What are you reading?

Post by fauigerzigerk » Sun, Sep 06, 2009, 5:52 PM UTC

NoBSWebDesign wrote: post #218

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that explain why it is consistent that some get the opportunity to start out wealthy and some do not? You don't seem to get what I'm saying at all. Among those who are willing and able to provide production value are some who get a boost from inherited wealth and some who do not. Do you consider that fair or consistent with a merit based society? I do get perfectly well what Ayn Rand says in her books, and b…

I think that according to Rand, fairness is a moot point when it comes to this situation. She is saying that if you are capable of achieving wealth, then you will achieve it no matter where you start from in our society. She also explains that those who are capable of achieving are concerned only with their own achievements and awards, and those of others only so far as they help to achieve their own. If you put all…

Well, she's a fiction writer. Me shrugs.

Post by fauigerzigerk » Sun, Sep 06, 2009, 5:59 PM UTC

NoBSWebDesign wrote: post #219

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's self defeating. It's like saying that a democratic society has the right to democratically abolish democracy.

Ayn Rand's philosophy is that of a free economy that stresses the importance of the individual. A democracy is a political institution that stresses the rule of the majority. Rand idealized the self-sustaining individual. A democracy by definition cannot be sustained by one individual. So, it's a difficult analogy to make. A better analogy would be like saying that a king has a right to abolish his monarchy. Also, it…

That's a pretty fatalistic argument. I think meritocracy has merit and I don't want it to self destruct. That's why, like other principles, this one needs exceptions as too.

Set theory is very useful but it needs an exception to survive Russel's paradox. You can't let useful things become useless just to uphold some moral rule.

Re: What are you reading?

Re: What are you reading?