This is the thing about Ayn Rand: She does not know how to form a logical position. In all of her readings, I see conclusions, often based on events that happened to fictional characters, that we're supposed to adopt as Truths. Yet, she doesn't ever really provide a logical (IE: would stand up to analysis by a first year philosophy major) set of points to reach her conclusions.
In other words, what is the difference between her writing and the Bible? The bible draws a lot of conclusions and many people believe it, but can you argue in a court of law that men should not be allowed to shave or to eat hamburgers because the bible forbids these things?
There is no supporting evidence included in this statement. Are you sure she's not just twitching your emotions and so you're saying "Yeah, that feels true!" even though it may not be logical.
Under the antitrust laws, a man becomes a criminal from the
moment he goes into business, no matter what he does. For
instance, if he charges prices which some bureaucrats judge as
too high, he can be prosecuted for intent to monopolize; if he
charges prices lower than those of his competitors, he can be
prosecuted for "unfair competition" or "restraint of trade";
and if he
charges the same prices as his competitors, he can be
prosecuted for "collusion" or "conspiracy." There is only one
difference in the legal treatment accorded to a criminal or a businessman; the criminal's rights are protected much more
securely and objectively than the businessman's.
Dragonfly |
