4 ms·

Rand's philosophy has not held up well, given the strains of unfettered capitalism. How would she suggest dealing with the tragedy of the commons, climate chang

Rand's philosophy has not held up well, given the strains of unfettered capitalism. How would she suggest dealing with the tragedy of the commons, climate change for instance, or net neutrality, right to repair, open source software, helping others on forums such as this? According to Rand, every comment on this forum is pointless because it doesn't gain us dollars, therefore we are doing nothing of value, unless this leads directly to employment (anyone want to hire me?)...In my view, her philosophy was very weak.

nautilus12 6y ago
"helping others". Is that whats happening here?
mettamage 6y ago
While I haven't experienced it, I have seen examples of people being hired as a result of HN. I think this is because HN kind of serves as a water cooler chat forum for people that are interested in tech + science (in the broadest possible sense). Sometimes job offers are a result of that. Note: I did get some help with prepping my resume among other things.
bitexploder 6y ago
Are you any good with Python? :)
oetnxkdrlgcexu 6y ago
I would like to gently suggest that you have probably misunderstood why Rand wrote what she did and communicated it the way she did. She, in her lifetime, bore personal witness to the rape, slaughter, and enslavement that was not only allowed but encouraged by a moral philosophy that placed the importance of an undefinable "group" above any individual. She spent her life's work trying to take the strongest possible opposition to that philosophy. Her goal was to create moral arguments that could stand in opposition to any of the many tenets of group moral systems. She communicated her ideas brusquely, which is not an effective method of communication, because she was "over that shit". The driving moral principle behind her beliefs was that the strength of a group of people does not have the moral right to abuse the freedom of an individual person, regardless of their practical power to do so. Furthermore, by respecting those individuals rights, society would be better served by those individuals. Allowing evolutionary competitive mechanisms to operate in social spheres would produce better results overall. Was everything she said correct? Obviously not. But, that can be said of anyone that ever produced any idea. Her fundamental driving principle, and the way she explored it, are both interesting and useful to think about. Tens of millions of people have been subjected to democide in the last century, as a direct result of group-based moral systems. As it has been said, groups do-not and cannot suffer, only individuals can suffer. As to your individual points, she might say that nothing so far has resolved the tragedy of the commons, that net-neutrality is only a problem because the government has granted ISP monopolies by force, that right to repair is only a problem because governments have granted IP monopolies by force, that any individual may contribute to OSS if they desire but should not be forced to if they do not desire, and that anyone may contribute to a forum if they desire but should not be forced to if they do not desire. I would personally have different answers for some of these questions.
- Dumblydorr 6y ago
  Rand is an author who is taken as a philosopher by the libertarians. In my view, her work has spawned some of the least constructive political behavior in modern US political history. Do you agree with the viewpoints expressed by Rand Paul and his father, for instance? Or of trickle down economics and the pull yourself up by your bootstraps fallacy? Rand's work is like the Bible, fiction that has far more negative than positive consequences on our community-based democratic society. I'd happily debate the deleterious effects of either of these ouvres, not that they aren't "interesting" or thought provoking as you say, but that they're exerting negative consequences on American Life.
EthanHeilman 6y ago
>According to Rand, every comment on this forum is pointless because it doesn't gain us dollars There is a lot points on which I would disagree with Ayn Rand, but she definitely did not think that an activity is pointless unless it makes money. She argued that people should live for themselves, so if someone enjoyed making art and never selling it or allowing anyone to view it, she would not view as pointless because it would be done for the individual's own enjoyment.
EvilEy3 6y ago
> According to Rand, every comment on this forum is pointless because it doesn't gain us dollars, therefore we are doing nothing of value Go on, you're almost there.

nautilus12 6y ago

"helping others". Is that whats happening here?

mettamage 6y ago

While I haven't experienced it, I have seen examples of people being hired as a result of HN. I think this is because HN kind of serves as a water cooler chat forum for people that are interested in tech + science (in the broadest possible sense). Sometimes job offers are a result of that. Note: I did get some help with prepping my resume among other things.

bitexploder 6y ago

Are you any good with Python? :)

oetnxkdrlgcexu 6y ago

I would like to gently suggest that you have probably misunderstood why Rand wrote what she did and communicated it the way she did. She, in her lifetime, bore personal witness to the rape, slaughter, and enslavement that was not only allowed but encouraged by a moral philosophy that placed the importance of an undefinable "group" above any individual. She spent her life's work trying to take the strongest possible opposition to that philosophy. Her goal was to create moral arguments that could stand in opposition to any of the many tenets of group moral systems. She communicated her ideas brusquely, which is not an effective method of communication, because she was "over that shit". The driving moral principle behind her beliefs was that the strength of a group of people does not have the moral right to abuse the freedom of an individual person, regardless of their practical power to do so. Furthermore, by respecting those individuals rights, society would be better served by those individuals. Allowing evolutionary competitive mechanisms to operate in social spheres would produce better results overall. Was everything she said correct? Obviously not. But, that can be said of anyone that ever produced any idea. Her fundamental driving principle, and the way she explored it, are both interesting and useful to think about. Tens of millions of people have been subjected to democide in the last century, as a direct result of group-based moral systems. As it has been said, groups do-not and cannot suffer, only individuals can suffer. As to your individual points, she might say that nothing so far has resolved the tragedy of the commons, that net-neutrality is only a problem because the government has granted ISP monopolies by force, that right to repair is only a problem because governments have granted IP monopolies by force, that any individual may contribute to OSS if they desire but should not be forced to if they do not desire, and that anyone may contribute to a forum if they desire but should not be forced to if they do not desire. I would personally have different answers for some of these questions.

Dumblydorr 6y ago
Rand is an author who is taken as a philosopher by the libertarians. In my view, her work has spawned some of the least constructive political behavior in modern US political history. Do you agree with the viewpoints expressed by Rand Paul and his father, for instance? Or of trickle down economics and the pull yourself up by your bootstraps fallacy? Rand's work is like the Bible, fiction that has far more negative than positive consequences on our community-based democratic society. I'd happily debate the deleterious effects of either of these ouvres, not that they aren't "interesting" or thought provoking as you say, but that they're exerting negative consequences on American Life.

EthanHeilman 6y ago

>According to Rand, every comment on this forum is pointless because it doesn't gain us dollars There is a lot points on which I would disagree with Ayn Rand, but she definitely did not think that an activity is pointless unless it makes money. She argued that people should live for themselves, so if someone enjoyed making art and never selling it or allowing anyone to view it, she would not view as pointless because it would be done for the individual's own enjoyment.

EvilEy3 6y ago

> According to Rand, every comment on this forum is pointless because it doesn't gain us dollars, therefore we are doing nothing of value Go on, you're almost there.