Ayn Rand's critique of antitrust laws and free market economics
This paper analyses two articles both dealing with the law. In the first paper the law on causation and liability is discussed based on the provided article. The law is discussed with the various way it is applicable been mentioned. In the second article the law in regards to wealth and its distribution is discussed. Finally, the paper provides argument in support for the first article.
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
¶ … Ayn Rand, "Antitrust: The Rule Unreason" alleged purpose Antitrust laws protect competition; purpose-based socialistic fallacy a free, unregulated market inevitably lead establishment coercive monopolies.
Remarks on Causation and Liability
This reading discusses the relationship between conduct and result. This mainly refers to an injury afflicted to a person because of negligence by another person. The writer specifies that an individual should be compensated for any injury they suffer that is directly caused by another individual's negligence Thomson, 1984.
The direct cause of injury might not be easily identified especially if there are two or more parties involved, but if the individual can prove that all parties were negligent then the parties should pay for the damages. The probability of negligence determines the percentage of payment by each party. The legal system is mainly concerned with justice and fairness. In the case presented in the paper, the plaintiff is injured, and there is no way for them to prove who caused the injury. The plaintiff sues the two people and the courts award him damages where each individual has the probability of causing the injury. The court determines that the plaintiff does in fact, have a right to be compensated and because there is no way to determine who caused the injury both parties had to compensate the plaintiff equally Braham & Hees, 2009()
The reading tries to establish the relationship between causation and liability. The writer provides different scenarios that would make it easy to understand how causation of an event would lead to the liability. For a defendant to be found negligent, they must have acted willingly and knowingly in a negligent manner. The writer continues to demonstrate that not all negligence could lead to liability. The negligence has to be directly related to the injury suffered. A plaintiff cannot sue an individual merely because they were negligent. The individual's negligence has to result in injury to the plaintiff for there to be causation that leads to a liability.
Argument for causation and liability
In the first reading, the piece demonstrates that any negligence that leads to injury should be compensated. A person who causes injury to them self would not demand for compensation from another party Robert Lussier & Herbert Sherman, 2009.
This is because the other party was not liable for the injury. In case, an individual's negligence results in the injury of a person, the person injured needs to be compensated for the injury by the person who caused the injury. The compensation would cover for the damages incurred by the injury. This is the just and fair way in any society. The failure to compensate the injured would result in a negligent society that does not care for the welfare of others. People would be causing injury to each other without care as they would not be lawfully accountable for their actions. Associating causal effect with liability ensures that individuals are held liable for their actions. In this way, people would be less negligent as they would know that any harm they cause because of their negligence would result in legal action. If the injured is able to prove the defendant did in fact, cause the harm due to their negligence, then the defendant is liable to pay for the individual's damages.
The two articles are very different in the message they deliver, but they both deal with different matter of the law. The articles are written in different situations, and they both handle the law charged with the overall topic. The articles provide different scenarios in their attempt to provide the basis of the argument for and against the laws the writers discuss. This way a reader is able to understand the topic in a more broader manner.
Create your account
- Braham, M., & Hees, M. v. (2009). Degrees of Causation. Erkenntnis (1975-), 71(3), 323-344. doi: 10.2307/40267440
- Carnegie, A. (1889). Wealth. The North American Review, 148(391), 653-664. doi: 10.2307/25101798
- Robert Lussier & Herbert Sherman. (2009). Business, Society and Government Essentials: An Applied Ethics Approach. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.
- Thomson, J. J. (1984). Remarks on Causation and Liability. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 13(2), 101-133. doi: 10.2307/2265272
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.