OT: Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”

[sdduuuude]

[quote=CONCHO]Laissez-Faire systems could only work if people were angels, but then of course communism would work great if everyone were angels too.[/quote]

I have to jump in and dispell a common myth about free-market systems. Many people think that free-market systems are complete anarchy, with no controls on anything.

This simply isn’t the case. For a free market to work, contract law and property rights both have to be enforced. Some may say “then it is a regulated environment and not really a free market” to which I reply – you don’t really understand what “free” means.

It doesn’t mean free to do whatever the hell you want at any time without repercussion. It means being free from people infringing on your rights. Once you understand this, I hope it changes your perception of a free market.

Any system would work well if everyone were angels. The question is – given they aren’t do you want a system that protects you from people infringing on your rights or do you want a system that allows government officials (also not angels) to infringe upon your right at any time without your consent? (A simple example would be emminent domain.) I’ll take door #1, thank you very much.

In a free market society, guys like Madoff would be as much a criminal as in any society and possibly punished more severly and swiftly than any.

You don’t need people to be angels, you just have to put systems into place that punish fraud, theft and violet crimes.

I agree that the top-loading of power is a result of human nature and not a reason to prefer one system to the other.

I don’t understand how the fact that luck plays a part in people’s success means free markets are or are not preferable to those with significant central control.

[equalizer]

[quote=davelj]I was a pseudo-socialist in college then became an ardent libertarian (helped along by Ayn Rand and others) and I’ve slowly moved toward the center over the last decade. I think Ayn Rand made some brilliant, counter-intuitive observations, but over time I found two major flaws in her philosophy.

One, her philosophy discounts the influence of sheer luck. The heroes of her stories reach the heights of success by sheer force of will. While this is inspirational, it’s also not particularly realistic. Luck – or good fortune or whatever you want to call it – plays an enormous role in determining various human outcomes. Nassim Taleb does an excellent job discussing this issue in “Fooled by Randomness.” Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in Ronald Reagan’s observation that “The harder I worked, the luckier I got,” but when you observe the careers of the super successful, there were an awful lot of lucky breaks (that is, “helpful randomness”) along the way.

Two, Rand’s philosophy doesn’t take into account what I call the “Revolution Factor.” In a purely capitalistic system, wealth is going to get enormously concentrated at the top (yeah, even more than we see now because our taxes are somewhat progressive). This income inequality, at some point, is going to cause social strife that will bring on revolution. I just don’t see how it’s avoidable. And that brings the whole system down such that the “uber capitalists” lose everything they have. And what’s the point in that? So, in my view, progressive taxes and other socialistic institutions that we see here in the U.S. – to use one example – are just the price the more successful and lucky among us pay in order to keep the peace, so to speak, with the less successful and less fortunate. I’d rather pay high income taxes and benefit from a system that allows me to compound wealth (albeit at a lower rate due to the taxes) than live in poverty resulting from anarchy.

I’m sure Rand’s writings have other flaws, but those are two of the most glaring. But I still think her books are full of many spot-on observations that many folks don’t like to think about.

[/quote]
Excellent observations davelj.

Regarding sheer luck, it reminds me of Ronald Dworkin’s Theory of Equality, or equality of resources. Since all the freshman beer wiped out my recollection, I’ll just quote WIKI here:
“human beings are responsible for the life choices they make. The second is that natural endowments of intelligence and talent are morally arbitrary and ought not to affect the distribution of resources in society. Like the rest of Dworkin’s work, his theory of equality is underpinned by the core principle that every person is entitled to equal concern and respect in the design of the structure of society. Dworkin’s theory of equality is one variety of so-called luck egalitarianism.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Dworkin

My Chicago boys (I really miss shoveling the alley) forgot an important element in their utopia – extreme law and order, practiced by Pinochet, and more subtlety by Singapore and China. Pinochet was respected by a surprising many people in Chile because economy improved under the regime, with a little help from the Chicago boys. Singapore also prospered with this mix. From “The Elephant and the Dragon: The Rise of India and China”, the reader will find that China studied the Singapore model in early 80’s and now they too have prospered.

So we have many choices as sdude pointed out.
Right here, right now that is where I wanna be.
Did you guys know that Duran Duran were Rand fans??
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Yjg3MDI3YWMxZjkxMTU3NmVmNjVkMTllNDdmYWMxMmE=

[equalizer]

[quote=davelj]I was a pseudo-socialist in college then became an ardent libertarian (helped along by Ayn Rand and others) and I’ve slowly moved toward the center over the last decade. I think Ayn Rand made some brilliant, counter-intuitive observations, but over time I found two major flaws in her philosophy.

One, her philosophy discounts the influence of sheer luck. The heroes of her stories reach the heights of success by sheer force of will. While this is inspirational, it’s also not particularly realistic. Luck – or good fortune or whatever you want to call it – plays an enormous role in determining various human outcomes. Nassim Taleb does an excellent job discussing this issue in “Fooled by Randomness.” Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in Ronald Reagan’s observation that “The harder I worked, the luckier I got,” but when you observe the careers of the super successful, there were an awful lot of lucky breaks (that is, “helpful randomness”) along the way.

Two, Rand’s philosophy doesn’t take into account what I call the “Revolution Factor.” In a purely capitalistic system, wealth is going to get enormously concentrated at the top (yeah, even more than we see now because our taxes are somewhat progressive). This income inequality, at some point, is going to cause social strife that will bring on revolution. I just don’t see how it’s avoidable. And that brings the whole system down such that the “uber capitalists” lose everything they have. And what’s the point in that? So, in my view, progressive taxes and other socialistic institutions that we see here in the U.S. – to use one example – are just the price the more successful and lucky among us pay in order to keep the peace, so to speak, with the less successful and less fortunate. I’d rather pay high income taxes and benefit from a system that allows me to compound wealth (albeit at a lower rate due to the taxes) than live in poverty resulting from anarchy.

I’m sure Rand’s writings have other flaws, but those are two of the most glaring. But I still think her books are full of many spot-on observations that many folks don’t like to think about.

[/quote]
Excellent observations davelj.

Regarding sheer luck, it reminds me of Ronald Dworkin’s Theory of Equality, or equality of resources. Since all the freshman beer wiped out my recollection, I’ll just quote WIKI here:
“human beings are responsible for the life choices they make. The second is that natural endowments of intelligence and talent are morally arbitrary and ought not to affect the distribution of resources in society. Like the rest of Dworkin’s work, his theory of equality is underpinned by the core principle that every person is entitled to equal concern and respect in the design of the structure of society. Dworkin’s theory of equality is one variety of so-called luck egalitarianism.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Dworkin

My Chicago boys (I really miss shoveling the alley) forgot an important element in their utopia – extreme law and order, practiced by Pinochet, and more subtlety by Singapore and China. Pinochet was respected by a surprising many people in Chile because economy improved under the regime, with a little help from the Chicago boys. Singapore also prospered with this mix. From “The Elephant and the Dragon: The Rise of India and China”, the reader will find that China studied the Singapore model in early 80’s and now they too have prospered.

So we have many choices as sdude pointed out.
Right here, right now that is where I wanna be.
Did you guys know that Duran Duran were Rand fans??
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Yjg3MDI3YWMxZjkxMTU3NmVmNjVkMTllNDdmYWMxMmE=

[equalizer]

[quote=davelj]I was a pseudo-socialist in college then became an ardent libertarian (helped along by Ayn Rand and others) and I’ve slowly moved toward the center over the last decade. I think Ayn Rand made some brilliant, counter-intuitive observations, but over time I found two major flaws in her philosophy.

One, her philosophy discounts the influence of sheer luck. The heroes of her stories reach the heights of success by sheer force of will. While this is inspirational, it’s also not particularly realistic. Luck – or good fortune or whatever you want to call it – plays an enormous role in determining various human outcomes. Nassim Taleb does an excellent job discussing this issue in “Fooled by Randomness.” Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in Ronald Reagan’s observation that “The harder I worked, the luckier I got,” but when you observe the careers of the super successful, there were an awful lot of lucky breaks (that is, “helpful randomness”) along the way.

Two, Rand’s philosophy doesn’t take into account what I call the “Revolution Factor.” In a purely capitalistic system, wealth is going to get enormously concentrated at the top (yeah, even more than we see now because our taxes are somewhat progressive). This income inequality, at some point, is going to cause social strife that will bring on revolution. I just don’t see how it’s avoidable. And that brings the whole system down such that the “uber capitalists” lose everything they have. And what’s the point in that? So, in my view, progressive taxes and other socialistic institutions that we see here in the U.S. – to use one example – are just the price the more successful and lucky among us pay in order to keep the peace, so to speak, with the less successful and less fortunate. I’d rather pay high income taxes and benefit from a system that allows me to compound wealth (albeit at a lower rate due to the taxes) than live in poverty resulting from anarchy.

I’m sure Rand’s writings have other flaws, but those are two of the most glaring. But I still think her books are full of many spot-on observations that many folks don’t like to think about.

[/quote]
Excellent observations davelj.

Regarding sheer luck, it reminds me of Ronald Dworkin’s Theory of Equality, or equality of resources. Since all the freshman beer wiped out my recollection, I’ll just quote WIKI here:
“human beings are responsible for the life choices they make. The second is that natural endowments of intelligence and talent are morally arbitrary and ought not to affect the distribution of resources in society. Like the rest of Dworkin’s work, his theory of equality is underpinned by the core principle that every person is entitled to equal concern and respect in the design of the structure of society. Dworkin’s theory of equality is one variety of so-called luck egalitarianism.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Dworkin

My Chicago boys (I really miss shoveling the alley) forgot an important element in their utopia – extreme law and order, practiced by Pinochet, and more subtlety by Singapore and China. Pinochet was respected by a surprising many people in Chile because economy improved under the regime, with a little help from the Chicago boys. Singapore also prospered with this mix. From “The Elephant and the Dragon: The Rise of India and China”, the reader will find that China studied the Singapore model in early 80’s and now they too have prospered.

So we have many choices as sdude pointed out.
Right here, right now that is where I wanna be.
Did you guys know that Duran Duran were Rand fans??
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Yjg3MDI3YWMxZjkxMTU3NmVmNjVkMTllNDdmYWMxMmE=

[equalizer]

[quote=davelj]I was a pseudo-socialist in college then became an ardent libertarian (helped along by Ayn Rand and others) and I’ve slowly moved toward the center over the last decade. I think Ayn Rand made some brilliant, counter-intuitive observations, but over time I found two major flaws in her philosophy.

One, her philosophy discounts the influence of sheer luck. The heroes of her stories reach the heights of success by sheer force of will. While this is inspirational, it’s also not particularly realistic. Luck – or good fortune or whatever you want to call it – plays an enormous role in determining various human outcomes. Nassim Taleb does an excellent job discussing this issue in “Fooled by Randomness.” Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in Ronald Reagan’s observation that “The harder I worked, the luckier I got,” but when you observe the careers of the super successful, there were an awful lot of lucky breaks (that is, “helpful randomness”) along the way.

Two, Rand’s philosophy doesn’t take into account what I call the “Revolution Factor.” In a purely capitalistic system, wealth is going to get enormously concentrated at the top (yeah, even more than we see now because our taxes are somewhat progressive). This income inequality, at some point, is going to cause social strife that will bring on revolution. I just don’t see how it’s avoidable. And that brings the whole system down such that the “uber capitalists” lose everything they have. And what’s the point in that? So, in my view, progressive taxes and other socialistic institutions that we see here in the U.S. – to use one example – are just the price the more successful and lucky among us pay in order to keep the peace, so to speak, with the less successful and less fortunate. I’d rather pay high income taxes and benefit from a system that allows me to compound wealth (albeit at a lower rate due to the taxes) than live in poverty resulting from anarchy.

I’m sure Rand’s writings have other flaws, but those are two of the most glaring. But I still think her books are full of many spot-on observations that many folks don’t like to think about.

[/quote]
Excellent observations davelj.

Regarding sheer luck, it reminds me of Ronald Dworkin’s Theory of Equality, or equality of resources. Since all the freshman beer wiped out my recollection, I’ll just quote WIKI here:
“human beings are responsible for the life choices they make. The second is that natural endowments of intelligence and talent are morally arbitrary and ought not to affect the distribution of resources in society. Like the rest of Dworkin’s work, his theory of equality is underpinned by the core principle that every person is entitled to equal concern and respect in the design of the structure of society. Dworkin’s theory of equality is one variety of so-called luck egalitarianism.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Dworkin

My Chicago boys (I really miss shoveling the alley) forgot an important element in their utopia – extreme law and order, practiced by Pinochet, and more subtlety by Singapore and China. Pinochet was respected by a surprising many people in Chile because economy improved under the regime, with a little help from the Chicago boys. Singapore also prospered with this mix. From “The Elephant and the Dragon: The Rise of India and China”, the reader will find that China studied the Singapore model in early 80’s and now they too have prospered.

So we have many choices as sdude pointed out.
Right here, right now that is where I wanna be.
Did you guys know that Duran Duran were Rand fans??
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Yjg3MDI3YWMxZjkxMTU3NmVmNjVkMTllNDdmYWMxMmE=

[equalizer]

[quote=davelj]I was a pseudo-socialist in college then became an ardent libertarian (helped along by Ayn Rand and others) and I’ve slowly moved toward the center over the last decade. I think Ayn Rand made some brilliant, counter-intuitive observations, but over time I found two major flaws in her philosophy.

One, her philosophy discounts the influence of sheer luck. The heroes of her stories reach the heights of success by sheer force of will. While this is inspirational, it’s also not particularly realistic. Luck – or good fortune or whatever you want to call it – plays an enormous role in determining various human outcomes. Nassim Taleb does an excellent job discussing this issue in “Fooled by Randomness.” Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in Ronald Reagan’s observation that “The harder I worked, the luckier I got,” but when you observe the careers of the super successful, there were an awful lot of lucky breaks (that is, “helpful randomness”) along the way.

Two, Rand’s philosophy doesn’t take into account what I call the “Revolution Factor.” In a purely capitalistic system, wealth is going to get enormously concentrated at the top (yeah, even more than we see now because our taxes are somewhat progressive). This income inequality, at some point, is going to cause social strife that will bring on revolution. I just don’t see how it’s avoidable. And that brings the whole system down such that the “uber capitalists” lose everything they have. And what’s the point in that? So, in my view, progressive taxes and other socialistic institutions that we see here in the U.S. – to use one example – are just the price the more successful and lucky among us pay in order to keep the peace, so to speak, with the less successful and less fortunate. I’d rather pay high income taxes and benefit from a system that allows me to compound wealth (albeit at a lower rate due to the taxes) than live in poverty resulting from anarchy.

I’m sure Rand’s writings have other flaws, but those are two of the most glaring. But I still think her books are full of many spot-on observations that many folks don’t like to think about.

[/quote]
Excellent observations davelj.

Regarding sheer luck, it reminds me of Ronald Dworkin’s Theory of Equality, or equality of resources. Since all the freshman beer wiped out my recollection, I’ll just quote WIKI here:
“human beings are responsible for the life choices they make. The second is that natural endowments of intelligence and talent are morally arbitrary and ought not to affect the distribution of resources in society. Like the rest of Dworkin’s work, his theory of equality is underpinned by the core principle that every person is entitled to equal concern and respect in the design of the structure of society. Dworkin’s theory of equality is one variety of so-called luck egalitarianism.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Dworkin

My Chicago boys (I really miss shoveling the alley) forgot an important element in their utopia – extreme law and order, practiced by Pinochet, and more subtlety by Singapore and China. Pinochet was respected by a surprising many people in Chile because economy improved under the regime, with a little help from the Chicago boys. Singapore also prospered with this mix. From “The Elephant and the Dragon: The Rise of India and China”, the reader will find that China studied the Singapore model in early 80’s and now they too have prospered.

So we have many choices as sdude pointed out.
Right here, right now that is where I wanna be.
Did you guys know that Duran Duran were Rand fans??
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Yjg3MDI3YWMxZjkxMTU3NmVmNjVkMTllNDdmYWMxMmE=

[sdduuuude]

[quote=sdgrrl]… it seems the lending/mortgage industries had a laissez faire existence for awhile and we saw how it ended up.[/quote]

The mortgage securities industry is an example of a market that is not a free market – not because it was over regulated, but because the fraudulent behavior of the ratings agencies was unpunished.

That setup is a travesty, and often gets lablelled “Laissez Faire” or “Free Market” or “Capitalism” when in fact it is a foolish concoction of central government.

There is a big difference between Laissez Faire and government turning a blind eye to, or condoning fraud. They are, in fact, the opposite.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=sdgrrl]… it seems the lending/mortgage industries had a laissez faire existence for awhile and we saw how it ended up.[/quote]

The mortgage securities industry is an example of a market that is not a free market – not because it was over regulated, but because the fraudulent behavior of the ratings agencies was unpunished.

That setup is a travesty, and often gets lablelled “Laissez Faire” or “Free Market” or “Capitalism” when in fact it is a foolish concoction of central government.

There is a big difference between Laissez Faire and government turning a blind eye to, or condoning fraud. They are, in fact, the opposite.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=sdgrrl]… it seems the lending/mortgage industries had a laissez faire existence for awhile and we saw how it ended up.[/quote]

The mortgage securities industry is an example of a market that is not a free market – not because it was over regulated, but because the fraudulent behavior of the ratings agencies was unpunished.

That setup is a travesty, and often gets lablelled “Laissez Faire” or “Free Market” or “Capitalism” when in fact it is a foolish concoction of central government.

There is a big difference between Laissez Faire and government turning a blind eye to, or condoning fraud. They are, in fact, the opposite.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=sdgrrl]… it seems the lending/mortgage industries had a laissez faire existence for awhile and we saw how it ended up.[/quote]

The mortgage securities industry is an example of a market that is not a free market – not because it was over regulated, but because the fraudulent behavior of the ratings agencies was unpunished.

That setup is a travesty, and often gets lablelled “Laissez Faire” or “Free Market” or “Capitalism” when in fact it is a foolish concoction of central government.

There is a big difference between Laissez Faire and government turning a blind eye to, or condoning fraud. They are, in fact, the opposite.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=sdgrrl]… it seems the lending/mortgage industries had a laissez faire existence for awhile and we saw how it ended up.[/quote]

The mortgage securities industry is an example of a market that is not a free market – not because it was over regulated, but because the fraudulent behavior of the ratings agencies was unpunished.

That setup is a travesty, and often gets lablelled “Laissez Faire” or “Free Market” or “Capitalism” when in fact it is a foolish concoction of central government.

There is a big difference between Laissez Faire and government turning a blind eye to, or condoning fraud. They are, in fact, the opposite.

[davelj]

[quote=jficquette]Anyone with common sense knows that higher iq people make more money then lower income people as a rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

People with low IQ are 10-15 times more likely to be in poverty then those with high,very high iq’s.

John
[/quote]

I agree that common sense dictates that higher IQs should lead to higher income as a rule. And I used to believe this until I read a few studies that contradicted this notion. The evidence at the bottom of that Wiki entry on siblings is persuasive, I’ll give you that. The problem is that there’s a lot of evidence both supporting and debunking the positive correlation between IQ and “success.” And, frankly, I’m not sure who’s right on this issue. So I’ll give this to you: you may be right that IQ and success are correlated. But I don’t know if we’ll ever have completely conclusive evidence.

[davelj]

[quote=jficquette]Anyone with common sense knows that higher iq people make more money then lower income people as a rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

People with low IQ are 10-15 times more likely to be in poverty then those with high,very high iq’s.

John
[/quote]

I agree that common sense dictates that higher IQs should lead to higher income as a rule. And I used to believe this until I read a few studies that contradicted this notion. The evidence at the bottom of that Wiki entry on siblings is persuasive, I’ll give you that. The problem is that there’s a lot of evidence both supporting and debunking the positive correlation between IQ and “success.” And, frankly, I’m not sure who’s right on this issue. So I’ll give this to you: you may be right that IQ and success are correlated. But I don’t know if we’ll ever have completely conclusive evidence.

[davelj]

[quote=jficquette]Anyone with common sense knows that higher iq people make more money then lower income people as a rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

People with low IQ are 10-15 times more likely to be in poverty then those with high,very high iq’s.

John
[/quote]

I agree that common sense dictates that higher IQs should lead to higher income as a rule. And I used to believe this until I read a few studies that contradicted this notion. The evidence at the bottom of that Wiki entry on siblings is persuasive, I’ll give you that. The problem is that there’s a lot of evidence both supporting and debunking the positive correlation between IQ and “success.” And, frankly, I’m not sure who’s right on this issue. So I’ll give this to you: you may be right that IQ and success are correlated. But I don’t know if we’ll ever have completely conclusive evidence.

[davelj]

[quote=jficquette]Anyone with common sense knows that higher iq people make more money then lower income people as a rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

People with low IQ are 10-15 times more likely to be in poverty then those with high,very high iq’s.

John
[/quote]

I agree that common sense dictates that higher IQs should lead to higher income as a rule. And I used to believe this until I read a few studies that contradicted this notion. The evidence at the bottom of that Wiki entry on siblings is persuasive, I’ll give you that. The problem is that there’s a lot of evidence both supporting and debunking the positive correlation between IQ and “success.” And, frankly, I’m not sure who’s right on this issue. So I’ll give this to you: you may be right that IQ and success are correlated. But I don’t know if we’ll ever have completely conclusive evidence.

[Author]

Posts