10

On the Separation of State and Economics - Ayn Rand - Who's Got An Axe?

Posted by deleted 2 years, 7 months ago to Philosophy
24 comments | Share | Flag

“I am for an absolute, laissez-faire, free, unregulated economy. Let me put it briefly. I am for the separation of state and economics, just as we had separation of state and church, which led to peaceful coexistence among different religions after a period of religious wars. So, the same applies to economics. If you separate the government from economics, if you do not regulate production and trade, you will have peaceful cooperation and harmony and justice among men."

I love this. How far we are from this ideal. Where is my magic axe? I lost it. Does anyone have one? I can hear all the screaming tendrils of government and corporations being sliced in half with my stainless steel 440 carbon surgical axe. Or, just whack it down on Buy-Dem to bisect him from pate to taint and watch the two twitching halves fall down.
SOURCE URL: https://youtu.be/JjmWZZs3KZo


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ CBJ 2 years, 7 months ago
    If we truly want to separate state and economics, we first need to withdraw support for the political and legal system that creates and enables corporations.

    All modern economies have specific sets of rules for corporations — rules that are distinct from and often opposite to those for individuals and other types of organizations. These rules violate free-market norms in two major ways: they require corporations to submit to intrusive government oversight and regulation of their activities, and they give corporations special privileges that are denied to unincorporated firms or individuals.

    Corporations are brought into existence by legislative permission. They can be snuffed out of existence just as easily through government revocation of their charters. This gives governments tremendous power to regulate corporations as they see fit, and encourages corporate decision makers to seek the “friendship” of powerful government agencies and do their bidding. The result is a toxic blend of crony capitalism and a “mixed” economy, within which the marketplace is anything but free.

    Chief among corporate special privileges is “limited liability,” designed to shield owners of corporations from financial risk relating to corporate negligence or misbehavior. By granting limited liability to owners of corporations and denying it to unincorporated firms, the government is creating a double standard in the marketplace, one that favors corporations over individuals.

    These government-conferred competitive advantages permit corporations to grow larger than they would in a free market, “crowding out” other types of business organizations in the process. Eventually we arrive at an economic landscape dominated by corporate executives and their regulators, at the expense of everyone else’s freedom.

    Suing a corporation is a difficult, expensive and time-consuming process — much more so than suing another person. A corporation can easily dissolve or go bankrupt, even as its owners continue to prosper. Since corporations can own, buy, and sell one another, a privilege rightly denied to individuals, it is easy to establish a chain of corporate ownership to conceal the identity of the true owners, by setting up the controlling corporations in different domestic jurisdictions or in other countries.

    A basic Objectivist principle is that governments should not interfere with anyone’s peaceful activities, provided those activities do not violate the rights of others. This principle applies not only to individuals, but also to groups of individuals — and a corporation is simply a group of individuals who share an interlocking set of contractual relationships.

    A consistent application of this principle leads to this conclusion: any activities that are legally and morally legitimate for corporations should be equally legitimate for all other private, voluntary groups of people. Conversely, activities that violate the rights of others should be prohibited to all such groups. When it comes to legal rights and responsibilities, a free society should not treat corporations any differently from the way it treats any other privately organized groups.

    This leads to the further conclusion that there is no need or justification for “corporation” as a legal concept at all. An unincorporated business should have exactly the same standing under the law as an incorporated business in matters such as liability, reporting requirements, and recognition of contracts. Aside from protecting the rights of third parties, governments should have no say regarding any firm’s form of organization, purpose, or method of operation. Legal protections extended to corporations should be equally available to all other groups.

    Such a set of reforms, if applied consistently, would have far-reaching effects. It would do away with any reason to treat corporations as privileged legal entities. It would remove the need for a body of corporate law, separate from individual and contract law. It would render irrelevant the legal fiction of corporate personhood, along with the torturous logic needed to justify such a concept. It would bring more consistency and fairness to government policies regarding liability and secrecy. It would ensure that any legal protections given to corporate owners and agents would also extend to unincorporated individuals and groups. Taken together, these reforms would constitute a major step toward a more free economy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 2 years, 7 months ago
    I don't think you really can separate politics from economics. It's a pipe dream and here's why: Economics ultimately isn't nearly so much about the flow of goods and services as it is the personal values which drive those purchases. And values are the purview of government. People establish the governments they think will be most conducive to the protection of their way of life - whether that be a monarchy, constitutional republic, theocracy, or some blend of those.

    Now I agree that government should stay out of "managing" economies, trade, etc. But that is a societal value - not some sort of "separation." It is choice NOT to intervene based on a fundamental virtue that understands the primacy of the individual in determining their own future and having that seminal right protected jealously by government.

    We used to have such a government - or at least arguably the best in recorded history. What if our people were of such a quality of principle that they would throw the proverbial tea in the harbor if government attempted to tax it? What if our people were of the intestinal fortitude that were willing en masse to sacrifice their "sacred honor" and lives - if necessary - to reject the corruption of governing principles both at the ballot box and through conscious objection? What a glorious world that would be!

    And what would that take in practice? It would require people of all kinds and stripes to actively seek for truth above their selfish desires. To think in the long term rather than to be driven by fleeting emotion. It would require educators with a passion for these principles to instill the love of learning about truth into the hearts of the youth.

    Now is this ridiculous? Can humanity itself ever reach such an enlightened state? The prognosis at this point must seem bleak to many and is lost on many, many more. But I think we are coming to an inflection point where something will have to give. Debauchery and depravity eventually hit rock bottom. It is my hope that at such a time, many who participated will realize what a monumental mistake those choices were and turn from them. Those who reject corruption will be forced to stand up and fight.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 years, 7 months ago
      Very well put. I wonder, as the USA Ship is sinking fast, when the water is up to people's noses, will the Democrats and Republicans wake up? Or will they, as they sink under water, continue to spend their final moments of time and energy, blaming each other, instead of trying to swim.

      Some people do say, I would rather die than vote for ___. (the other side)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 2 years, 7 months ago
        Funny, but I just read an article by Larry Elder, who recently ran for Governor in California about that very thing. He met two women in a restaurant and talked with them about how they voted. All three laughed when he correctly deduced that they had voted Democrat. Then he took the time to walk them through a dozen high-profile principles and get their feeelings. They agreed with Elder 100% but admitted that they still voted for Newsom (the Democrat) simply because they couldn't get past their political affiliation.

        Such is the stupidity of the world which would choose to burn rather than step out of the fire.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by freedomforall 2 years, 7 months ago
          Universal suffrage is a very bad idea. 👍
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 2 years, 7 months ago
            There are always going to be stupid people in the world. And I differentiate between ignorant and stupid: ignorant can be cured through education. Stupid is the result of an individual allowing their emotions to choose their course of action rather than their intellect. And right now there are a LOT of stupid people in America.

            That being said, I don't necessarily believe stupidity is in and of itself a cause for curtailment of natural rights. I support the right of every tax-paying American of legal age to vote. Emphasis, however, on tax-paying. If I were able to reform the welfare system, the first condition I would make to receiving government welfare is that you surrender your right to vote as part of the penalty. I hearken back to a comment that points out the dangers of allowing those who vote money for themselves from the public coffers to control the system of government. When people who are leeches on society have control of the levers of power in such a society, they will only continue to pull on those levers - even though it means putting the brakes on economic activity and even infringes upon the rights of others. It needs to stop.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 2 years, 7 months ago
              Yes. Not voting for welfare recipients. More about that below.

              Also the voting age needs to be raised to 25. Psychologists have researched that the maximal ability of a human to place Reason over Emotion does not occur until about age 25.

              As for welfare voting...well I think government employees are welfare recipients. They can't vote either.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ blarman 2 years, 7 months ago
                "I think government employees are welfare recipients. They can't vote either."

                Non-elected ones, certainly. I am also against any public sector unions, I don't care if they're teachers, firefighters, policemen, or civil "servants," they should NOT be allowed to organize and conspire with elected policymakers to pad their own wallets.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 2 years, 7 months ago
                  IN the beginning, Unions helped people. NOW they are just raping America, and the results are obvious: The de-industrialization of America. Companies went overseas for cheap non-unionized labor. Only because the Unions went too far. Good working conditions, benefits, fine. But salary gouging, so someone can operate a screw gun for $40 an hour? No, that's gouging and that's why our roads are filled with foreign cars. Unions. Unions killed the Goose. There's a balance to be held and they went way too far.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ blarman 2 years, 7 months ago
                    I'm not convinced early unions ever helped anyone but themselves. Upton Sinclair's writings - though incredibly popular - were sensationalist and untrue. Gangsters were very active in early labor unions, using them to gather support, intimidate more people into joining the unions, and launder money.

                    That being said, public servant unions and private worker unions have one key component which makes the first a direct threat to society and the second a nuisance: their source of funds.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 2 years, 7 months ago
            Maybe voting should be a privilege instead of a right. Like a driver's license. You have to learn a few things, and not hit cars or people or you lose your license.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 2 years, 7 months ago
              There is an ongoing debate here in the Gulch about a citizenship test as a requirement for voting, ie you should be able to identify the three branches of government, the number of Senators, the length of service of each type of officer, etc. The debate isn't so much about how these things should be a standard no-brainer to anyone voting but rather the utter failure of our education system to teach these foundational items.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 2 years, 7 months ago
    I guess the statists figure they can run an economy better than the residents of the economy can. Best thing that happened to our country since 2020 is that the leftists ARE in charge, and everyone gets to see how inept they are at getting results.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 25n56il4 2 years, 7 months ago
    My gracious. You are on a tear this a.m. I applaud such enegy! When I get really disgusted, I sit at my computer and start writing. If I sent some of what I write to my publisher, I'd probably get arrested.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 2 years, 7 months ago
      Self censorship is a sign of wisdom, imo.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 2 years, 7 months ago
        The Buddhist group I used to attend was unwise. Nonstop social justice banter, after 20 minutes of meditation. I used to sit and listen. Then I sat and tuned them out. Then I wondered why am I sitting with these liberal excuses for stick-a-liberal feather-in-your-hat-and-call-it-Buddhism?

        I left. It was sad, a very liberal professor started the group, but to his credit he very cleverly enforced a rule: NO POLITICS in this group. It was really great, the guy was brilliant. Then he left to raise his family. Then the mental patients started running the asylum and soon the group topics went from What is the 2nd Precept of Buddhism, to Let's Look at Whiteness through the Lens of Buddhism. I wrote a 17 page scree email to the Socio"logy" "PhD" who brought Whiteness to the table, and she said she would have to think and get back to me. She never did.

        I can sit on a cushion in my house or in a park or in the woods. I miss the people as people, I don't miss their Bastardization of Buddhism.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo