Re: The Ayn Rand World
61 views
Skip to first unread message
Rami Rustom
Feb 3, 2013, 1:53:06 PM2/3/13
to Fabric-o...@yahoogroups.com, objectivism-discussion
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 8:43 AM, hibbsa <asb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In this brave new world why:
>
> - would anyone be willing to fight and die for their country, for a few
> hundred bucks a month? Where's the personal advantage right there for
> that person?
He might want the benefits package, e.g. paid school.
> - How would democracy work without an ethos of public service? Why
> should some elected official regard his duty as being to serve his
> constituency? Why not just the position to line his own pockets?
If one wants to "line his own pockets" he can do that more effectively
by working in the private sector than working in the public sector.
But, why should anyone want lots of money just for the sake of having
lots of money? Today, the best stuff that one would want to buy is
cheap, e.g. ipad/iphone. Why be a politician if one's goal is to
generate enough wealth to have the best stuff and if being a
programmer or an engineer or a doctor is sufficient to creating enough
wealth to achieve that goal?
>
> - Why not be corrupt in general if it makes more money for a given
> individual in a given position?
By "corrupt" do you mean doing illegal things? Because doing illegal
things means risk of going to jail, which is a cost not a benefit.
>
> etc, etc, etc, why should anyone do anything that isn't in his personal
> immediate interest?
Your question implies that its beneficial to sacrifice one's long-term
benefit for the sake of gaining short-term benefit. This is nonsense.
> For example, Ayn Rand herself took welfare later in
> her life.
She drew wealth from a system which she paid into beforehand, which is
what the social security system was designed for. This is not bad.
Actually, sacrificing her social security benefit after having paid
into it would have been immoral.
> I've seen that defended as being exactly correct because her
> point was you act selfishly at all timeslly, so it's ok for her to take
> advantage of a system she totally disagreed with.
What do you mean by "took advantage" of the system?
> So in other words, it
> wasn't an argument for her, that she shouldn't take the welfare because
> although there was an immedate benefit to her, ultimately she benefited
> more by not taking it, on the grounds if everyone did the same it would
> create a better world.
If everybody shared some of their wealth by paying into the social
security system while they worked, and if everybody sacrificed their
social security benefits in retirement, then all that wealth would be
wasted. Why should we waste wealth? Its nonsense.
> So please no arguments based on the individual being swayed by some
> bigger more abstract benefit....giving his life for such a thing...in
> Ayn Rand terms.
I don't understand what you're saying, so I don't know if I've made
the type of argument that you're asking us not to make.
-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
>
> In this brave new world why:
>
> - would anyone be willing to fight and die for their country, for a few
> hundred bucks a month? Where's the personal advantage right there for
> that person?
He might want the benefits package, e.g. paid school.
> - How would democracy work without an ethos of public service? Why
> should some elected official regard his duty as being to serve his
> constituency? Why not just the position to line his own pockets?
If one wants to "line his own pockets" he can do that more effectively
by working in the private sector than working in the public sector.
But, why should anyone want lots of money just for the sake of having
lots of money? Today, the best stuff that one would want to buy is
cheap, e.g. ipad/iphone. Why be a politician if one's goal is to
generate enough wealth to have the best stuff and if being a
programmer or an engineer or a doctor is sufficient to creating enough
wealth to achieve that goal?
>
> - Why not be corrupt in general if it makes more money for a given
> individual in a given position?
By "corrupt" do you mean doing illegal things? Because doing illegal
things means risk of going to jail, which is a cost not a benefit.
>
> etc, etc, etc, why should anyone do anything that isn't in his personal
> immediate interest?
Your question implies that its beneficial to sacrifice one's long-term
benefit for the sake of gaining short-term benefit. This is nonsense.
> For example, Ayn Rand herself took welfare later in
> her life.
She drew wealth from a system which she paid into beforehand, which is
what the social security system was designed for. This is not bad.
Actually, sacrificing her social security benefit after having paid
into it would have been immoral.
> I've seen that defended as being exactly correct because her
> point was you act selfishly at all timeslly, so it's ok for her to take
> advantage of a system she totally disagreed with.
What do you mean by "took advantage" of the system?
> So in other words, it
> wasn't an argument for her, that she shouldn't take the welfare because
> although there was an immedate benefit to her, ultimately she benefited
> more by not taking it, on the grounds if everyone did the same it would
> create a better world.
If everybody shared some of their wealth by paying into the social
security system while they worked, and if everybody sacrificed their
social security benefits in retirement, then all that wealth would be
wasted. Why should we waste wealth? Its nonsense.
> So please no arguments based on the individual being swayed by some
> bigger more abstract benefit....giving his life for such a thing...in
> Ayn Rand terms.
I don't understand what you're saying, so I don't know if I've made
the type of argument that you're asking us not to make.
-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
michael.r...@gmail.com
Feb 3, 2013, 2:27:03 PM2/3/13
to objectivism...@googlegroups.com, asb...@gmail.com
On Sunday, February 3, 2013 1:53:06 PM UTC-5, Rami wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 8:43 AM, hibbsa <asb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In this brave new world why:
>
> - would anyone be willing to fight and die for their country, for a few
> hundred bucks a month? Where's the personal advantage right there for
> that person?
He might want the benefits package, e.g. paid school.
People should not be "willing to fight and die for their country", any country, because it is their country, for a pittance.
So the fact that in an Objectivist world people wouldn't be willing to do that is a non-problem -- its actually a good thing.
One thing people can be willing to fight and die for, however, is the defense of certain values.
Values like freedom, the tradition of liberal democracy, tolerance, open inquiry, free markets, etc.
These traditions are embodied and protected in certain institutions, such as countries (but only some countries, not others, and only as long as those values remain alive in the country, which can cease to be the case. So again, no one should be willing to "die for their country" without judging their country's moral worth).
Why would people be willing to fight and die for these values? Is such a willingness to do so rational?
It is, if one considers that these values are life-affirming, and necessary for the sort of society worth living in.
And if there were entities trying to destroy the institutions (such as countries) which embody and protect these values, then defending those institutions with your life becomes a part of your enlightened self-interest.
This is quite apart from things such as benefits packages, or such as the fact that some people might enjoy some aspects of fighting wars.
> - How would democracy work without an ethos of public service? Why
> should some elected official regard his duty as being to serve his
> constituency? Why not just the position to line his own pockets?
Why are you presuming that being a thief is in one's enlightened self-interest?
Do you have any actual arguments?
If one wants to "line his own pockets" he can do that more effectively
by working in the private sector than working in the public sector.
Line one's pockets is an idiom meaning to make money, especially in an illegal or questionable way.
But, why should anyone want lots of money just for the sake of having
lots of money? Today, the best stuff that one would want to buy is
cheap, e.g. ipad/iphone. Why be a politician if one's goal is to
generate enough wealth to have the best stuff and if being a
programmer or an engineer or a doctor is sufficient to creating enough
wealth to achieve that goal?
Lots of people want more money than they actually need, because of bad definitions of what they "need", or a desire for social status, etc.
Being this sort of morally bad, status-seeking person with high "needs" correlates with being a politician.
>
> - Why not be corrupt in general if it makes more money for a given
> individual in a given position?
Like Jack Abramoff?
One reason (besides the risk of being caught) is that being corrupt is a huge amount of work. The opportunity cost of criminality is very high, even if one is "successful."
One could be building productive skills instead.
By "corrupt" do you mean doing illegal things? Because doing illegal
things means risk of going to jail, which is a cost not a benefit.
>
> etc, etc, etc, why should anyone do anything that isn't in his personal
> immediate interest?
Getting to the position of being able to be corrupt is a high-opportunity cost endeavor itself.
Not to mention the risks and opportunity cost of being a corrupt person is high.
Nobody's born a world-class thief, high-ranking bureaucrat, or tin-pot dictator. And nobody stays that way without having kind of a sucky life.
The real interesting question here is, why do you think otherwise?
Your question implies that its beneficial to sacrifice one's long-term
benefit for the sake of gaining short-term benefit. This is nonsense.
> For example, Ayn Rand herself took welfare later in
> her life.
She drew wealth from a system which she paid into beforehand, which is
what the social security system was designed for. This is not bad.
Actually, sacrificing her social security benefit after having paid
into it would have been immoral.
> I've seen that defended as being exactly correct because her
> point was you act selfishly at all timeslly, so it's ok for her to take
> advantage of a system she totally disagreed with.
What do you mean by "took advantage" of the system?
I don't see the issue. She had money stolen from her and got some of it back.
That's totally different than being an e.g. corrupt bureaucrat stealing public funds. Do you disagree?
> So in other words, it
> wasn't an argument for her, that she shouldn't take the welfare because
> although there was an immedate benefit to her, ultimately she benefited
> more by not taking it, on the grounds if everyone did the same it would
> create a better world.
If everybody shared some of their wealth by paying into the social
security system while they worked, and if everybody sacrificed their
social security benefits in retirement, then all that wealth would be
wasted. Why should we waste wealth? Its nonsense.
Right I don't even see the argument. If the government has more money because people voluntarily don't take an entitlement, they'll just spend it on something else stupid.
> So please no arguments based on the individual being swayed by some
> bigger more abstract benefit....giving his life for such a thing...in
> Ayn Rand terms.
I don't understand what you're saying, so I don't know if I've made
the type of argument that you're asking us not to make.
I think maybe this would describe my argument about fighting for good countries above, but I think the difference is that fighting for a good country could make a difference, whereas not taking your social security money really wouldn't, because the govt would just spend it on something else anyways.
BTW, one thing on social security: there are good arguments to not be DEPENDENT on social security based on your rational self-interest. Like, basically, dependency is a bad state to be in. One should be able to take care of one's own needs and not be at the whim of politicians and bureaucrats -- you shouldn't let others rule your life. But that is actually *separate* from the question of the morality of receiving some stupid government benefit one is entitled to anyways.
Elliot Temple
Feb 7, 2013, 10:20:12 PM2/7/13
to objectivism...@googlegroups.com
On Feb 3, 2013, at 10:53 AM, Rami Rustom <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 8:43 AM, hibbsa <asb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For example, Ayn Rand herself took welfare later in
>> her life.
>
> She drew wealth from a system which she paid into beforehand, which is
> what the social security system was designed for. This is not bad.
> Actually, sacrificing her social security benefit after having paid
> into it would have been immoral.
you don't address it nor clearly say why rejecting social security benefits would have been immoral.
>
>> I've seen that defended as being exactly correct because her
>> point was you act selfishly at all timeslly, so it's ok for her to take
>> advantage of a system she totally disagreed with.
>
> What do you mean by "took advantage" of the system?
it would be an appropriate complaint if, for example, she had filed false forms in order to get extra large social security checks. she did not.
-- Elliot Temple
http://elliottemple.com/
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages