Speak for Yourself, Fall/Winter 2009

The Facts of Seinfeld
 
David Kelley’s “Facts of Life” article [TNI, Summer 2009] is one superb piece. But there’s a missing segment in the chain he constructs; he goes from sex to profits to pastrami, but esthetically it would be nice to turn this into a full circle by linking pastrami back to sex.

How to do that?  Via Seinfeld, of course:

“Vivian: …. I find the pastrami to be the most sensual of all the salted cured meats. Hungry?

“George: Very.

[They kiss and fall down to the floor.]”

-Sam Kazman
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Washington, D.C.
 
“Thank You”
 
Thank you for revealing new conceptual vistas. My life was improved by reading Amanda Erickson’s “Fashion Forward” and the point-counterpoint between David Kelley and Roger Donway on the analogy of life as entrepreneurship. Better than meeting a yet another conservative politician (or conservative dimwit) or excoriating the presidential administration of the moment, those two pieces provided me an opportunity to enjoy what I had not previously considered. I look forward to other innovations in future issues of The New Individualist.
 
-Michael E. Marotta
Ann Arbor, MI
 
Laurie Rice misses the point of conscious capitalism [“All in Favor Say 'I'”, The New Individualist, Summer 2009]. We really do believe in the morality of markets and fully recognize the right of entrepreneurs to work solely for their own benefit. However, in our relatively affluent society, there are many entrepreneurs and employees for whom this is not enough. They see social problems that need solving and instead of looking to the government or to non-profits, believe that business can find workable solutions better and faster. Because business is subject to market forces, it is more efficient than the government or NGOs. Because business is voluntary, it is more just than government solutions. Because business actually creates value rather than redistributing wealth like government or NGOs, it is the only financially sustainable way to achieve lasting technological progress and prosperity. Conscious capitalists do not care to force our idea of “the good” on anyone else. Let those who have a vision create it and let the marketplace decide. How can Objectivists object to that?
 
-Susan Niederhoffer
FLOW board member
New York, New York
 
The author responds: 

I’d like to thank Susan Niederhoffer both for her thoughtful response to my article and for this opportunity to clarify my perspective.

I have no doubt that the FLOW organization “fully recognize[s] the right of entrepreneurs to work solely for their own benefit.” Specifically, I understand that FLOW supports property rights, the individual as a legal unit, and limited government interference in the free market. I’ve seen FLOW’s “entrepreneurial toolkit” and their endorsement of Hernando De Soto’s work. In short, I agree that conscious capitalism is, in fact, capitalism. And to that degree, I’m actually very excited about FLOW’s ability to spur public enthusiasm for the benefits of a free market.

However, the political is intricately tied to the moral, and in my article I critiqued the moral framework of FLOW as a worldview. In Michael Strong’s Be The Solution and in articles on the FLOW website, I found conflicting messages about the justification of capitalism and the ultimate goals of this program. Some of these messages align with individualism, and others absolutely point to altruism and collectivism. I cited some examples of the latter in my article, but we can also find the ambivalence right here in Ms. Niederhoffer’s letter. What about working for one’s own benefit is not “enough”? Is it not moral enough? Not spiritual enough? Like standard formulations of altruism, FLOW packages self-interest with a philosophy of materialism. The presumable alternative that FLOW offers is to work for the benefit of others, or for the benefit of a human collective.
In “All In Favor, Say I,” I said that FLOW sought to politically liberate in order to “morally re-harness.” This was putting it too strongly—persuasion is not a harness that controls a person. I don’t think that conscious capitalists care to force their idea of “the good” on anyone else. But I do think that FLOW builds the conception of “the good” on certain premises of collectivism. And I object to that.   

-Laurie Rice