trc@houti.UUCP (T.CRAVER) (08/16/83)
Response to Randy Haskins: I believe that you are mistaking the condition of rationality for the capability to be rational. Failing to be 100% rational does not mean that someone is irrational - any more than failing to be 100% irrational means that someone is rational. Think of "rationality" as a measurable quantity - like "fullness of a glass". A glass can only be so full, before it is called "completely full" - but that does not mean it is called empty if it is less than full. Objectivism holds continuous rationality to be an achievable ideal, but does not ignore the fact that people are not always rational. Laissez-faire capitalism would no more cause cancer than mothers do - after all, its mommy that buys the PJ's and makes the kids wear them to bed. Should mothers be banned? No, in fact, any reasonable mother will simply refuse to buy cancer causing pajamas - which is also the answer to your question "So what is the consumers recourse?". And in the long-run, (with sufficient information - as from "Consumer Reports") customers might suspect the company, with the probable result that the company would fold, and other companies will be more careful. Laissez-faire capitalism will *work* even if only a minority of people are rational - so long as the others are not given power to interfere with the rational minority. However, if a vast majority accept irrational ideas, laissez-faire will not be allowed to *survive* long - because under it, those who are rational will benefit greatly, while those that are less rational will benefit less (quantitatively - but as "return on investment of thought", they get a partially free ride from the more rational"). Since the irrational people do not understand the source of the benefits gained, they will be susceptible ot the idea that they have somehow been unfairly exploited. Of course, the more rational the people, the better the system works. Tom Craver houti!trc
wex@ittvax.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat) (08/17/83)
Hmm. Tom makes an interesting point: the ability to be rational is not the same as the use of that ability. But that still leaves me with an unanswered question: if all people have the same ability-to-be-rational (by virtue of being humans), how can differences of opinion on rationality occur? For example: i think that it is very irrational to produce waste products which no one doubts will be deadly for more than 200,000 years. I think it is even more irrational to produce these wastes when we have no acceptably safe means of disposing of them. I think it is even more irrational to think of trying to store something for a period of time that is approximately 100 times as long as modern civilization has existed! I find that a large number of people agree with me. Yet many do not! They see nothing irrational in any of the above, and they may even accuse me of having irrational fears. How does this occur, and how can it be resolved (in general, not just this specific case)? --Alan Wexelblat decvax!ittvax!wex
rh@mit-eddie.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (08/17/83)
Despite the fact that I consider myself rational, I cannot be
convinced that LF capitalism is a good thing. For one, if the
government didn't step in, we would NEVER be able to find out
if Tryst caused cancer, or if saccharine caused cancer, or
if Agent Orange caused cancer.
So, do you want to tell the poor child in the ghetto (who
developed cancer from wearing pajamas that contained Tryst):
"I'm sorry you have cancer, but it's your fault for not
reading Consumer Reports. You couldn't read? Well, it's your
mother's fault for not being educated enough to read Consumer
Reports. She can read? Well, why didn't she read it? She didn't
have enough time because she was too busy trying to bring home
enough money to feed you? Well, I can't be responsible for the
fact that your mother isn't rational enough to work and have time
to read everything she needs to know in order to survive in this
complex Objectivist world."
Life's tough if you're not rational.
--
Randwulf
(Randy Haskins); Path= genrad!mit-eddie!rh or... rh@mit-ee (via mit-mc)sts@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stanley T Shebs) (08/17/83)
Mr. Craver now claims that laissez-faire capitalism will work if only a few people behave rationally, because they will be the ones in control. This is why all owners of large businesses are scrupulously honest, and never hire lobbyists to try and get legislation to form legally enforced monopolies. This is also why the auto industry executives have always fully supported safety measures in cars. This is why defense contractors always finish on time and on budget, except in a few cases, where the company willingly takes a loss without trying to change the contract. WHY DOES TOM CRAVER ASSUME THAT NOBODY GETS INTO POWER BY USING EVERY DIRTY TRICK IN THE BOOK!!!! stan the leprechaun hacker ssc-vax!sts (soon utah-cs) ps Where's my example of the ideal rational person?