4 ms·

It turns out the "Paul Buchheit" that wrote the article (whom I suspect is this fellow http://www.commondreams.org/paul-buchheit http://www.commondreams.org/pau

by abtinf 13y ago

It turns out the "Paul Buchheit" that wrote the article (whom I suspect is this fellow http://www.commondreams.org/paul-buchheit http://www.commondreams.org/paul-buchheit) is not the "Paul Buchheit" of YC. Post edited. It is clear the author of the article has not read Atlas Shrugged. And now for a "someone said something wrong on the internet" rebuttal. There is too much horse shit to respond to, so here are just three points from the first few paragraphs. ----- Perhaps Ayn Rand never anticipated the impact of unregulated greed on a productive middle class. ----- Rand observed that regulations are created by the financially and politically powerful to restrain and oppress the individuals trying to improve their lot in life and change the world. Also, we live in a very heavily regulated economy, leftist delusions of persecution not withstanding. ----- Ayn Rand’s philosophy suggests that average working people are “takers.” ----- No, Objectivism suggests no such thing. In fact, in the opening scenes of Atlas Shrugged, the character Eddie Willers admires a bus that is being "expertly driven". Under Objectivist philosophy, you are virtuous when you put forth the best within yourself. A plumber can be, and often is, more morally virtuous than a CEO. "Takers" or "moochers" are not "working people". They are individuals who, through coercion or deception, consume more than they produce. ----- Perhaps she never understood the fairness of tax money for public research and infrastructure and security, all of which have contributed to the success of big business. ----- You are right, she didn't understand the fairness of the coercive taking of money from one set of people who's only crime is to produce value, only to hand that money over to another set of people whose only claim is that they need it. Atlas Shrugged, through numerous sub-plots and character development, explain how Rand is staunchly opposed to corporate welfare. Also, Rand is not an advocate of "big business", and nearly all of the villains in Atlas Shrugged are CEOs.

akadien 13y ago
All of the heroes are C-level executives. Villains are mostly government people and sycophantic businessmen.
- abtinf 13y ago
  There are numerous characters in Atlas Shrugged who, while not quite at "hero" level, are positively portrayed. These include a train conductor, a scientist, a mid-level manager, factory workers, a bus driver, a union representative, and a secretary, among others.
- scottjad 13y ago
  Spoiler alert. Don't read if you want to read Atlas Shrugged. Galt, arguably the biggest hero, is not a C-level exec. He is an engineer. Another hero, Ragnar, is a pirate.
lukifer 13y ago
> who's only crime is to produce value I feel like this is the leakiest abstraction in an other-wise sound market capitalism story. Produce value for whom, and on what time scale? Selling fizzy sugar water at maximized production creates value in the short term, but is a clear loss for public health in the long. (Not arguing for or against soda; it's an example of a generalized pattern of wealth creation on paper, which actually represents destruction of real wealth in the actual world.) Of course, a similar pattern re-occurs in politics (representatives capitulate to the wealthy on issues A, B, and C in order to earn the political capital to attempt something good with issue D). The liberal conceit of electing a Good Guy to fight the Bad Guys doesn't necessarily hold up to scrutiny, either. There are plenty of points to disagree with about Ayn Rand's philosophy, but I come from the school that says you should understand deeply that which you dispute. The author clearly does not understand what Rand is trying to say. > only to hand that money over to another set of people whose only claim is that they need it One last point: there is an important distinction to be made between moochers and infrastructure. I oppose giving people (for instance) free education simply because they want it. I instead support free education because it maximizes economic production and reduces crime, which makes my dollar go farther and my life better. Should we find a way to accomplish the benefits of commons through entirely voluntary means? You betcha. But until that utopia arrives, the rule of law is paid for with coercion. The same force that says that someone with a gun can't just take all your stuff, requires someone with a gun to instead take a large percentage of your stuff. Cry me a river, hippie. ;)

by abtinf 13y ago

akadien 13y ago

All of the heroes are C-level executives. Villains are mostly government people and sycophantic businessmen.

abtinf 13y ago
There are numerous characters in Atlas Shrugged who, while not quite at "hero" level, are positively portrayed. These include a train conductor, a scientist, a mid-level manager, factory workers, a bus driver, a union representative, and a secretary, among others.
scottjad 13y ago
Spoiler alert. Don't read if you want to read Atlas Shrugged. Galt, arguably the biggest hero, is not a C-level exec. He is an engineer. Another hero, Ragnar, is a pirate.

lukifer 13y ago

> who's only crime is to produce value I feel like this is the leakiest abstraction in an other-wise sound market capitalism story. Produce value for whom, and on what time scale? Selling fizzy sugar water at maximized production creates value in the short term, but is a clear loss for public health in the long. (Not arguing for or against soda; it's an example of a generalized pattern of wealth creation on paper, which actually represents destruction of real wealth in the actual world.) Of course, a similar pattern re-occurs in politics (representatives capitulate to the wealthy on issues A, B, and C in order to earn the political capital to attempt something good with issue D). The liberal conceit of electing a Good Guy to fight the Bad Guys doesn't necessarily hold up to scrutiny, either. There are plenty of points to disagree with about Ayn Rand's philosophy, but I come from the school that says you should understand deeply that which you dispute. The author clearly does not understand what Rand is trying to say. > only to hand that money over to another set of people whose only claim is that they need it One last point: there is an important distinction to be made between moochers and infrastructure. I oppose giving people (for instance) free education simply because they want it. I instead support free education because it maximizes economic production and reduces crime, which makes my dollar go farther and my life better. Should we find a way to accomplish the benefits of commons through entirely voluntary means? You betcha. But until that utopia arrives, the rule of law is paid for with coercion. The same force that says that someone with a gun can't just take all your stuff, requires someone with a gun to instead take a large percentage of your stuff. Cry me a river, hippie. ;)