"Francisco's Money Speech" by Ayn Rand • Hacker News Board

Re: "Francisco's Money Speech" by Ayn Rand

#51

Post by andreyf » Sun, Mar 01, 2009, 10:56 PM UTC

allocativeeffic wrote: post #45

andreyf wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would not be so sad if he said that his goal was producing something of value, which often results in making money. If one's goal is to maximize the value humanity creates, she should probably become an elementary school teacher. If one's goal is to make money, she should get an MBA or financial degree. The former, to me, is significantly nobler.

Care to back that up?

Which part - that making money is not equivalent to creating value, or the specific example of teachers creating more value than MBA's?

Re: "Francisco's Money Speech" by Ayn Rand

#52

Post by maxharris » Sun, Mar 01, 2009, 11:05 PM UTC

jacoblyles wrote: post #35

maxharris wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about Objectivism leads to "stomach-turning results"? (Remember, I don't think we shouldn't worry about what the "average person feels is right"; we should worry about what is actually right.)

Talk to more people that disagree with you, I'm sure you can find someone that can present you with an objectivist-flavored ethical dilemma. Also, you should examine your axioms. There are many self-consistent moral systems starting with different axioms that produce different results. None of these systems is better than the others. Rather, each of these axioms represent something that humans value. They produce con…

"None of these systems is better than the others."

Not if your standard of value is your life, lived as well and for as long as possible.

I have not yet come across an ethical dilemma that would trouble an Objectivist that really knew and understood the philosophy. I can't count the number of times I've heard questions about whether or not you should try to rescue people drowning in a river during your trip to visit your dying parent(s) in the hospital, should you come across them. If that's the kind of thing that's dissuaded you from Objectivism, you didn't have a very good command of it in the first place.

What the average person feels is right is just a grab bag of altruistic junk handed down to them over the millenia. It's not necessarily true, and it's only important to understand because it's an obstacle to the betterment of man.

Re: "Francisco's Money Speech" by Ayn Rand

#53

Post by antigone » Sun, Mar 01, 2009, 11:05 PM UTC

jacoblyles wrote: post #15

maxharris wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the rest of the book seems ridiculous to you? The first time I read it, I thought that everything in Atlas Shrugged was perfect. Even with repeated readings, I never once thought anything was ridiculous. Be specific in your answer.

Ayn Rand often overstates her case for the sake of art (her evil characters, for example, are mostly shallow caricatures). I find that people who don't share her views often mock her works and call her "ridiculous" because she treats some ideas that they hold completely without nuance or sympathy. I can see why they do this, but I think Ayn's detractors overstate their case. She is valuable because she is the only ma…

"but absolute truth shall ever elude humans in this complex world."

“There are no absolutes,” they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute. - Galt's Speech

Re: "Francisco's Money Speech" by Ayn Rand

#54

Post by gnaritas » Sun, Mar 01, 2009, 11:19 PM UTC

maxharris wrote: post #52

jacoblyles wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talk to more people that disagree with you, I'm sure you can find someone that can present you with an objectivist-flavored ethical dilemma. Also, you should examine your axioms. There are many self-consistent moral systems starting with different axioms that produce different results. None of these systems is better than the others. Rather, each of these axioms represent something that humans value. They produce con…

"None of these systems is better than the others." Not if your standard of value is your life, lived as well and for as long as possible. I have not yet come across an ethical dilemma that would trouble an Objectivist that really knew and understood the philosophy. I can't count the number of times I've heard questions about whether or not you should try to rescue people drowning in a river during your trip to visit…

> Not if your standard of value is your life, lived as well and for as long as possible.

Replace "standard of value" with axiom and re-read what he just said to you, he suggested you examine your "standard of value" and see that others are possible and just as self consistent as yours.

Your reply thus makes no sense in response to his statement; you simply restate your axiom and tried to justify it again.

Re: "Francisco's Money Speech" by Ayn Rand

#55

Post by lacker » Sun, Mar 01, 2009, 11:19 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #39

pg wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PG is partially guilty of this But I've been very explicit about this question: "Great programmers are sometimes said to be indifferent to money. This isn't quite true. It is true that all they really care about is doing interesting work. But if you make enough money, you get to work on whatever you want, and for that reason hackers are attracted by the idea of making really large amounts of money. But as long as the…

Don't you think there's something of an opportunity cost, though? If someone like Linus had dedicated all his time to a startup (he did spend some time at Transmeta, but still had time for Linux), perhaps he would have never accomplished what he did. Perhaps similar arguments could be made about people like Guido van Rossum. Obviously there are various paths to success, but how many people made their cash, and then w…

Bill Joy founded both Sun and Vi.

Both making a lot of money and doing a "seriously successful" open source project are pretty rare, so even if the two are independent, you shouldn't expect many people to succeed at both of them.

Re: "Francisco's Money Speech" by Ayn Rand

#56

Post by nazgulnarsil » Sun, Mar 01, 2009, 11:21 PM UTC

Private property is the foundation of peace. Without it who gets what can only be decided by force and coercion. Allowing people to keep the fruit of their labor is a necessary condition for those people to bother producing anything that they don't need immediately (consumable goods).

Re: "Francisco's Money Speech" by Ayn Rand

#57

Post by jfarmer » Sun, Mar 01, 2009, 11:24 PM UTC

sgharms wrote: post #8

I read _AS_ when I was 18 and I've thought about this quotation a lot through the last 20 months, as Reddit frothed about Ron Paul, Gold Standard, Banking collapse, etc. As I've thought more and more about it, something seems off about Francisco's speech, namely: Money is _no longer_ the representation of value in green paper; no, it is the representation of transferrable obligation, i.e. debt. http://bit.ly/14idwP R…

Ayn Rand was opposed to the labor theory of value, which is a central tenant of Marxism.

Re: "Francisco's Money Speech" by Ayn Rand

#58

Post by aswanson » Sun, Mar 01, 2009, 11:26 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #39

pg wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PG is partially guilty of this But I've been very explicit about this question: "Great programmers are sometimes said to be indifferent to money. This isn't quite true. It is true that all they really care about is doing interesting work. But if you make enough money, you get to work on whatever you want, and for that reason hackers are attracted by the idea of making really large amounts of money. But as long as the…

Don't you think there's something of an opportunity cost, though? If someone like Linus had dedicated all his time to a startup (he did spend some time at Transmeta, but still had time for Linux), perhaps he would have never accomplished what he did. Perhaps similar arguments could be made about people like Guido van Rossum. Obviously there are various paths to success, but how many people made their cash, and then w…

You could say that those guys went straight to step 2: Work on something they find interesting, ignoring money. It probably is a one or the other situation, but the results end up being the same -- living life as one sees fit.

Re: "Francisco's Money Speech" by Ayn Rand

#59

Post by dpatru » Sun, Mar 01, 2009, 11:35 PM UTC

MaysonL wrote: post #50

jacoblyles wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is some cleverness in there, and, I believe, some truth. Here is a quote that I liked: "Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth--the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his…

Best argument for the inheritance tax I've seen lately.

A theme in Atlas Shrugged is that wealth properly belongs to the people who make it. This includes the right to give it away or pass it to one's family. The fact that inherited wealth may ruin an heir who is not worthy of it does not entitle others to take the wealth by force, contrary to the will of the true owner. Rand's argument does not justify the inheritance tax; it's a warning to the wealthy.

Re: "Francisco's Money Speech" by Ayn Rand

#60

Post by Avshalom » Sun, Mar 01, 2009, 11:44 PM UTC

maxharris wrote: post #52

jacoblyles wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talk to more people that disagree with you, I'm sure you can find someone that can present you with an objectivist-flavored ethical dilemma. Also, you should examine your axioms. There are many self-consistent moral systems starting with different axioms that produce different results. None of these systems is better than the others. Rather, each of these axioms represent something that humans value. They produce con…

"None of these systems is better than the others." Not if your standard of value is your life, lived as well and for as long as possible. I have not yet come across an ethical dilemma that would trouble an Objectivist that really knew and understood the philosophy. I can't count the number of times I've heard questions about whether or not you should try to rescue people drowning in a river during your trip to visit…

"Not if your standard of value is your life, lived as well and for as long as possible."

Please define 'lived as well as possible' with out reference to objectivist concepts or philosophies. Also please demonstrate objectively which is better, a life well lived or a one lived as long as possible, and in the the situation which maximizing both are impossible, the ratio which maximizes the value of life.

Alternatively please refrain from stating opinions as unqualified fact.