You think I have faith in Objectivism? Funny. I thought I studied it for years, rather than just blindly accepting what Rand says. But you'll say anything to try to discredit me. Have you even read anything Rand has written? What exactly am I taking on faith?
Well... to say you've "[tried] to make sure that I understand how the facts of reality give rise to Objectivist principles" AND state that global-warming is just some secret agenda among 99% of the world's published climate scientists, as opposed to some secret agenda among thinktanks like Heartland Institute that receive millions of dollars from Exxon, BP, etc and pay off a small group of low-rank denialists.
This suggests you are rather selective of which "facts of reality" you choose to believe.
You need to go back to square one.
You also have an elementary school view of business. You've been watching too many children's movies where the bad guy was a "greedy" businessman. You honestly think businessmen sit around thinking "How many people can I murder or maim before the lawsuits cost me too much money?" I'm glad you're not trying to start your own business. Leave the production to people who understand that it's irrational to harm your employees/customers/your reputation.
You have an elementary view of my argument. I never said such a thing as a businessman making a deliberate decision to kill someone. Again, deliberately distorting an argument because you are unable to argue against what I'm actually saying.
EVERY business decision has an element of some risk, but not all decisions involve risk of human life. Life is filled with complex interactions and a small decision by a trucking company to require their driver's to place skirts behind the wheels at a nominal cost may have saved the life of one motorcyclist by having their face crushed by a rock. Those are the small things.
However, many businesses however DO make big decisions like this every day that can directly or indirectly involve the life and death of human beings, employees and regular citizens alike. Energy companies have to weigh decisions like this all the time, which could involve spending tens of millions or more for only a slight percentage of decreased risk, such as a redundant water cooling system at a nuclear plant or a dead-man's switch on an oil rig. These are increased costs with no guarantee of reward.
The problem is precisely this: In a truly competitive free market system, safety is not directly rewarded by profit. If Company A volunteers to spend $20 million on 10% increased safety to the public, but Company B gambles on not doing so, Company B will be rewarded while Company A may be forced to charge higher to cover costs - driving customers away to Company B. And either way, the public is ultimately faces the cumulative risk.
Companies have a love/hate relationship with regulation - they hate regulation when they are the monopoly (or, as proven often the case, conspired to fix prices) but they kinda love-hate it when in real market competition, as it provides a nice and somewhat competitive baseline for which these companies to weigh these costs. It also frees up capital spent on public safety, by placing it on the public. Your tax dollars to shield you and your private business from the carelessness of others. Reality is complex. Energy and money, like all things in nature, are a closed system. Everything interact. Get used to it.
And it's always the maddeningly stupidest things that lead to Fukushima & Chernobyl meltdown, Exxon & BP oil spills, etc.
Am I crystal clear enough?
Also, more truth: Ayn Rand was an opportunistic, talentless hag who based her entire philosophy on her admiration of a murderer and pedophile named William Hickman.
Well... to say you've "[tried] to make sure that I understand how the facts of reality give rise to Objectivist principles" AND state that global-warming is just some secret agenda among 99% of the world's published climate scientists, as opposed to some secret agenda among thinktanks like Heartland Institute that receive millions of dollars from Exxon, BP, etc and pay off a small group of low-rank denialists.
This suggests you are rather selective of which "facts of reality" you choose to believe.
You need to go back to square one.
You have an elementary view of my argument. I never said such a thing as a businessman making a deliberate decision to kill someone. Again, deliberately distorting an argument because you are unable to argue against what I'm actually saying.
EVERY business decision has an element of some risk, but not all decisions involve risk of human life. Life is filled with complex interactions and a small decision by a trucking company to require their driver's to place skirts behind the wheels at a nominal cost may have saved the life of one motorcyclist by having their face crushed by a rock. Those are the small things.
However, many businesses however DO make big decisions like this every day that can directly or indirectly involve the life and death of human beings, employees and regular citizens alike. Energy companies have to weigh decisions like this all the time, which could involve spending tens of millions or more for only a slight percentage of decreased risk, such as a redundant water cooling system at a nuclear plant or a dead-man's switch on an oil rig. These are increased costs with no guarantee of reward.
The problem is precisely this: In a truly competitive free market system, safety is not directly rewarded by profit. If Company A volunteers to spend $20 million on 10% increased safety to the public, but Company B gambles on not doing so, Company B will be rewarded while Company A may be forced to charge higher to cover costs - driving customers away to Company B. And either way, the public is ultimately faces the cumulative risk.
Companies have a love/hate relationship with regulation - they hate regulation when they are the monopoly (or, as proven often the case, conspired to fix prices) but they kinda love-hate it when in real market competition, as it provides a nice and somewhat competitive baseline for which these companies to weigh these costs. It also frees up capital spent on public safety, by placing it on the public. Your tax dollars to shield you and your private business from the carelessness of others. Reality is complex. Energy and money, like all things in nature, are a closed system. Everything interact. Get used to it.
And it's always the maddeningly stupidest things that lead to Fukushima & Chernobyl meltdown, Exxon & BP oil spills, etc.
Am I crystal clear enough?
Also, more truth: Ayn Rand was an opportunistic, talentless hag who based her entire philosophy on her admiration of a murderer and pedophile named William Hickman.