91–100 of 131 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To defend Rand a little - I do like her quite a lot - Francisco's idea is that by doing so he's eliminating the "looters" from society. It's entirely fantasy, but it's very fun fantasy.
My point is that he inherited his wealth. And pissed it away. Objectively that's what happens.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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…
Steve Jobs creates beautiful products with gorgeous logic, and as a result is subjected to a lot of controversy regarding his designs. He's almost the archetypal Rand hero. Bill Gates, however, has managed to spread technology to the world. His version of it is flawed - it's nowhere near as good as Jobs's creation - but at the same time, he managed to innovate and create system that could be used to help millions of…
Although sadly Microsoft now has its share of lobbyists after running afoul of regulators who didn't like Gates' hubris.
This is one of my favorite speeches from that book. It doesn't make false assumptions like many of the other speeches and plots do - it stays focused on debunking the idea of money as bad, and as such while a lot of the rest of the book seems slightly ridiculous, this speech remains quite powerful.
Ironically, I'm in the middle of writing an ethics paper on Aristotle. We will be considering Ayn Rand's position starting next class. On point, there is a flaw in her speech. Many people produce money for themselves at the expense of other things of value. The problem is that money is not valued as a medium of exchange, but as an end in itself. For people that not only say, but act, in the proper way, Ayn Rand is ri…
So money is fine as an abstract end, because it allows the end to be "time shifted" nicely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Well - I would argue that anyone inheriting wealth should pay tax on that inheritance, just like on any other income. Wealth is created as much, if not more, by society as by the owner.
I come from a semi well off family on my father's side and have many well off friends. We all have either trust funds (family trusts) or our parents and grandparents just give us the money outright before they die or we get non-voting shares in our parents holding corporations that own 99% of the company or we get physical gold and silver before they pass.
The list goes on and on. The only people I have ever heard paying real inheritance tax were from the middle class. Rich enough to tax, poor enough to lack a good tax attorney.
There is no real way you can stop it. Even if you prevent parents from giving money to their children (!) then the rich can just turn it into gold chains and give them gifts of jewelry, or turn their wealth into priceless art and then give it to their children, or offshore bank accounts co-owned by father-son.
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…
Many people hold the highest moral good to be the elimination of suffering. They believe that we should work to improve the material conditions of the world's least-well-off humans.
Ayn believes these people are evil. However, talking to them, I do not believe these people are evil. I believe they are good people.
Their instincts are human. It is human nature to be made sad by the suffering of others.
Alleviating the suffering of others is one of many things that human value. However, holding this as your highest moral value can lead you to do things that others dislike. For example, you may be motivated to pass laws that take the property from one person and give it to another that needs it more.
Now, humans ALSO value property rights, and some notion of property rights seems just to most people. I am sure you place some value on property rights.
These two instincts drive people to take actions that contradict each other. It is the nature of humanity.
Now, the true believer will insist that there is one right answer and no real contradiction, but their arguments get flimsy and tired after awhile.
I was never "dissuaded" from Objectivism. Rather, I grew away from it over time. I guess I got tired of looking up the answers to tough questions in a book, instead of puzzling them out for myself. Also, the logic just gets thin and unconvincing over time, as when Ayn tries to prove that one moral axiom is better than another. You can't do it. They are axioms. You can't say that a person is wrong for feeling sad at other people's misfortunes (well, Ayn can). It is just a fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
This is one of my favorite speeches from that book. It doesn't make false assumptions like many of the other speeches and plots do - it stays focused on debunking the idea of money as bad, and as such while a lot of the rest of the book seems slightly ridiculous, this speech remains quite powerful.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Had Sam Walton been a teacher, teaching thousands of children throughout his life, what are the chances he would have inspired some them to be great engineers?
If becoming a teacher is the ultimate instrumental good, then we would all become teachers, then nothing would get done. Since that is obviously the worst of all worlds, it tells me that teachers do a good thing, but not the greatest thing. However, without teachers, few things would get done as everyone would reinvent the wheel. This is also, while not the worst scenario, it is far from the best. Thus, the best scen…
Also worth pointing out that this isn't necessarily true for secondary education - Universities are institutions which allow great teachers to both do great work and teach. I'd hypothesize that if the same were extended to other institutions, and also to younger students, much value would come of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wrote an essay about this: http://www.paulgraham.com/love.html The relevant section is called "Two Routes." Linus seems to have taken organic route, gradually arranging his life so he could spend more time on Linux. Startups are usually an instance of the other strategy, the two-job route, of which they are the most extreme form. (For a few very lucky people, a startup can also be one's life's work. But it's usuall…
Yes, I've read that essay, and liked it. What I'm getting at, though, is that isn't it possible that by taking the startup route, by the time you 'get there', yes, you have time to do whatever you want, but you've blown your chance to do something else?