Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meeting Ayn Rand on the Las Vegas Strip

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 70 posts

Re: Meeting Ayn Rand on the Las Vegas Strip

#61

Post by techpeace »

t0rb3n wrote: post #27
techpeace wrote: post #3

http://wonkette.com/561974/john-oliver-presents-the-philosop...

Last Week Tonight is a great show, but this piece made me think about it... if he misrepresents Ayn Rand so blatantly, how accurate is he on other topics? edit: fixed name of the show

What, exactly, is the segment misrepresenting? It was mostly video clips of Ayn Rand expressing her thoughts directly, with a voice-over (rightly) mocking conservatives for supporting her given the fact that she was both militantly atheist and militantly pro-choice.

Re: Meeting Ayn Rand on the Las Vegas Strip

#62

Post by AnimalMuppet »

api wrote: post #55
digisign wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, in America the Goldwaters, Buckleys, and other intelligent conservatives died out in favor of the fox contingent. A shame really.

One reason: fiscal conservatism doesn't offer anyone any advantage, and politics is (sadly) mostly about competing over unfair advantage. The goal of a political campaign is to exercise your power over someone else (e.g. theocrats, PC fanatics), slant the law in your favor (regulatory capture), or directly access the treasury. The second reason: Keynesian economics works, at least in the short to medium term. When a…

> One reason: fiscal conservatism doesn't offer anyone any advantage...

I disagree. Fiscal conservatism means that I get to keep more of my money, instead of having the government take it. That's certainly an advantage to me.

But I think you meant "it's not an advantage of one person over another", which is true. And by extension, I think you meant "therefore it doesn't help one candidate get elected over another", which I think is false. Telling people that you're going to let them keep more of their money shouldn't be a very hard sell. (Now, true, most conservative candidates don't seem to be able to articulate such a message, but I think that's because most "conservative" candidates aren't fiscal conservatives at all.)

Re: Meeting Ayn Rand on the Las Vegas Strip

#63

Post by bcheung »

lucio wrote: post #26

"When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion - when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corrup…

This quote addresses what would now be called "crony capitalism". That is, those in power or with resources using government for their own ends. For example, making it a requirement for people to buy your product, or erecting barriers to entry for your competitors. It warns of when in society it is easier and more profitable to use the system to be a parasite than it is to produce something of value.

Re: Meeting Ayn Rand on the Las Vegas Strip

#64

Post by bcheung »

lordnacho wrote: post #11

I'm reasonably sympathetic so some libertarian views. But I've never been able to motivate myself to read Ayn Rand. Can someone tell me how a fiction book can make a good argument for any political view? Is it just a thin layer of story-writing on top of actual, evidence-based argument? Or is it like I fear, just a long story where everything goes right for the guys with the right views? Because I'm pretty sure you c…

People often think Objectivism is right wing conservative. In some ways it is, but in others it is pretty far to the left as well. Rand spends quite a lot of time attacking crony "capitalism".

The book creates exaggerated scenarios in order to illustrate certain principles and beliefs.

Some of those beliefs are:

1) If you created value as a producer then you deserve to keep and use that wealth you created. Others don't have a right to it and must trade with you through voluntary win/win means.

2) There are devious individuals who will use their influence to make government force others to provide them with benefits and harm their competition.

3) Being competent and producing value is one of the highest moral virtues. It is what advances society forward and promotes the "common welfare".

4) Objective thought should be relied upon rather than the opinion of others. You don't need to have a title in order to have an opinion. You just need to be competent on the subject matter.

5) Society will try to make you feel guilt for your success. As long as you created wealth through moral means then you should be proud, not full of guilt.

Re: Meeting Ayn Rand on the Las Vegas Strip

#65

Post by bcheung »

sten wrote: post #53
lucio wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a epic history based on a novel philosophy. The philosophy defines "right/good" values based on objective observation of reality, and then concludes that the top value for a being with reason is it's own life. So good/right things are those things that enhance your life and the things you value (your family, your love, your principles). One top principle is to "respect others reason and will, do not start aggre…

Except that humans are incapable of making objective observations in practice with anything resembling consistency.

So you are saying your above observation is not objective and doesn't resemble anything consistent?

I think the entire history of engineering is a testament that we can make observations on a consistent enough basis to be practical.

Re: Meeting Ayn Rand on the Las Vegas Strip

#66

Post by t0rb3n »

techpeace wrote: post #61
t0rb3n wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last Week Tonight is a great show, but this piece made me think about it... if he misrepresents Ayn Rand so blatantly, how accurate is he on other topics? edit: fixed name of the show

What, exactly, is the segment misrepresenting? It was mostly video clips of Ayn Rand expressing her thoughts directly, with a voice-over (rightly) mocking conservatives for supporting her given the fact that she was both militantly atheist and militantly pro-choice.

You're right.

Also, the absurdity of expecting facts from a comedy show has been brought to my attention just recently. All in all, what a great first comment on this site ; )

Anyway, I'd argue there is an obvious atmosphere of disgust. The voice-over before the first interview segment states her philosophy amounts to being a selfish asshole. See the relevant part of the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFy9A7WEzPA#t=104 from 1:45 to around 3:40.

The net result is the impression that everything she's saying is basically bullshit. It seems to me that it's considered unacceptable to refer to her ideas.

Re: Meeting Ayn Rand on the Las Vegas Strip

#67

Post by dang »

chc wrote: post #50
dang wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This article is clearly far enough afield from the topic of this site I'm afraid you have a misconception, and it's a crucial one. There is no "topic of this site". The axiom of Hacker News is intellectual curiosity, and intellectual curiosity does not limit itself to one set of things. Of course we're not all curious about the same stuff. That's why we have voting—to express personal interest. But to flag an artic…

I think the guidelines suggest something a little less broad than "whatever you personally find interesting": "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic." Let me elaborate: Should I start spamming links to long-winded vegan pro…

It isn't whatever you find interesting, it's whatever you find intellectually interesting. Intellectual interest is only one kind of interest. I think this answers the examples you raise—e.g. long-winded vegan propaganda wouldn't be intellectually interesting, but an article about the history of veganism might be.

The guidelines do say that most political stories are probably off-topic. But "note those words most and probably" [1]. They're not there by accident.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4922304#up_4922426

Re: Meeting Ayn Rand on the Las Vegas Strip

#68

Post by PhasmaFelis »

lucio wrote: post #33
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #9

> “There is nobody out there who can talk about self-esteem, about individualism, and about capitalism with the moral certainty and the moral fervor we can,” Brook declared. It is so telling that this guy thinks moral certainty and "fervor" are a good thing. A person who is 100% certain and unquestioning in his beliefs is a person who cannot be reasoned with. This avowed rationalist speaks with the language of religi…

by definition you cannot support objectivism and at the same time be impervious to reason. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/reason.html

That's a bold application of no-true-Scotsman. What percentage of avowed Objectivists do you figure are liars, then? Or are you saying that Objectivism provides a magical shield against unreasonable behavior?

Re: Meeting Ayn Rand on the Las Vegas Strip

#69

Post by PhasmaFelis »

bcheung wrote: post #64
lordnacho wrote: post #11

I'm reasonably sympathetic so some libertarian views. But I've never been able to motivate myself to read Ayn Rand. Can someone tell me how a fiction book can make a good argument for any political view? Is it just a thin layer of story-writing on top of actual, evidence-based argument? Or is it like I fear, just a long story where everything goes right for the guys with the right views? Because I'm pretty sure you c…

People often think Objectivism is right wing conservative. In some ways it is, but in others it is pretty far to the left as well. Rand spends quite a lot of time attacking crony "capitalism". The book creates exaggerated scenarios in order to illustrate certain principles and beliefs. Some of those beliefs are: 1) If you created value as a producer then you deserve to keep and use that wealth you created. Others don…

> People often think Objectivism is right wing conservative. In some ways it is, but in others it is pretty far to the left as well.

If nothing else, Objectivism is a pretty convincing argument that the left/right political binary is bullshit.

Re: Meeting Ayn Rand on the Las Vegas Strip

#70

Post by glenra »

api wrote: post #55
digisign wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, in America the Goldwaters, Buckleys, and other intelligent conservatives died out in favor of the fox contingent. A shame really.

One reason: fiscal conservatism doesn't offer anyone any advantage, and politics is (sadly) mostly about competing over unfair advantage. The goal of a political campaign is to exercise your power over someone else (e.g. theocrats, PC fanatics), slant the law in your favor (regulatory capture), or directly access the treasury. The second reason: Keynesian economics works, at least in the short to medium term. When a…

> The second reason: Keynesian economics works, at least in the short to medium term.

Krugman has managed to make the Keynesian premise completely unfalsifiable using a tall podium and a variety of rhetorical techniques. Krugman believes his own press, rarely reads opposing views and mischaracterizes opponents such that to read his column, you'd think everyone who disagrees with him must be a moron.

According to Krugman:

If the economy isn't doing well, it's because we need to pass a stimulus package.

If the economy STILL isn't doing well, it's because we need a BIGGER stimulus package or ANOTHER stimulus package. (repeat this assertion until things get better, which they are likely to eventually even if it's despite rather than due to all this stimulus.)

If the recovery is surprisingly slow, it's because we didn't listen to him when he said we need a bigger stimulus package.

If the recovery is surprisingly fast, it's because we DID listen to him about the need for the ORIGINAL stimulus package.

Thus there is no real-world outcome which he can't explain in terms of the need for government to spend more.

(Constructing a similar argument for the need to spend less in all these circumstances is left as an exercise for the reader)

Post reply on HN