Rand may claim that there are happy blue collar workers in her utopia. But I’m asking if that’s realistic. (If you’re saying it isn’t supposed to be realistic and Rand intended her books as just fantasies, that’s fine. But I’m posting on the assumption Rand was serious.)
It’s fine to say that everyone’s a noble. But there’s a real difference between the noble who lives in the castle and wears a crown and the noble who lives in a shack and grows turnips. One of these nobles is going to be feeling he isn’t getting all he should out of the nobility set-up. The turnip growing nobles are going to start thinking maybe they’re actually just peasants and the only real noble is the guy living in the castle. And then they’re going to start asking why they should all be supporting the nobility system when none of them are enjoying the benefits of that system. And as soon as they start thinking like that, the turnip-growing nobles have become moochers - at least in the eyes of the noble in the castle.
And to put this specifically on topic here, I don’t see how the guys who are dumping garbage cans into the back of a truck are going to feel they’re getting as much out of living in an objectivist society as the guy who’s sitting in an office back at the garbage company headquarters is getting out of it.
I can easily see how objectivism appeals to the people at the top of the economic pyramid. But I’m not seeing what its appeal is to the people who aren’t at the top. And I’m not seeing how you can have a working society made up only of people at the top of the pyramid.
Its somewhat reassuring that the idle rich are not “producers”…but Shirley they are not “moochers”, they don’t require anything they don’t already have. Why should they even be “producers”, however noble that may be, if they are not obligated to live their lives for anyone else’s benefit? Do we make a distinction between working for the common good and dat ol’ debbil, altruism?
Will we have evaluative panels to consider the relative worthiness of citizens? Are “moochers” to be cured, deported or liquidated? Who will serve on these panels, what criteria would we need to determine who will sit in such grave judgement? Myself, I’d be inclined to shoot the first person who volunteers, but that’s just me.
Thus showing that, for all your bombastic criticism, you aren’t particularly(or perhaps at all?) conversant with her ideas either. Remarkable. The only use of force that is correct in Rand’s worldview is self defence.
Anyway, to answer your question, a voluntary exchange of value is how Rand proposes the matter gets decided. Anyone who creates something that someone else will exchange something of value for is a producer. Anyone who attempts to use force or otherwise provide nothing of value in exchange for something of value to take something from someone else is a moocher.
Didn’t someone in this thread say something about reading the books being pointless because of the ability of smart people to explain ideas to other smart people? Apparently its not quite so easy.
I don’t think the point was that all workers had to be happy. Although in her utopia, I think they were supposed to be happier with lower taxes, more job mobility and employers who would recognize and reward ingenuity and personal initiative.
That’s not really what Rand considered “moochers”. Moochers were people like Hank Rearden’s wife and brother. They were dependent on Hank for their livelihood, and yet felt entitled and resented Hank and his wealth.
There is nothing to “do” with moochers other than refuse to consent to being mooched off of. If you inherited wealth, you certainly can do what you like with it. Of course, you can’t expect others to support you if you happen to squander it.
One does not work in Rands world out of a sense of “common good” or “altruism”. One works because one wants or needs things they can’t produce on their own. They must therefore produce goods or services others want or need in exchange.
When Rand idealizes the wealthy, she is thinking of people like Bill Gates or Henry Ford. People who build companies that produce the things people want and need. They do this not do this out of a sense of altruism, but because it is profitable.
So I think you kind of missed the whole point of the book.
Moochers were rent-seekers; those who sought government subsidies, monopoly privilege, and such. The idle rich aren’t moochers, because they aren’t taking anything from anyone.
So, there is a third state of Being, then, one that is neither “producer” nor “moocher”?
And Mad Men? Intelligent, creative men skilled in the cynical arts of persuasion, who produce ads for tobacco, a product that sickens and kills its users…these men are “producers”, then? Especially so if their efforts are fruitful and productive! So very much superior to parasitical “moochers”!
Shall “moochers” be allowed to vote? Or are we to assume that as a result of the healthy eugenics of Social Darwinism, the question shall moot itself soon enough. After all, the children of “moochers” have no more right to expect “producers” to sacrifice themselves on their behalf. Hopefully, their rachitic little bodies will not be on display in public, such a thing might undermine the stern morality of freedom.
…Oh, wonder! How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,. That has such people in 't!..
Not sure if this was directed at me, but since it followed one of my posts, I’ll err on the side of caution.
Yeah, I suppose so. There’d have to be, right, since there are people who neither do anything that benefits others, nor take anything from others? That’d include the idle rich, the self-sufficient homesteader, etc. A small but non-zero group.
I’m pretty rusty on the finer points of Rand, so I can’t answer the other questions from a Randian perspective. My libertarian influences didn’t divide the world into producers and looters, so I didn’t have to grapple with these issues.
How is that logically inconsistent? Ayn Rand paints a tediously pretty picture of her heroes as if they actually existed, as if her portrayal of the world was anything close to reality. She might as well be talking about narnia with a wicked queen and a noble Aslan. I cam make Kim Jong Un seem like a swell guy if I remove context and tell the story only from his point of view.
The problem is that people think they see something they like about her ideas because especially in a world where the folks with entrenched social and economic privilege are losing their privilege and they think its because its being stolen from them. I guarantee you that most of the people who are Rand supporters in this thread are white male (or a peculiar brand of feminist female). Sure Rand distinguishes between good rich people and bad rich people but in the real world, they are the same people.
Sure there might be some virtuous paragon out there like Hank Reardon but I can’t think of a single one. Not Steve Jobs, not Bill Gates, not Warren Buffett (and I practically worship that man)
Her ideas lead to the notion that taxation is theft. They lead to plutocracy, low social mobility, and through the tragedy of the commons, a disintegrating world and unstable dangerous society.
Why should I pay taxes to pay for public school when my kids all go to private school. I have no interest in other kids getting educated and competing with my kids for valuable jobs.
Why should I pay taxes to pay for WIC just so that some stranger’s kids don’t starve to death, why is that my problem?
Heck, why should I pay for police if I live in a well defended gated community.
I’ll happily grant that public goods(the commons) is one of the big things that Rand gets wrong, particularly in terms of voluntary payment. But not all wrong either. She does define national defence, law and order, and a couple of other things as public goods which are the ‘proper’ functions of government. Her big problem is no taxation whatsoever. There are plenty of influential economic models which do propose solutions to the problems that too, migration being one of them. So she’s not being completely outlandish or something. It’s simply one of the things that needs adjustment. And given that concession on public goods(which have a specific, narrow meaning) and taxation for them, her ideas on governance are quite sound, especially when contrasted with the ones that her work is a reaction to.
Her ideas were aimed first and foremost at criticising and proposing an alternative to communism. And she correctly predicted its collapse 40 years in advance. What’s more, it happened more or less how she predicted - the economic engine broke down because of poor incentive structures. And while that’s not the only reason the Soviet Union collapsed, the economic system that she was criticising failed for those reasons everywhere it was tried. How come she doesn’t get any credit for that? The alternative system that she admired, the one that came the closest to her ideal, i.e the US, is the richest and most powerful country on Earth.
So? I don’t see the claim that Galt was Gandhi. The method that he chose to protest was exactly the same as Gandhi. Peaceful non-cooperation with your oppressors. That’s spot on.
And, for the gazillionth time, Rand’s vision does not incorporate “leaving those less successful to starve in the street”
Her idea is that your moral duty is to be happy. If helping people who’re starving is what makes you happy, then that is the best thing for you to do. She wants to leave the judgment of who to help and how up to those who’re giving the money to help. And, frankly, not only is this the better way of doing it, its far more morally defensible. Consider the most successful people on Earth today and the least - the western countries and least developed countries. International aid provided by governments from tax money over the last half decade has been a massive failure, serving in most cases only to extend the suffering of the worst off people in the world. On the other hand, recent private initiatives reflect how private initiative in charity can be a great thing - stuff like Givewell.com, the Gates foundation etc. The idea being that you expect the people who value things like charity to pay for charity, it’ll get done well. Instead, if you force people who don’t care, not only will it not get done, you will be instituting a net decrease in overall welfare, which, in my view, is not morally defensible.
Not really. If a person decides to stop working in his chosen profession should he be forced to go back to work? And I am not talking about people with contractural obligations to fulfill like someone in the military.
The idea that the wealthy in our society are oppressed is delusional.
Of course it does. Leaving charity to the whims of the populace simply doesn’t work. It’s a fantasy, not an intelligent position on a safety net.
Again, the idea that people will cover all charitable needs based on their notions of good will (especially in a Randian society, where charity is seen as morally neutral) isn’t real. It’s a dream, and it would cause countless people to die in misery.
If you’re the head of Widget Corp. and you employ ten thousand people in the small town of Widgetville, if you close shop tomorrow, then as a result of your actions, ten thousand families are thrown into disarray.
This, of course, assumes that you don’t resell the shop to new owners, put your foreman in charge, whatever. If you actually disband your business overnight, you have to admit to yourself that because of your actions, human misery is increasing.
And if those actions are the result of a petulant tantrum because of hatred of the moochers, well that’s not better.
Of course you can quit any time you want. But quitting in a way that disrupts the lives of tens of thousands isn’t very nice.
The idea that Atlas Shrugged is your society is what is delusional.
Evidence? Because I see plenty of evidence of voluntary charity. I see none that it would necessarily reduce if the taxation led redistribution was removed. I think people are basically good and want to help other people, it is how we’ve evolved to be. And I think that if you introduce competition into the realm of redistribution/charity everyone involved would experience better results, similar to how taking away state control of production in China and India has improved the lives of millions. That is because I don’t think redistribution is a ‘commons’, a public good, and thus it is simply not efficient for government to be performing that function.