From: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold)
Subject: Re: A minor problem
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1993 01:43:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1992Dec28.224022.21655@ils.nwu.edu>, engber@ils.nwu.edu (Mike Engber) writes:
|> 
|> Apart from the problems of whether people could stand by while others
|> starve, etc ... (which I think they would (do)) - I see some other
|> problems with rigid capitalism:
|> 
|> Let me preface my remarks by saying I've only read Shrugged, Fountainhead,
|> and Anthem - so if these issues have been dealt with elsewhere I would
|> not have heard of it.
|> 
|> 1) limited resources - there seems to be a tacit assumption of a world
|> with unlimited natural resources to exploit.  This is not the case and
|> the q becomes how to allocate what is there. I think any equitable soln
|> would sort of force some non-objectivist ideas into the society.

	In general, technology vastly expands the resources available.  Two
centuries ago, who would have ever believed that the earth could produce as much
food as it does?  Nobody!  We have ample food today (as comparedto the EXTREMELY
frequent famines of a century ago) because of free market profit-seeking
principles.  The free market, in effect, CREATES, INVENTS new resources.

|> 2) Environmental issues - I don't see environmental concern arising
|> naturally from capitalistic goals (or at least until the environment is
|> way too polluted to recover)

	My theory on the environment is this: nothing can be done to the
environment that will harm the life, liberty or property of individuals.  Any
act which will can (and should) be banned.  I am not an advocate of anarchy, and
I do not oppose government or government regulation per se; I merely oppose, for
example, government forbidding someone from doing something on his property which
will hurt no one, enslave no one, and damage nobody's property, simply because
the government hapens to feel like making such a rule.

|> 3) Free trade - Rand also assumes that in a free market ideas would be
|> judged soley on their merit, the best products would outsell the poor
|> ones, ... Unfortunately, we've seen that companies tend to collaborate
|> to fix prices, squeeze out new competitors, ... While idealists like
|> John Galt would never resort to such tactics, they are a reality and
|> don't see any way of stopping them w/o external regulation.

	Suppose companies A and B collaborate to fix prices at an abnormally high
level.  Wouldn't people buy company C's product?  Ah, you say, but suppose A, B
and C ALL got together and collaborated?  Well, then, if a profit could be made
selling the same item for less, I'd expect to see the formation of company D.
	Now, A, B and C might try to drive D out of business.  To do so, they'd
have to lower their prices below D's price.  Then, you'd agree, consumers are
getting a good deal.  Then D goes out of business and A, B and C raise their
prices again.  But pretty soon company E would come along and A, B and
C would have to lower their prices again.  The point is this: in a free market,
no company can keep its prices artificially high for very long.
	Suppose A, B and C formed ABC incorporated, a railroad company.  Suppose
they raised their prices sky-high.  You'd agree, wouldn't you, that some
consumers will realize that they really don't need to travel so much or ship so
much cargo after all?  And some consumers would start using trucks or airplanes
or boats.  So the railroad would STILL lose money.
	It all comes down to this: in a free market with no government
intervention, prices will tend to remain at a level suitable for a producer to
make a product and sell it at a reasonable profit.  While this will vary
slightly, in general overpricing and underpricing are not long-term propositions.

|> In general, the underlying problem I see is that just following the
|> principle of maximizing profits (making money, whatever you want to
|> call it) isn't enough to create a continually thriving society. There
|> will always be some way of making a quick buck at the expense of
|> someone else (the environment, future generations, ...)

	That is precisely what government is for.  If the "expense" you're
talking about involves taking somebody's life, liberty or property without their
consent, government can and must prevent that.

Steve
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism