5 ms·

> it gives a sense of surety in an uncertain world In particular, a false sense of moral certainty derived from an elitist denial of social complexity.

by _5y6p 18y ago

ananthrk 18y ago
(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?
- walterk 18y ago
  > 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. http://nymag.com/arts/books/features/52014/index5.html http://nymag.com/arts/books/features/52014/index5.html
  - ananthrk 18y ago
    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.
  - miked 18y ago
    >> 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.)
    - walterk 18y ago
      There is preening, and there is criticism. Some combine both, and I agree, it's pretty silly.
  - mmmurf 18y ago
    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.
    - walterk 18y ago
      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.
- JeffL 18y ago
  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.
unalone 18y ago
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.
- walterk 18y ago
  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.

> it gives a sense of surety in an uncertain world In particular, a false sense of moral certainty derived from an elitist denial of social complexity.

by _5y6p 18y ago

> it gives a sense of surety in an uncertain world In particular, a false sense of moral certainty derived from an elitist denial of social complexity.

ananthrk 18y ago

(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?

walterk 18y ago
> 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. http://nymag.com/arts/books/features/52014/index5.html http://nymag.com/arts/books/features/52014/index5.html
- ananthrk 18y ago
  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.
- miked 18y ago
  >> 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.)
  - walterk 18y ago
    There is preening, and there is criticism. Some combine both, and I agree, it's pretty silly.
- mmmurf 18y ago
  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.
  - walterk 18y ago
    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.
JeffL 18y ago
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.

unalone 18y ago

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.

walterk 18y ago
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.