And for many of the same reasons, it gives a sense of surety in an uncertain world, it provides a sense of tribal belonging and ready-made membership in a like-minded community.
That said, I find it somewhat creepy to base one's life around a work of fiction.
Is it necessarily false? I mean, yes, of course it's false for the people who use the book like a cult icon, but think about the countless people who read it and got from it the moral of "it's okay to do what you feel is right, even when other people may disagree, because in the end you should trust your own feelings first and foremost." That's a very healthy thought, and it's one that I've never seen illustrated as clearly as it is in Rand's two books.
I agree that you can come away from the book with that message (much more so with The Fountainhead). But the much more explicit one, I think, is Objectivism. :)
Though I now disagree with her philosophy, I do think she wrote inspiringly about some of her heroes. Roark and Rearden were always my favorite of the bunch.
(Not trying to be rhetoric, but a honest question ever since I encountered Rand's works)
If, as a society, everyone is a "Value Creator", will we still require a government? What would be the job of the government then?
"gives a false sense of moral certainty derived from an elitist denial of social complexity" - what kind of complexity are we talking about here? Is it the reality that not everyone is a "Value Creator" or the reality of difference in the level of Value they create?
> If, as a society, everyone is a "Value Creator", will we still require a government?
If everyone created value by Rand's standards, were highly rational and reasonable, did not destroy value, and were otherwise law-abiding (or simply moral) citizens, then you might not need government, or at least a very minimal one. We're incredibly far off from such a world, however (assuming it's even possible), so we at least need military protection, law enforcement, adjudication, etc. A great deal of people, even if law-abiding, aren't living up to their potential for a variety of reasons (many having to do with circumstance and not choice), and so other functions of government have been created to deal with that (with varying success). Other functions include dealing with collective action problems, financing academic research, and other things I'm likely forgetting.
> what kind of complexity are we talking about here? Is it the reality that not everyone is a "Value Creator" or the reality of difference in the level of Value they create?
I mean the complexity of why many people aren't the productive juggernauts we would like them to be. I bought into Rand's picture of the world when I was introduced to her books, but over time, through constant checking of assumptions, realized that she was being grossly uncharitable towards the unproductive, content simply to label them as villains (which is why she's able to justify abandoning them). This, incidentally, has the self-reinforcing side effect of motivating aspiring John Galts to work even harder as a way of defining themselves in contrast to such villainy. Contempt for the unproductive is a limitless source of motivating juice. (That was my experience, anyway. Wish I still had access to it!)
Whatever its faults, I feel Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers gives a pretty good idea of the (often unintentional) social processes and historical contingencies that keep people from living up to their potential.
From an article previously linked on HN:
This time, he’s talking about a very serious academic concept, devised by the psychologist James Flynn (“One of my heroes,” Gladwell says, swooning), called the human capitalization rate, or “cap rate,” which, Gladwell explains, “refers to the rate at which a given community capitalizes on the human potential of those in its midst.” In the United States, Gladwell is sad to report, “cap rates are really low” owing to poverty, stupidity, and culture.
Funny, because (as an older article said) Gladwell is Rand's idea of a villain and vice-versa. They've both got flaws, but Gladwell in particular likes to coin phrases and say things that are easy for others to parrot, and this cap rates thing is among them.
This is the country that has spawned the richest people on the planet, many of them from very lowly backgrounds. The most influential web sites on the planet came from the
United States. The greatest TV shows I've seen were all but one American, and the one - The Office - managed to at least win Ricky Gervais an Emmy once he brought it over here. Ditto greatest movies. In almost every field, America has got at least a distinctive presence. So obviously some people are escaping the stupid, impoverished culture.
I think that in Atlas Rand does abandon villains, but I feel that's because she's relying on her readers to have read The Fountainhead so we can already understand their justifications. In that earlier book, she spends a lot of time treating her villains with sympathy. She tries to explain why they are what they are. And while I agree that she does simplify in Atlas, I've absolutely met people who have similar mindsets to the villains from The Fountainhead - she's not just making up that type of person, and they often are as vile and as insignificant as she paints them to be.
> They've both got flaws, but Gladwell in particular likes to coin phrases and say things that are easy for others to parrot, and this cap rates thing is among them.
He does make it easy for people to parrot things. But the human capitalization rate is a genuinely valuable concept. I read an article recently (possibly here?) about someone working on glasses that the users could adjust themselves, eliminating the need for an optometrist. He's trying to get these distributed on a really wide scale in countries which are too poor to afford optometry, because failing eyesight stops a great many from being able to work.
> So obviously some people are escaping the stupid, impoverished culture.
Individuals definitely do rise up from poverty, but that's a sociological rarity. Most people who grow up poor among other poor folks are indoctrinated into the idea that this is just how it is. It's extremely rare to find a poor person who's able to step back from all that and defiantly work his way up.
> I think that in Atlas Rand does abandon villains, but I feel that's because she's relying on her readers to have read The Fountainhead so we can already understand their justifications.
It's been a while since I read Fountainhead, but the only prominent villains I remember are Keating and Toohey. They seemed to be remarkably capable men, but Keating sabotaged his potential by constantly seeking others' approval. Toohey, I guess, was supposed to be the apotheosis of that mindset.
I'm thinking more about, say, the jaded bum from Atlas Shrugged, or the workers who don't have a love of what they do and aren't highly competent at it. Rand seems pretty happy to just treat them all with contempt, rather than understand where they're coming from and why.
>> In the United States, Gladwell is sad to report, cap rates are really low owing to poverty, stupidity, and culture.
Yes, that would explain why we're one of the wealthiest societies that have ever existed. </sarcasm>
As for stupidity in our society: there are many Americans who like to publically preen with a statement of the form "In our culture, we are so " + <negative social attribute>. The clear intent is to make the speaker seem simultaneously knowledgable enough about other cultures to make a fair comparison and slightly daring -- nay, a latter day Solzhenitsyn, such is one's daring.
That's not the stupid part, just boring vanity. The stupid part is those people who buy into it. Few of these people have ever lived in other societies (I've lived in two.)
Note: Rand doesn't care how productive someone is, only that he/she attempts to actually be productive. Obviously there is great variation in how productive (in an absolute and economic sense) that individual humans can be. The point is that some people strive to produce while some strive to take power over others.
Right, but there are also many who are simply discouraged from striving at all, possibly jaded. Rand never considers the forces behind this fact: she simply casts them as villains.
Reading the first half of the comment, I was about to ask why people are the way they are, but your reference to Outliers stopped me. Thanks. I will have a look at Outliers.
There would still be honest misunderstandings between people that might require a court to resolve, or at least the possibility of going to court to encourage a settlement.
Also, you would still need a military unless the whole world was also on board.
God, that's kind of despicable. I'm no Objectivist, but there's a big freaking difference between a work of superstition and one of reason and logic. Whether you agree with Rand's premises, you must have had no exposure to her writing if you don't recognize her brilliance. She's not all right, but she's not wrong about everything either: The government confiscates citizens' money at the point of a gun.
The government confiscates citizens money at the point of a gun, and at least some of it goes to frivolous spending, and that's nothing but waste - and that's Ayn Rands premise which you said nothing to counter.
It could be. I have friends who live in Costa Rica, and, deriving their income from outside CR, need pay no taxes. They talk pretty often about how great it is there. :)
Okay, if your problem is with the benefits, say so. It's not clear to me that there are any benefits that are actually exclusive to taxed funds. I'd be willing to consider defense against invasion, but I'm not even sure, there.
Well, given that the parent comment is "Why don't you find a place where you don't have to pay taxes? Would it be as nice to live in as the US?", it seems a tad disingenuous to use people who don't pay taxes in a country where everyone else does as an example...they are still recieving the benefits (if any) of taxation.
...any given nation would be nicer, with no income- (including capital-gains) or consumption- taxes.
.
if the tax rate tends towards zero percent, its influence on the decisions taken by persons affected tends to be negligible.
...
less taxation, and, in addition, less distortionary taxation is desirable. Several studies even demonstrate that, from the point of view of maximizing economic growth, the long-run optimal taxation is zero. Milesi-Ferretti and Roubini (1994), for instance, show that under very general assumptions the optimal tax burden on labour and capital income is zero. Jones, Manuelli and Rossi (1993b) and Bull (1993) add that even consumption taxes ought to be equal to zero
Do you agree with that quote? Do you think "less distortionary taxation" is a reasonable price to pay for, say, no public grade schools, especially in at-risk communities?
Atlas Shrugged, was fortunate enough not to have centuries where you were ostracized (and possibly killed) if you disagreed.
Although both sides have some hardcore followers who blindly defend their side regardless of practicality, they both offer value if approached with rationality... and countless opportunities to enter arguments online that go absolutely nowhere.
Objectivism was still a cult, and one had to agree 100% with Rand, or be excommunicated. Objectivism ultimately became what is called "the unlikiest cult." Disagreeing with Rand was tantamount to heresy - much like disagreeing with L. Ron Hubbard is considered heresy in Scientology.
> The cultic flaw in Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism is not in the use of reason, or in the emphasis on individuality, or in the belief that humans are self motivated, or in the conviction that capitalism is the ideal system. The fallacy in Objectivism is the belief that absolute knowledge and final Truths are attainable through reason, and therefore there can be absolute right and wrong knowledge, and absolute moral and immoral thought and action. For Objectivists, once a principle has been discovered through reason to be True, that is the end of the discussion. If you disagree with the principle, then your reasoning is flawed. If your reasoning is flawed it can be corrected, but if it is not, you remain flawed and do not belong in the group. Excommunication is the final step for such unreformed heretics.
> Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. In effect, she declared, "It's all or nothing." Now this is a rather curious view, if you think about it. What she was saying, translated into simple English, is: Everything I have to say in the field of philosophy is true, absolutely true, and therefore any departure necessarily leads you into error. Don't try to mix your irrational fantasies with my immutable truths. This insistence turned Ayn Rand's philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path.
Nathaniel Branden was Rand's lover (while Rand was cheating on her husband) and the #2 person in Objectivism, until he got caught cheating on Rand and then excommunicated. Any member of Objectivism that refused to shun Branden (including members of his family) were likewise excommunicated.
Calling the bible fiction is something I'd consider taboo in a lot of the world still, unfortunately. Your, "I probably shouldn't say this" just reminded me of the essay.
It's not altruism if you benefit from the results.
It was in Rand's best interests to influence as many people as possible, since she promotes a system of logic and selfishness to better people. If people subscribe to her theory of belief, she gains as much as they do.
No. A rich executive loses a whole bunch of money. He "lost a lot for himself", but he was acting from selfish motives, like the search for more money.
"Selfish" goes to motivation, not consequences. Depending on the amount of pessimism in your dogma, you can always interpret actions as selfish or altruistic after the fact.
Reasoning that can create two equal and opposite arguments like this doesn't mean anything.
