A quote from Alice in wonderland.
“Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!”
Load more comments...