h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Alathorn, and welcome to H2G2. I'm always intruiged about how many new researchers seem to sign up and beat a path straight for this thread.

Firstly, thank you for clarifying that Randians don't believe that it is immoral for me to share my sandwich. That's helpful.

Secondly, I infer from your post that we share at least some values - i.e. we think that fair equality of opportunity is important. Some Randians who have commented here do not share even that basic intuition, and seek to use Rand as a fig leaf to justify utter selfishness and disregard for their fellow humans. Your view seems to be rather different.

There's lots of things I could say, but I will confine myself to one point about the slavery metaphor and some questions for you.

When I enslave someone, I take control over their whole life. To be enslaved is to be told by others when and how to work, and to be given only what the 'owner' sees fit. Although some states have enslaved their population (e.g Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge), this is not the case in social democratic states. It's true that the state takes a percentage of my income, and will threaten me with various sanctions if I don't hand it over.

But after I've paid my taxes, I am free to spend what is left on pretty much what I like. I also have a choice of occupation - although this is limited by the economy and my abilities, I do have some freedom of choice. I can also have hobbies, interests, friendships etc which are no business of the state's. Thus the slavery metaphor is inappropriate - I am not a slave to the state in the way that the slave was to the plantation owners. If you really do believe that taxation is wrong, then 'theft' is a better metaphor. The state has taken a percentage of my income (I think legitimately, you think otherwise), but not all of it, and neither does it interfere with other aspects of my life. That's why the 'slavery' metaphor is inappropriate.

Some questions for you:

1. If Randism in practice led to unemployment and/or poverty wages for those who did want to work - at any stage of the economic cycle - would you abandon Randism?

2. How can Rand deal with problems of intergenerational justice? What about children born to the very poorest and the very richest? The rich child will have all of the advantages of the best education that money can buy, and the poor child will receive a very much worse education if he recieves an education at all. Neither child can be said to be born rich or to be born poor, yet it's clear that they don't have fair equality of opportunity.

3. How can Randism provide a 'guaranteed standard of living' as you claim, given that there is a great deal of pressure under capitalism to drive down wages to get goods as cheap as possible and to make as much money as possible? Economic history shows that full employment is the exception rather than the rule, and during the 1800s in the UK (when there was virtually no restrictions), wages were barely enough to live on, and unemployment was high. See also q. 1.

4. What happens to those who cannot work or who become unable to work. What happens to their dependants?

5. Is the government within its rights to demand that businesses conform to basic standards of health and safety and environmental protection?

6. Have you ever read Robert Nozick's 'Anarchy, State, Utopia'?

To start, thanks for the welcome.

I would like to state that I agree with you here, where you state that Randians will often use Rand's teachings to promote their own selfishness. While I believe that selfishness is a required emotion to succeed, and when used the right way can be beneficial, like most things, there is a negative.

I have to disagree with the slavery metaphor discussion. While it is not the same slavery as plantation workers in the 1800's, it is still slavery. Institutionalized, organized slavery. Your theft metaphor works, if this was a short term occurence. However, by institutionalizing this, and not giving me a choice in the matter (there is no option to not pay taxes, and not take advantage of government programs), this becomes a type of slavery. Completely different than the previous instances, but just as constrictive and unavoidable.

For your questions:
1) No, I would not abandon Randism. If people do not want to work, they are responsible for their actions. While I would not enjoy it, I would not accept any forms of demands on myself to support them, because of their desire not to work. (Note, this is a separate arguement from whether or not I would donate to help them, as that would be of my own choice)

2) There is a balance to the rich/poor though. While I agree that the life of the person born poor may be much tougher than the person born wealthy, that is not the fault of the one born wealty. And there have been many, many examples in history where someone born poor has worked hard and succeeded beyond most people's wildest dreams, and there have been just as many examples of rich children who have squandered their wealth and amounted to nothing.
I think it becomes less an issue of wealth, but more of desire. If I want something, I work for it. I may not have as strong a position to start, but that doesn't mean it can not be done.

3) The term "guaranteed standard of living" changes with Randism compared to some other beliefs. I believe that under Randism, and capitalism in general, there is a guaranteed standard of living for those who WORK FOR IT. One of the fundamental cores to Capitalism is Supply and Demand. This concept works for more than simply production, it works on almost all areas of capitalism. The more people that are working and producing, the more demand there is for finished goods. This creates a cycle, where those companies start further production to support this increased demand, which requires a larger labour force.
There is also a balance to the capitalism desire to force wages as low as they can go. They will only go as low as they can, while still maintaining the quality of employee's they currently have. If the business wants to lower wages, that is their choice, but there skilled labour pool is going to move to competition that pays higher wages. So they have to keep their wages at an equal level, or they begin to lose those skilled individuals, which means their quality of production goes down.

4) For those who are unable to work, or become unable to work, that depends on their position when that happens. If they have some sort of support plan through their employer, they have support that way. If not, then they require support from others. This is where charitable organizations come into play, because if I desire to help the less fortunate, I should have that opportunity. I am not REQUIRED to do this however, their misfortune does not give them any more of a right to my earnings than they had before.

5) No, the government should not be enforcing this, this would be handled by the workforce in general. If a place does not conform to accepted Health and Safety regulations, then people are not going to work there. Plain and simple. That company will not be as succesful as a result, and can either raise the quality of their work enviroment, or they will go out of business.

6) I have not, this is something you recommend?

Picking a fight with the topic post of the thread, I apologize if it's been discussed already (I did read about half the posts). It was said that "In other words she offers no objective reason why life must be the primary value". Actually, she does, and extremely well. It can be found in "The Virtue of Selfishness", the first chapter, "Introduction to Objectivism". In a very small nutshell, life is the standard of value because without life no values would be possible. A "value" is something we act to gain and/or keep, and an inanimate object cannot do so.

I apologize for the double posting, but I would like to add something. Having a section for Ayn Rand and objectivism is already an astounding thing. Next of all, an option to object it is, funnily enough, never directly expressed in one section. But, the fact that a rather productive argument has spawned and this isn't just a bunch of bashing and exclaiming things as true because you think so, is divine. I've come to expect it in other sites, but maybe all threads here at H2G2 are like this...

I'm going to like this place.

(Ignore the Commienazi name, it's meant to be taken in a sarcastic and lighthearted tone, as an Objectivist you'd probably take the rest of my statement in a completely negative light otherwise)

There seems to be quite a bit of circular logic in the defense of objectivism, not that I claim that objectivism is itself flawed, but I am saying that you aren't giving the best reasons. You give no real reason for your definitions of morality besides just saying that it is rational when that is the question at hand.

There is a consistent train of logic that doesn't seem right:
-"Sacrifice is immoral"
-Why is it immoral?
-"Because it negatively affects one's own life
-Why is it immoral to negatively affect one's life?
-"Because one's own life is the highest end that can be reached"
-But why is that the highest end that can be achieved?
-"Because one is only capable of what one's ability to rationalize (and therefore achieve) is capable of"
-But how does that make the existence of man (and need for the continued existence of man) the conclusion or end?
-"Because of reason"
-Whose reason is that?
-"Ayn Rand's originally, and we all agree with her"
-Are you sure she was reasonable? Doesn't this sound like unexplained and incomplete dogma?
-"No"

Come on, Where's the postmodernist in you?

It IS idealistic and yet also supposed to be rational. But the "reason" is unquestioned. A is A, but only a man's reasoning tells him that, and it is possible that his reasoning is wrong, because human reason ultimately relies on human perception, and human perception relies partly on available information already accepted and in the mind of the perceiver. Talk to a behaviorist, or psychologist, or a psychiatrist (who's has qualifications) and they'll tell you this. In the mind of human beings, very few things will be white or black, if there was a Creator, he made extensive use of shades of grey to color this world.

Point is- is A actually A? Apparently. It is possible. It is probable. It almost certainly is. I say so (emphasis on the "I").

But with something as complicated as the ontology of reason itself, it is illogical, flawed, immoral, to say that this is so because I (or Ayn Rand) said so. After all, you (and Ayn) are just human. And humans are capable of mistakes thus all reasoning must be evaluated, fairly I might add.

Perhaps Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff can[could] explain it better to me. But if only a very select few can see the truth, then are you sure it is truth? You must question something so important. Otherwise, it is faith along the lines of religion.

And yes, you must have faith in your own reasoning to live your life, and you must accept that somethings are the way they are without playing the semantics card, but I repeat, this "truth" is not something that you can just accept.

Sorry for the lecture