4 ms·

It's not surprising that those who have bought into Rand and her ego stroking 'superman' ideology are sociopaths. These highly individualist supermen don't nee

by throw2016 9y ago

It's not surprising that those who have bought into Rand and her ego stroking 'superman' ideology are sociopaths. These highly individualist supermen don't need society or anyone else for their success. They stand alone. Celebrating themselves while seeing others suffer and blaming them for their suffering is simply the natural order of things. Empathy is completely absent in this impoverished binary world view of success and failure. But life and human beings cannot just be reduced to a primitive ideology of success and failure, especially when the successful are riding on generations of privilege. It's obscene for those starting a 100M race at 90M to lecture others on achievement. While these self centred achievers stroke their egos millions if not billions of human brains are wasted just trying to survive, their intellectual output never given the opportunity to shine. And its not just their loss but a social catastrophe because its only leisure and stability that allowed our tryst with science to begin.

wavefunction 9y ago
Also, the Randian superman does not exist and is a juvenile fantasy.
- rsync 9y ago
  "Also, the Randian superman does not exist and is a juvenile fantasy." I am not a follower or a fan of Ayn Rand but I really don't see any other category within which to place: Steve Jobs, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Elon Musk ... perhaps even Donald Trump ? George Lucas ? They seem to fit the archetype ...
  - ikeyany 9y ago
    Are they actually super? Do you really think they would have amounted to anything if they happened to grow up in poverty or with a poor education?
    - vt100 9y ago
      Would Superman have amounted to anything if he hadn't been from Krypton, and if his father hadn't been a scientist who was able to put him on a spaceship and send him to Earth?
      - emiliobumachar 9y ago
        Very good point. There's quite the level of priviledge to have a spaceship purpose-built to whisk you and only you out of a doomed planet.
kromem 9y ago
I'm a big fan of Rand and truly believe that pure altruism is a fundimentally unsustainable and fruitless endeavor (considering the definition is putting in more than you get out, that's kind of obvious). Luckily, most of the things we as a society value as being a "good" thing to do are in fact really good things to do as an individual looking out for one's own self interest. Have you or I benefited greatly from the work of Jobs & Woz, Gates, Einstein, Pasteur, etc? I'd say yes. Would it stand to reason that we would benefit significantly from future contributions from similar people? Well, if that is true, we should probably support social programs like good access to education and healthcare, so that those potential innovators have fewer obstacles in their path. Does a society that revolves around mass production tend to innovate faster when the masses have stronger spending power? Makes sense - so perhaps fiscal policies that mitigate income inequality would be wise - from an innovation standpoint (completely ignoring the moral case). Yes, there are dumb people out there who read Rand and overlooked (a) that she was reacting to having lived through the awful aftermath of the Russian revolution and (b) was writing fiction in dystopian universes (before she got a bit too cray cray and just started writing philosophy). You can read Orwell and not think there's actually talking animals. And a lot of the proclaimed Randians happen to forget that in her most nuanced work, Atlas Shrugged, the populist movement was the lesser villain to the larger villian of crony capitalism, lobbying, and government intervention on behalf of those interests. It's actually quite refreshing to look at socialist policies from a perspective of selfishness, because if you ask yourself the question of "will these policies benefit me even if I'm not a direct beneficiary?" - the amazing thing is that the answer is"yes" given a long and broad perspective. We shouldn't as a society make the case for these policies because of moral arguments, but can and should make the case on the basis of their impact on economic growth and the rate of progress. Most investors prefer reinvestment to dividends for long term holdings. And that's exactly what social programs, and policies addressing income inequality, are. They are a reinvestment into the country instead of a dividend (aka tax cut) paid out annually. Let's make that case using the language and reasoning they already understand.

wavefunction 9y ago

Also, the Randian superman does not exist and is a juvenile fantasy.

rsync 9y ago
"Also, the Randian superman does not exist and is a juvenile fantasy." I am not a follower or a fan of Ayn Rand but I really don't see any other category within which to place: Steve Jobs, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Elon Musk ... perhaps even Donald Trump ? George Lucas ? They seem to fit the archetype ...
- ikeyany 9y ago
  Are they actually super? Do you really think they would have amounted to anything if they happened to grow up in poverty or with a poor education?
  - vt100 9y ago
    Would Superman have amounted to anything if he hadn't been from Krypton, and if his father hadn't been a scientist who was able to put him on a spaceship and send him to Earth?
    - emiliobumachar 9y ago
      Very good point. There's quite the level of priviledge to have a spaceship purpose-built to whisk you and only you out of a doomed planet.

kromem 9y ago

I'm a big fan of Rand and truly believe that pure altruism is a fundimentally unsustainable and fruitless endeavor (considering the definition is putting in more than you get out, that's kind of obvious). Luckily, most of the things we as a society value as being a "good" thing to do are in fact really good things to do as an individual looking out for one's own self interest. Have you or I benefited greatly from the work of Jobs & Woz, Gates, Einstein, Pasteur, etc? I'd say yes. Would it stand to reason that we would benefit significantly from future contributions from similar people? Well, if that is true, we should probably support social programs like good access to education and healthcare, so that those potential innovators have fewer obstacles in their path. Does a society that revolves around mass production tend to innovate faster when the masses have stronger spending power? Makes sense - so perhaps fiscal policies that mitigate income inequality would be wise - from an innovation standpoint (completely ignoring the moral case). Yes, there are dumb people out there who read Rand and overlooked (a) that she was reacting to having lived through the awful aftermath of the Russian revolution and (b) was writing fiction in dystopian universes (before she got a bit too cray cray and just started writing philosophy). You can read Orwell and not think there's actually talking animals. And a lot of the proclaimed Randians happen to forget that in her most nuanced work, Atlas Shrugged, the populist movement was the lesser villain to the larger villian of crony capitalism, lobbying, and government intervention on behalf of those interests. It's actually quite refreshing to look at socialist policies from a perspective of selfishness, because if you ask yourself the question of "will these policies benefit me even if I'm not a direct beneficiary?" - the amazing thing is that the answer is"yes" given a long and broad perspective. We shouldn't as a society make the case for these policies because of moral arguments, but can and should make the case on the basis of their impact on economic growth and the rate of progress. Most investors prefer reinvestment to dividends for long term holdings. And that's exactly what social programs, and policies addressing income inequality, are. They are a reinvestment into the country instead of a dividend (aka tax cut) paid out annually. Let's make that case using the language and reasoning they already understand.