Gee, Dean, did you get the idea that behavior consistent with one's true long-term self interest is beneficial for everyone and reject it?

Mmm......I can't think of a non-condescending way to write "or did you miss that?", but you know what I mean.

Mother: But the key meeting took place July 3rd, 1958, when the Air Force brought the space visitor to the White House for an interview with President Eisenhower. And Ike said, "hey look, give us your technology, we'll give you all the cow lips you want."

"I just think that people try desperately to pidgeonhole other people into nice, neat little boxlike categories. Thus, Heinlein gets tagged as a "racist fascist", which I find ludicrous. I think Heinlein, like most people, is more complex than such a simplistic label."

Actually what I said was:

"If you've ever read Farnham's Freehold or The Puppetmasters it would be hard to not come to the conclusion that Heinlein is both fascist and racist."

There was a young idiot in the newscycle here last week who twittered some racist comments about President Obama (who will be visiting Australia soon). Thing is that he was a member of the Young Liberals and connected to the Liberal National Party - for non-Australians think young Republicans/Tories/Christian right. When the storm broke about his comments guess what he said? That's right - he had just been joking? But people judged him by what he had written. Same as when I read Heinlein I read what's on the page. And just like Heinlein, this guy was (apparently) all over the shop politically - supposedly he had actually campaigned against his own party when they declined to choose him as their candidate for a university election. I appreciate that there are often people like Heinlein who don't fall into neat categories - for them we reserve the term "nutjob".

Edit: it was later reported that the Liberals had expelled the twitter person.

Edited by Arapiles on 04/24/2010 04:00:44 MDT.

I didn't know that it was the RAAF who found the saucer - you know it probably isn't in Area 51, it's probably at Nurrungar or Pine Gap.

@ David-

Uh. No. I don't know what you mean. You're being just a tad too clever for me, there...

:o)

Edited by acrosome on 04/24/2010 20:33:00 MDT.

Hey Dean, I wasn't trying to be clever, I'm not bright enough for that......I was curious if you had considered that point of view and rejected it, or if you had not taken that viewpoint away from Rand's book at all.

Aha. Yes. Sorry.

I wasn't quite tracking your sentence structure, above.

Yes, I understand the point that Rand was making and, yes, it sounds to me as if it would lead to all of the well-known evils of runaway capitalism, economic serfdom, etc. from the 19th century. We've pretty much proved that.

Because her message wasn't just "self-interest", but also unregulated capitalism, and darn near no government except one that perpetuated the self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. Not to mention justifying the actions of every auto mechanic who ever gouged a customer for repairs that weren't performed.

In fairness, she was writing in a time and society in which anything short of runaway economic growth was considered to be abject failure. I like to think that we are a bit more sophisticated, nowadays.

Self-interest may be rational, but it isn't ethical. (Though the precise meaning of 'rational' is hard to get across.) Yes, I think acting for the large part in one's own interests is the only practical way to conduct day to day life. If nothing else, it is efficient. But it sure as heck shouldn't be an absolute. Otherwise all of our wild areas would have long since been logged out and strip mined by the first Randist who could make a buck at it. (The proposition that such actions are self-regulating is sophomoric.) Basically, Ayn Rand is the hero of self-absorbed a$$holes everywhere who want to justify their actions.

Heavens knows I'm not proposing communism, or even socialism, but at some point we just have to be human and help one another out. Generally I am a small-government/individual rights proponent- but not to the ridiculous extreme that Rand takes it.

I'm volunteering at a charity kitchen tomorrow, as a matter of fact. A true Randist never would.

Edited by acrosome on 04/25/2010 08:50:44 MDT.

One thing for sure, decades of time have not diminished the passion her thoughts whip up.

If interested about learning the essence of Rand's philosophy while she stood on one foot in 1962...

Rand


http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro

Well, George, it certainly isn't "Do unto others...."

"The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit..." -from Rand, number 4 in link above.

How can unchecked capitalism lead to anything BUT a system of masters and slaves? What, under this system she advocates, keeps the "big fish" from swallowing and destroying everyone and everything they encounter that poses any sort of competition? In "pure" competition, be it economic or physical, the very moment one contender gains and maintains an advantage large enough, he or she simply immediately crushes every potential challenger. How can this possibly lead to mutually beneficial relationships?

This is a perfectly fitting topic under "Space Alien Invasion". What the hell planet does Rand come from?

How many people really want to live in a system governed purely by the survival of the fittest? This "pick yourself up by your own bootstraps" business is truly one of the most deceptive and dangerous illusions ever created. The entire reason humans have banded together since the beginning of time is because we realize we cannot make it without the help of others. There is no such thing as "the self-made man"; it's nothing but an illusion used to justify the punishment of those less fortunate.

This pure competition Rand advocates could only make the slightest bit of sense in a fantasy world where the playing field is level for everyone.

But such a world has never existed, making this attitude a total sham that only rewards power with more power.

Any philosophy or school of thought when taken to the extreme seems absurd. Rand's Objectivism is no different. That's not to say it doesn't offer anything of value.

First, I'll stipulate that it takes a certain amount of naivete to consider that the ideas Rand advocates could ever really be universally applied, practiced or accepted. I think she doesn't give enough weight to purely “evil” actions or “bad” intentions.

I'll also concede that I get a kick out of knocking the fantasy-land aspect to many policies advocated by the Left, so I admit to a bit of hypocrisy here. While I agree with a lot of Rand's ideas, I'm aware that they are not necessarily practical in the “real” world.

The key for me is the phrase “long-term self-interest”. If you truly take into consideration your own long-term self-interest you will end up mostly doing right by others. This includes not only financial relationships and transactions, but personal relationships as well.

For example, it is never in one's long-term self-interest to cheat someone, financially or otherwise. For a couple of reasons, not the least of which is a sense of guilt about taking advantage of someone else. If one has a well-developed conscience, living with the knowledge that one cheated another party has to be considered a “cost” borne by the cheater.

The other party is also likely to know or sense that they have been cheated, affecting one's reputation and ability to transact with that party in the future, possibly inflicting future costs well in excess of the “benefit” achieved through the deception.

There are a couple of guys in our lunch-time soccer game that press for every advantage at every opportunity. Whether there was a foul or the ball went out or if there is a question if the ball went between the cones or not, these guys always push for their own benefit. It might appear, especially to them, that they are acting in their own self-interest. However, their actions have a cost not visible on the soccer pitch.

What sort of hit does their credibility take? What do others think of their spirit of sportsmanship, generosity and fair-play? Would someone familiar with this behavior take it into consideration when responding to a request for a favor? How about undertaking a business transaction?

Let's look at Dean's example of an unethical auto repair shop. It's not in anyone's long-term self-interest to take their car to a random repair shop, as anyone who has watched “60 Minutes” knows. If everyone acted in their own long-term self-interest when selecting a repair shop by doing the appropriate research, there would be no unethical repair shops.

To me it's not about being a selfish “a*&hole”, it's about looking at what really matters in the long run in a relationship, whether it be personal or professional, casual or consequential, and acting accordingly.

Edited by davidlutz on 04/25/2010 19:02:22 MDT.

@ David-

I think that Randists (or Objectivists, if you prefer) miss a fine point...

Obviously, yes, by definition it is in everyone's self-interest to be self-interested. Thus researching mechanics makes sense. That's basically all you are saying- a circular argument. A tautology.

Unfortunately Rand tries to build a system of ETHICS around self-interest, and it doesn't work. Or, at least, it results in a world in which I wouldn't want to live. (See my point about laissez-faire capitalism, above. Under such a system, if you start poor and downtrodden you will almost certainly die poor and downtrodden, and it doesn't matter how self-interested you are.)

What you're saying seems to imply that if I take my car to a mechanic without thoroughly researching him first and he cheats me... I'M the unethical one. This is ludicrous. I may have been too busy or something, and made an ill-informed choice, but I certainly wasn't unethical. Under Rand's system of "ethics" the mechanic doesn't deserve to be punished- he did nothing unethical if he weighed the pros and cons and decided that cheating me was in his self-interest.

And obviously many do in fact decide that cheating people pays- particularly in a large city where there are always going to be enough people floating around who on that particular day got too busy to spend hours researching a mechanic. Saying "Yes, but if EVERYONE ALWAYS acted in their own self-interest it would work" is ludicrous. One cannot always be that diligent. (Even an Objectivist.) And if one were, that's basically paranoid dementia. I don't want to live like that.

I maintain that the mechanic did something unethical, and in fact criminal, and deserves to be punished.

Constantly being out for oneself basically makes one equivalent to an animal. And, heck, all creatures have to eat so I don't think you'll be actually faulted for being self-interested. But being honest and displaying some integrity and compassion makes you ethical and admirable.

I'm much more of a Utilitarian than an Objectivist. I think John Stuart Mill was on to something. Read that last sentence carefully- I don't think he had ALL of the answers. There were obviously bugs to be worked out under his system, and on a few points for entirely practical reasons he DOES get a little Objectivist, but it beats the heck out of Kant or Nietszche. This is in stark contrast to the real Objectivists, who treat everything Rand ever wrote or said as if it were holy scripture. In fact, Objectivism has been compared to a cult, which is starkly ironic for a bunch of avowed atheists.

But Rand got that much right- it's about happiness.

Not to mention that this point:

"For example, it is never in one's long-term self-interest to cheat someone, financially or otherwise. For a couple of reasons, not the least of which is a sense of guilt about taking advantage of someone else. If one has a well-developed conscience, living with the knowledge that one cheated another party has to be considered a “cost” borne by the cheater."

is a self-defeating one for Objectivists, because it presupposes another ethical system! If one were a pure Objectivist and decided that it was in one's self-interest to cheat someone then why would one feel guilty over doing so? After all, you had done the ethical thing, under Objectivism. The only reason to feel guilt (to have "a well-developed conscience") over cheating someone is if you follow a system of ethics OTHER than Objectivism.

That, alone, kind of blows Objectivism out of the water. (And if you leave such pathetic quibbles out of Objectivism it results in a world of self-serving pitiless monsters.) Thus long-term self-interest MIGHT be considered a decent rule-of-thumb under any other ethical system, but it sure as heck can't be the basis for its own entire ethical system. Something else is.

That said, I'll +1 your entire second paragraph.

Edited by acrosome on 04/25/2010 19:49:29 MDT.

I think the guy who intentionally cheats others and sees that as being his own self-interest would fall under the "evil" or "bad" guy that I refer to early in my post as not being adequately addressed by Objectivism. I also note in my post that the philosophy is not well-suited to being "universally applied, practiced or accepted".

If you are constantly out for yourself without regard to others, that is animal-like behavior and I think they have a name for it - Sociopath? My point is that, to me, true self-interest can only be achieved by taking others interests into consideration. And that is an important distinction.

Granted, that may not be pure Objectivism.

My point about the mechanic was that if enough people (not necessarily everyone) exercised their self-interest in investigating mechanics, unethical mechanics would find it more difficult to get by. I stand by that statement. I don't see how that equates to the people who, for whatever reason, don't investigate their mechanic being unethical.

My apologies to any mechanics who might read this; could be realtors, dentists, contractors, etc.

Edited by davidlutz on 04/25/2010 20:02:51 MDT.

Good gawd!! 7 pages of posts about alien space invaders? Are you guys really hikers or nerds who wannabe hikers? :)

It's way better than toilet paper.

"...true self-interest can only be achieved by taking others interests into consideration."

Fascinating that this statement should be spoken by someone (presumably) on the right.

According to the statement above, it sounds like we do need to abolish class then, right?

Bust up some global corporations?

Maybe a little worldwide agrarian reform?

Perhaps returning the the means of production (and profits) to the workers?

It seems that this would be the only logical conclusion that a compassionate self-interested person could arrive at...according to your statement above, at least.




Or is it simply that when you say "others interests", are you really only talking about certain interests for certain others?

Craig - you know a lot of that has been tried before and doesn't work, right?

Besides - you crack me up - are you all about the "worker" and "equity" when your contract is up, or do you try to maximize your take like a "self-interested" person?

Most people think they understand what Marx was proposing without actually having read the Communist Manifesto. Read it before you jump to conclusions. It's quite a mixed bag, with a lot that just wouldn't work in the real world or is just plain destructive without a viable alternative, but a lot of it is way ahead of its time and relevant even today.

The problem with a lot of present day social outlooks is that they simply do not want to do anything or take any stance at all. With societies as large as they are today, not having a philosophy to guide the direction that societies need as a blueprint toward action, powerful people and groups naturally take advantage of those with less. Some kinds of rules and limitations need to be in place in order for all people to gain the benefits of being members of a society; without their receiving these benefits there is no reason they should be subject to what society and those more powerful than they expect of them. The privileged should in no way be surprised if the underprivileged decide to opt out or to break the unfair rules. And those with power who believe that pure capitalism and survival of the fittest is the answer to how societies should be run should then also not be surprised by the resulting emergence of "terrorism" and other reactions that disrupt society. The only kind of society where as many members as possible share the benefits and can live in peace and evenly distributed prosperity is one where the members agree on cooperation, sharing, and limitations, simply because, in its very nature it gravitates toward a steady state and sustainability. Anything else seeks to eliminate "competition" so that it eventually stands alone... the very antithesis of what constitutes a society.

"Besides - you crack me up - are you all about the "worker" and "equity" when your contract is up, or do you try to maximize your take like a "self-interested" person?"

The short answer: neither.

My statement above simply argues that your belief that the best self-interest is that which takes the interests of others into consideration seems an incredibly strange proposition coming from someone defending Rand.

It seems far more akin to something a socialist would say.

The horror!

Don't worry; just take a hot shower, say "trickle down economics" 12 times, and you'll be fine by morning. :)

Objectivism is a completely debunked "philosophy" that wasn't ever really taken seriously to begin with. It's found a home on the internet, among a few fringe politicians, and the angst-ridden teenager.

No one else pays it any mind.

Not to mention, Ayn Rand is just a dreadful writer. She was an atheist though, so at least she got one thing right.