Success in a vacuum

Ok, I’m new to all of this so if what I say below is so last-decade, forgive me. On the bright side, if this is the case, it should be easy to tell me why I’m wrong.

I recently watched “A Sense of Live.” My impression of Rand, given her background, is that her very existence as a well-known writer and thinker shows why individualism taken to its logical extreme paradoxically impedes self-actualization.

For example, Rand said she left Russia for America because she knew the latter was the only place she could be her most actualized self and write unimpeded. In other words, Rand came to America because the values that constitute America are those that foster self-actualization of the individual, at least relative to the values predominant in the Soviet Union at the time.

Here’s what seems to be the kicker for me: “democracy,” “individualism,” “freedom of expression,” “the marketplace of ideas,”—these are all constructs at the heart of America’s socio-political origins, and they continue to be only because as a society, we have agreed to uphold them in order for people like Ayn Rand to thrive. How can these aspirational abstractions maintain their authority in a society full of individuals concerned solely with their own self-benefit?

Although I take it for granted that, as I’m typing this, no person will suddenly barge through my door, slaughter me and take all of my belongings, I should not. Someone once said that you don’t notice the air you’re breathing until it’s gone. Replace “air” with “consciously nurturing socio-political fabric”: quite frankly, in the midst of screaming about the evils of altruism and sacrifice, Ayn Rand sounds at times like a privileged teenager throwing a tantrum and insisting to her humble and overly-adoring parents that she is “independent” enough to live her own life, and then promptly turning around and barging into her gilded bedroom quietly paid for by her parents.  

Certainly Ayn Rand could not have been so short-sighted as to believe that her success arose in a vacuum; as if the version of herself we all know today was not sketched on a medium we have created for people like her to be great. Does it not follow, then, that some sacrifice for the greater good is indeed rational? Or is that someone’s going to try throwing me a curveball by redefining what “sacrifice” and “altruism” means using the New Rand Unabridged Dictionary?

quoteWhat is wrong is that, indeed, Reardon does owe much to his employees as well, which is why say in a software company bringing in $10 billion in profit, the owner might make say $500 million - much of the rest goes to everyone else contributing value. 

I don't understand what this has to do with what I said. Just because the workers receive part of the profits—and it's obvious that they do—how does this address society at large—i.e., those who are not direct participants in the enterprise?

quoteNow you suddenly bring in "free" or "subsidized" but that is a circular argument –

I understand what you're saying, although I don't understand why this makes my argument "circular." In any event, it's certainly free/subsidized in the not-so-excessively pedantic sense upon which I insist using such terms: that we don't expect the individual receiving the immediate benefit to bear all of the immediate costs for that benefit.

quoteYou mention "education" that is provided by "society" when no such EVER takes place.  In reality, individuals teach and other various organizations do so, and they get paid for THEIR role. 

Again, this misses the point. That teachers get paid does not change the fact that the students themselves don't directly pay for all of the education they receive.

quote because the only reason it is free or subsidized is that the government took money from individuals and gave it to others! 

 This argument demonstrates the classic logical flaw of assuming the very premise that is in dispute: the entire inquiry is whether such action can honestly be deemed the linear "taking" from individuals and "giving" to "someone else" in the first place. If we deem individuals as benefiting from society, then the money comes back to us, not to "someone else."

quoteMeanwhile, making the whole thing more inefficient and costly and - so I am forced to pay taxes so that there is a service you can justify using force to make me pay for?  What?

"What?" indeed.

quote The point is - that value comes solely from individuals, not some non-entity collective, be it neighborhood, city, state, or federal government.  It is NOT a vacuum, it is many individuals, over time, creating value - and government is a vampire on values.

I agree to the extent that you are arguing that the value government provides is solely value deposited therein by individuals, but individuals acting as citizens, not "rugged individualists." Thus, the "many individuals over time creating value" in fact make them civic values through government. That's including the value Reardon receives by tapping a skilled workforce, the product of a society that has decided that a poor kid whose parents can't pay taxes, but yet may be gifted, should receive an education. Thus, that the value comes "solely from individuals" and "through government" are not mutually exclusive.

The Irish immigrant wishing to escape the potato blight did not come here to “make” opportunity. He came here only to seek the opportunities he knew America as a nation could provide him.

The question becomes whether this person indeed “creates value” out of a vacuum...

...based solely on his own individual achievement, or whether he owes his success, at least to some extent, to a society that emphasis education enough to provide it for free, or, at the post-secondary level, at a subsidized cost, so that individuals such as himself will have a skilled pool of prospective employees from which to draw.

If Reardon does so rely on society to this extent, does it not follow that his “success” is at least partly the product of a background social fabric that has provided a predicate for that success? If this is true, does it not follow that Reardon "owes" in a moral sense society something for his success?

Indeed, my idea of "owing" is perhaps different than yours.

That is, one thing I've noticed about Rand is that she speaks only in extreme terms. So "altruism" becomes "evil self-abuse," or "to owe" equates with allowing others to suck one dry of the fruit of one's labor." When reality is reduced to such extremes, it's hard to argue with Rand. But that's not the way the world is.

I guess what I'd like from objectivism is a grudging recognition that individual success almost never arises out of a vacuum, rather than the swaggering, absolutist, and flippant manner in which Rand and other objectivists dismiss the notion that we owe in a moral sense our individual success, to some extent, to society.

 

Ok, so what's wrong with this?

Edward: I'll start at the beginning, perhaps repeating some of the forgoing arguments"

Ok, I’m new to all of this so if what I say below is so last-decade, forgive me. On the bright side, if this is the case, it should be easy to tell me why I’m wrong.

 It is

Here’s what seems to be the kicker for me: “democracy,” “individualism,” “freedom of expression,” “the marketplace of ideas,”—these are all constructs at the heart of America’s socio-political origins, and they continue to be only because as a society, we have agreed to uphold them in order for people like Ayn Rand to thrive. How can these aspirational abstractions maintain their authority in a society full of individuals concerned solely with their own self-benefit?

.."in order for people like Ayn Rand to thrive." ???? We agree to uphold them for all people to thrive. Of course, those people in our society who are socialists and rely on others would not thrive in a society made up of individualists.

Although I take it for granted that, as I’m typing this, no person will suddenly barge through my door, slaughter me and take all of my belongings, I should not.

You should take it for granted if there is a strong police force and justice system.

Someone once said that you don’t notice the air you’re breathing until it’s gone. Replace “air” with “consciously nurturing socio-political fabric”: quite frankly, in the midst of screaming about the evils of altruism and sacrifice, Ayn Rand sounds at times like a privileged teenager throwing a tantrum and insisting to her humble and overly-adoring parents that she is “independent” enough to live her own life, and then promptly turning around and barging into her gilded bedroom quietly paid for by her parents.

Nobody gave Rand anything that she didn't earn. She fought relentlessly against the “consciously nurturing socio-political fabric.” What about those of us that don't want to be nurtured and protected? We want to be responsible for our own actions but not those of others. You and your ilk are bound and determined to nurture us no matter what.

Certainly Ayn Rand could not have been so short-sighted as to believe that her success arose in a vacuum; as if the version of herself we all know today was not sketched on a medium we have created for people like her to be great. Does it not follow, then, that some sacrifice for the greater good is indeed rational? Or is that someone’s going to try throwing me a curveball by redefining what “sacrifice” and “altruism” means using the New Rand Unabridged Dictionary?

Does it not follow, then, that some sacrifice for the greater good is indeed rational? 

 No

The Irish immigrant wishing to escape the potato blight did not come here to “make” opportunity. He came here only to seek the opportunities he knew America as a nation could provide him.

America's offering was one of a population of individuals who believed that one should work hard and prosper, not depend on "society" to provide a socialist safety net.

 ....he owes his success, at least to some extent, to a society that emphasis education enough to provide it for free, or, at the post-secondary level, at a subsidized cost, so that individuals such as himself will have a skilled pool of prospective employees from which to draw.

You've assumed that if the government sponsored education system didn't exist that there would not be an educated work force. Balderdash.

... does it not follow that Reardon (sic) "owes" in a moral sense society something for his success?
No.

... objectivists dismiss the notion that we owe in a moral sense our individual success, to some extent, to society.

I owe appreciation to all the scientific geniuses of the past from Archimedes, to Einstien. They have made my life richer. Do you presume that socialism would help the emergence of men of such ability? Rand owes no duty or obligation to those forces that impeded her final success. Rand benefited from the invention of the typewriter, paper, the printing press but did she owe anything to the inventors in any moral sense? No.

Sam

You're free to make the assertion, but to avoid complaints, and stinging retorts from me,  you'll have to prove it.  

Teresa,

The first thing that is so amusing about your posts is that you think your retorts are “stinging.” The second thing that’s so amusing is that you think your retorts are retorts. They aren’t. Rather, they reflect a lack of understanding—or perhaps a willful oversimplification to the point of fundamental alteration—of what I’ve said. So they, for the most part, don’t even address my assertions.

Edward can still just try posting a review of a movie he likes, analyzing a current event or a social phenomenon from a pro-reason free-market standpoint. Maybe he can introduce us to a new concept or theory. He can contribute anything of value he wishes, and see how we will respond in kind. Up til now I fail to see why he is here or what he expects to gain of value by making spurious, ad hoc and irrelevant objections such as implying that America isn't really the land of opportunity because we not only admitted entrepreneurs but also starving Irishmen.

A movie?! Ted, I find this to be an interesting paragraph. What I contribute are propositions that people here disagree with, and that are worth disagreeing with. If that weren’t so, then some of the more serious folks on this board would not have intelligently (although, I believe, incorrectly) disagreed with me. It’s the engagement itself that I’ve tried to invite. I don’t assume to offer anything new. If offering something “new” was a prerequisite to posting here, this forum would be fairly inactive.

But I see what your idea of “contribute” is . . .

Edward can still just try posting a review of a movie he likes, analyzing a current event or a social phenomenon from a pro-reason free-market standpoint.

So, Ted, in order to offer “value” to the discussion, you suggest I examine a social phenomenon from a “pro-market” standpoint. Wow. Sharing your normative focus . . . that would surely make the “dissent” section of this board really spicy, wouldn’t it?

Your remarks represent what I have discovered (in my admittedly short time here) about objectivists, at least insofar as those who have posted here are real objectivists. That is, objectivism for many who claim to be objectivists is not really a philosophy, but rather a frame of mind; an attitude.

Most philosophies are, of course, defended using reason, but objectivism, more so than any other school of thought I’ve encountered, seems to proprietize the very concept of “reason” as part of its definition; its claimed essence. The result of this is a sort of internal circularity inherent in many arguments objectivists advance: Since it rejects relativism and rather relies on the notion that there exists a single objective reality, the premises of objectivism are the most “rational” or “reasonable.” As such, so many of the arguments I’ve seen on this board can be distilled down to “you’re wrong because what you say does not comport with my premise, which is the only objectively correct one.”

Interestingly, it is only after I came to this conclusion that I discovered that objectivism has been characterized by some scholars as “more of an ideological movement than a well-grounded philosophy.” I’m no philosophy scholar, but it seems as if the reason why objectivism presents as an ideology is its apparent aversion to any nuance that might destabalize its preordianed conclusions.

. . .  by making spurious, ad hoc and irrelevant objections

“Spurious” and “ad hoc.” Yeah, sure Ted.

such as implying that America isn't really the land of opportunity because we not only admitted entrepreneurs but also starving Irishmen.

What on God’s green earth are you talking about? Yes, that would be “spurious” and “ad hoc,” as you put it. But that’s not even close to what I’ve suggested. And I don’t think I’m being enigmatic. In fact, I’ve tried to frame the conversation around a simple hypothetical, and some here who have posted have understood it quite well.

So, for those of you who are only interested in “[sic]”ing my words—the lamest form of message board flame attempts—please don’t waste your time any longer. Indeed, in spending some of your time noting that I have not contributed anything of value to this board, you are in fact “sacrificing” some of yourself, aren’t you Ted? Sacrificing in the evil or “irrational” sense you get nothing out of my posts, yet you respond to them with your own value--that is, your energy? Please move on.

For those of you who have provided intelligent responses, I appreciate it, and please excuse my need to respond to such unimportant things at length. I'm in a bad mood tonight, and I'm short on the "generosity" Ted and Teresa ran out of long before I did.

(Edited by Edward Cantu on 6/02, 7:55pm)