Atlas Shrugged

quote:

---

Good lord! people still read her stuff in the states? I'm amazing why she was taken seriously to start with (she had little or no impact in europe).

---

Reports are the most important man in the States, Alan Greenspan, is a follower of Ayn Rand.People here can be infatuated with her work when they are adolescents, but usually grow out of it. I think they lose interest when they realize that rather than being a Randian independent thinker and hero, they would actually be considered one of the sheep.I do have one friend who still insists that he is an Ubermensch, but at least he reads Nietsche, the real deal, rather than Rand.

Damn! I was drinking tea when I read that comic and spurted scalding hot tea through my nose!Favorite quote: I only know how to pay people to create new alloys.

Hi, Percy.The quote seems to support my impression of Rand -- a self-interested hyper-individualist. The only thing by Rand I have read is Anthem, and although it may be an intentional parody (and so an exaggeration) of what she feels is wrong with society, I still find it to be an extremely annoying novel. Maybe I am mischaracterizing her, but my impression is that she really takes a dim view of collective action and collective knowledge.By the way, I do realize that Ann Rand is dead, but it is conventional to represent the views of scientists, philosophers, and others who engage in academic persuits in the present tense.

quote:

---

How long could that last?

---

Well, it's been over 63 years since the US entered WWII, and the defense contractors have been at the feeding trough ever since.

quote:

---

If I was a baron of old collecting arbitrary taxes from serfs then that is redistribution without any creation of value.

---

Actually, the baron was responsible for the organization and smooth running of the whole operation, and so his huge income was quite justified. At least, by the same argument used by contemporary CEO's of contemporary corporations.And, unlike workers in a contemporary business, the serfs were only obligated the pay a certain fixed proportion of their production to the baron (and the church) -- the rest was theirs to dispose of as they saw fit. That isn't true of modern workers, who must yield the entire amount of their production to the employer, for which they receive a salary that is determined largely by the employer.

quote:

---

What answers to you think I would receive?

---

Well, I don't know much about ex-Walmart employees in Quebec, but my guess is that they would explain how the consequences of their higher wages would be less anxiety about having to go onto social assistance, food on the table for their kids, maybe even a college education so their kids can have the type of software job that you seem to enjoy.Let me give you some advice -- this attempt to lead the person to a desired conclusion by asking loaded questions worked for Socrates because Plato was able to put the right words in everyone's mouths. In real life it makes for a lousy debate technique, as well as being an annoying rhetorical device.

quote:

---

However, your hypothetical reponses still do not answer my question about why Walmart should provide higher wages. Would it merely be based on the employee needs?

---

Sure.

Hello, portmaster. Don't worry about the sarcasm; I didn't catch it, and sarcasm can be good sometimes, anyway.-

quote:

---

What about Walmart's need to pay it's employees based on their merit and worth the company.

---

I don't recognize that as a legitimate need. I do recognize that all goods and services need to be provided by people who are able to provide them, and that any organization, whatever its purpose, has only limited manpower needs. But no concern exists only to provide you, a consumer, with certain goods at the lowest prices -- it also exists to ensure that those working within it are provided with their needs.I believe that the workers have the right that their needs will be met by Walmart if it is feasible. I believe that the workers have the right to determine what their reasonable needs are, and what sacrifices they will be willing to make if Walmart is unable to meet all of the needs in an adequate manner; I also believe that the workers themselves have the right to determine when Walmart is unable to meet those needs, and what policy changes should be made to meet those needs. But then I believe that Western economics, based on private ownership (and control) of capital, is a grossly inefficient economic system since I define efficient as being able to provide the material needs of every individual in the population and to allow each individual to pursue her path to self-fullfillment (the "pursuit of happiness" business of the US Declaration of Independence).You may not want to "overpay" for the goods you buy, but you are not the sole person to decide what constitutes "overpaying". You do not have a "right" to cheap goods -- your "right" to cheap goods is balanced by your obligation to help ensure that everyone has their needs met. Make no mistake -- I do not agree with Rand's philosophy in the slightest (or at least what I take to be her philosophy). Your rights are balanced by everyone else's rights, and I believe that you have obligations to help ensure that everyone else's rights are provided for, including their rights to a decent life, a life where one's material needs are met and where there is the potential for self-fullfinllment.

I guess that makes about as much sense as saying that in a true free market society we should allow people with the proper skills to hire themselves out as assassins and terrorists. Or in a society where everyone acts according to their own self-interest, then someone bigger than you can come over and take your lunch away from you.Or is that a bit too much self-interest?Whee! We can play this game all day!Let me know when you want to have a serious conversation.

quote:

---

Aren't you making the same mistake as Rand, i.e., claiming that people should be compensated in amounts other than those set by the marketplace?

---

So, is this getting to be a question of values (in the sense of morals)? Why indeed, should we prefer one economic system over another? Perhaps we need to be more explicit about what we expect from an economic system so that we can analyze each to determine how well it meets those expectations.

quote:

---

It's interesting how some posters here view free market capitalism as though it is some evil sentient entity that goes out of its way to enrich amoral money grubbers by trodding on the backs of the enslaved workers.

---

What I find interesting is how some posters here view other posters' opinions so unpleasant that they cannot even read them correctly.--

quote:

---

Dynamic individuals are kept from rising to their ultimate heights by the jealous masses; the need to conform, to be mediocre is for the betterment of society as a whole because the individual who stands out makes everyone else who can't, or won't, look bad.

---

That certainly describes the theme of the only Rand book I ever read, Anthem. The main problem is that, at least in the way it was presented that book, the idea is so juvenile -- it makes me think of when I was an adolescent and no one ever understood me, I was the one spark of reason in the whole place, etc. Maybe there is occassionally some bright, talented individual who thinks differently but is pulled down into mediocrity by the sheep surrounding her, but most of my experience is of people who think they are such geniuses that they act like dicks and people treat them like dicks.--Hey, custard, I see that you've been missing even longer than I was. I hope that all has been well.

quote:

---

Atlas Shrugged's overriding theme is that the John Galts of society are being held back by the masses of people who have neither the talent nor inclination to achieve greatness.

---

But are the John Galts of society really being held back by the masses of people who neither have the talent or inclination to achieve greatness?What does "being held back" mean, anyway?I read a story once where alien conquerors used humans as incubators for their eggs. A serious problem, but I wouldn't base a philosophy on it.