I though the two parties would be reversed. After all, which side is currently arguing for conservation and other measures to reduce the consumption of resources or limiting the power of people to make decisions? But it makes sense. Maximizing one quantity often requires minimizing others. Here, the constraint or its lack is on our desire to improve humanity. But in order to have truly unconstrained improvement of humanity to meet my lofty goals, I have to overcome resistance to the improvement from the subjects of it.
I am reminded of photographers of children and pets. Too often I see nice pictures of kids or animals all dressed up with those wild eyes that say “Please get me out of here”. The alternate is just to let them be what they are and get a few good pictures every now and then.
This is actually the opposite of Rand’s view of man. She deplored the inherently flawed view, and looked at freedom as beinge vi appropriate only to the virtuous. But the American political system is definitely set up to accommodate human weakness — and defend against it.
Umm.. I’m not sure I agree. Rand simply disagreed about what man’s inherent flaws *were*. Selfishness was blanket declared to be an evil by such people as Adam Smith, and that it was just a pleasant surprise that the market turns that evil to the benefit of mankind. Ayn Rand explained exactly what kind of selfishness was required for a market to function and claimed that it was exactly because rational egoism is a virtue that a market could function at all. Another way of saying the same thing is that Adam Smith thought a market turns evil into a good, whereas Rand explained where the good comes from.
Well put and interesting. Where does the good come from?
At a guess, I think it would be from a system that rewards people for cooperating with each other. Theft, fraud, etc are “evil” in the Rand world-view. Those wouldn’t be rewarded in an economic system where people can reliably and effectively punish such perpetrators.
I agree with the proviso that the “cooperating” be of the “free exchange” variety. Free exchange has the interesting quality that it directly enriches both parties and indirectly enriches the community at large. A further interesting feature is that wealth is only produced if each party purses their self interest. Otherwise the result is redistributive but not creative.
I though the two parties would be reversed. After all, which side is currently arguing for conservation and other measures to reduce the consumption of resources or limiting the power of people to make decisions? But it makes sense. Maximizing one quantity often requires minimizing others. Here, the constraint or its lack is on our desire to improve humanity. But in order to have truly unconstrained improvement of humanity to meet my lofty goals, I have to overcome resistance to the improvement from the subjects of it.
I am reminded of photographers of children and pets. Too often I see nice pictures of kids or animals all dressed up with those wild eyes that say “Please get me out of here”. The alternate is just to let them be what they are and get a few good pictures every now and then.
This is actually the opposite of Rand’s view of man. She deplored the inherently flawed view, and looked at freedom as beinge vi appropriate only to the virtuous. But the American political system is definitely set up to accommodate human weakness — and defend against it.
Umm.. I’m not sure I agree. Rand simply disagreed about what man’s inherent flaws *were*. Selfishness was blanket declared to be an evil by such people as Adam Smith, and that it was just a pleasant surprise that the market turns that evil to the benefit of mankind. Ayn Rand explained exactly what kind of selfishness was required for a market to function and claimed that it was exactly because rational egoism is a virtue that a market could function at all. Another way of saying the same thing is that Adam Smith thought a market turns evil into a good, whereas Rand explained where the good comes from.
Well put and interesting. Where does the good come from?
At a guess, I think it would be from a system that rewards people for cooperating with each other. Theft, fraud, etc are “evil” in the Rand world-view. Those wouldn’t be rewarded in an economic system where people can reliably and effectively punish such perpetrators.
I agree with the proviso that the “cooperating” be of the “free exchange” variety. Free exchange has the interesting quality that it directly enriches both parties and indirectly enriches the community at large. A further interesting feature is that wealth is only produced if each party purses their self interest. Otherwise the result is redistributive but not creative.