The Ayn Rand World

[hibbsa]

In this brave new world why:

- would anyone be willing to fight and die for their country, for a few
hundred bucks a month? Where's the personal advantage right there for
that person?

- How would democracy work without an ethos of public service? Why
should some elected official regard his duty as being to serve his
constituency? Why not just the position to line his own pockets?

- Why not be corrupt in general if it makes more money for a given
individual in a given position?

etc, etc, etc, why should anyone do anything that isn't in his personal
immediate interest? For example, Ayn Rand herself took welfare later in
her life. I've seen that defended as being exactly correct because her
point was you act selfishly at all timeslly, so it's ok for her to take
advantage of a system she totally disagreed with. So in other words, it
wasn't an argument for her, that she shouldn't take the welfare because
although there was an immedate benefit to her, ultimately she benefited
more by not taking it, on the grounds if everyone did the same it would
create a better world.

So please no arguments based on the individual being swayed by some
bigger more abstract benefit....giving his life for such a thing...in
Ayn Rand terms.

[Rami Rustom]

Post by hibbsa
- would anyone be willing to fight and die for their country, for a few
hundred bucks a month? Where's the personal advantage right there for
that person?

He might want the benefits package, e.g. paid school.

Post by hibbsa
- How would democracy work without an ethos of public service? Why
should some elected official regard his duty as being to serve his
constituency? Why not just the position to line his own pockets?

If one wants to "line his own pockets" he can do that more effectively
by working in the private sector than working in the public sector.

But, why should anyone want lots of money just for the sake of having
lots of money? Today, the best stuff that one would want to buy is
cheap, e.g. ipad/iphone. Why be a politician if one's goal is to
generate enough wealth to have the best stuff and if being a
programmer or an engineer or a doctor is sufficient to creating enough
wealth to achieve that goal?

Post by hibbsa
- Why not be corrupt in general if it makes more money for a given
individual in a given position?

By "corrupt" do you mean doing illegal things? Because doing illegal
things means risk of going to jail, which is a cost not a benefit.

Post by hibbsa
etc, etc, etc, why should anyone do anything that isn't in his personal
immediate interest?

Your question implies that its beneficial to sacrifice one's long-term
benefit for the sake of gaining short-term benefit. This is nonsense.

Post by hibbsa
For example, Ayn Rand herself took welfare later in
her life.

She drew wealth from a system which she paid into beforehand, which is
what the social security system was designed for. This is not bad.
Actually, sacrificing her social security benefit after having paid
into it would have been immoral.

Post by hibbsa
I've seen that defended as being exactly correct because her
point was you act selfishly at all timeslly, so it's ok for her to take
advantage of a system she totally disagreed with.

What do you mean by "took advantage" of the system?

Post by hibbsa
So in other words, it
wasn't an argument for her, that she shouldn't take the welfare because
although there was an immedate benefit to her, ultimately she benefited
more by not taking it, on the grounds if everyone did the same it would
create a better world.

If everybody shared some of their wealth by paying into the social
security system while they worked, and if everybody sacrificed their
social security benefits in retirement, then all that wealth would be
wasted. Why should we waste wealth? Its nonsense.

Post by hibbsa
So please no arguments based on the individual being swayed by some
bigger more abstract benefit....giving his life for such a thing...in
Ayn Rand terms.

I don't understand what you're saying, so I don't know if I've made
the type of argument that you're asking us not to make.

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com

[David Deutsch]

Post by hibbsa
- would anyone be willing to fight and die for their country, for a few
hundred bucks a month? Where's the personal advantage right there for
that person?
- How would democracy work without an ethos of public service? Why
should some elected official regard his duty as being to serve his
constituency? Why not just the position to line his own pockets?
- Why not be corrupt in general if it makes more money for a given
individual in a given position?

In any world, brave or not, why would anyone ever buy anything if the result was that they had less money?

- David Deutsch

[a b]

Post by David Deutsch

Post by hibbsa
- would anyone be willing to fight and die for their country, for a few
hundred bucks a month? Where's the personal advantage right there for
that person?
- How would democracy work without an ethos of public service? Why
should some elected official regard his duty as being to serve his
constituency? Why not just the position to line his own pockets?
- Why not be corrupt in general if it makes more money for a given
individual in a given position?

In any world, brave or not, why would anyone ever buy anything if the
result was that they had less money?
- David Deutsch

I know the simple point you are making, but I'm not sure I know how to
unpack it if you feel like helping out :o)

On the military side my response would be....really? You think people
are willing to fight and die for the money? I can imagine many go into
service for the career and money, but not courage under fire. Not
refusing to talk when captured.

I mean, why not take a better deal from the other side if one is
offered? Some do, but they get defined as traitors. Is that definition
wrong in the Ayn Rand world?

Is all the work they put into building up that sense of country,
patriotism, loyalty to unit and comrades and so on....is it
unnecessary...is it coercion/manipulation? Is it wrong?

On the corruption side, I can't unpack your point at all....because
here I'm actually suggesting people doing something for the money.

[David Deutsch]

Post by a b

Post by David Deutsch

Post by hibbsa
- would anyone be willing to fight and die for their country, for a few
hundred bucks a month? Where's the personal advantage right there for
that person?
- How would democracy work without an ethos of public service? Why
should some elected official regard his duty as being to serve his
constituency? Why not just the position to line his own pockets?
- Why not be corrupt in general if it makes more money for a given
individual in a given position?

In any world, brave or not, why would anyone ever buy anything if the
result was that they had less money?
- David Deutsch

I know the simple point you are making, but I'm not sure I know how to
unpack it if you feel like helping out :o)

I'm not sure I've made a point yet.

It's just that your question assumes that there's a prima facie case (in a 'brave new world', though nothing you said seemed to depend on what world your question is set in) for people to be corrupt, etc. I wasn't sure which case you meant -- they are all flawed -- so I was trying to find out by asking a question that discriminates between them, so I'd know which case to try to answer.

Post by a b

Post by David Deutsch
In any world, brave or not, why would anyone ever buy anything if the
result was that they had less money?

-- David Deutsch

[a b]

Post by David Deutsch

Post by a b

Post by David Deutsch

Post by hibbsa
- would anyone be willing to fight and die for their country, for a few
hundred bucks a month? Where's the personal advantage right there for
that person?
- How would democracy work without an ethos of public service? Why
should some elected official regard his duty as being to serve his
constituency? Why not just the position to line his own pockets?
- Why not be corrupt in general if it makes more money for a given
individual in a given position?

In any world, brave or not, why would anyone ever buy anything if the
result was that they had less money?
- David Deutsch

I know the simple point you are making, but I'm not sure I know how to
unpack it if you feel like helping out :o)

I'm not sure I've made a point yet.
It's just that your question assumes that there's a prima facie case (in a
'brave new world', though nothing you said seemed to depend on what world
your question is set in) for people to be corrupt, etc. I wasn't sure which
case you meant -- they are all flawed -- so I was trying to find out by
asking a question that discriminates between them, so I'd know which case to
try to answer.

Post by a b

Post by David Deutsch
In any world, brave or not, why would anyone ever buy anything if the
result was that they had less money?

OK thanks. I'll try with:

Because they wish to spend some of their capital as in 'release' or
'realise' some of their amassed 'potential energy'. Maybe convert it
into food or some other necessity, or a luxury or desire.

That would be my first try for something covering all cases. I am
leaving out investing/bartering or other capitalistic concepts like
buying with the expectation of selling on at a profit, because the
result would be unknown...a risk.

You could mean risk, but from my past experience of you, it's better
to assume you mean literally what you say.

[Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum]

Post by a b

Post by David Deutsch
In any world, brave or not, why would anyone ever buy anything if the
result was that they had less money?

I know the simple point you are making, but I'm not sure I know how to
unpack it if you feel like helping out :o)

Maybe try answering question before replying with more questions of your own?

[a b]

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum

Post by Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum

Post by a b

Post by David Deutsch
In any world, brave or not, why would anyone ever buy anything if the
result was that they had less money?

I know the simple point you are making, but I'm not sure I know how to
unpack it if you feel like helping out :o)

Maybe try answering question before replying with more questions of your own?

I was thrown by its placing under my original comments.....assumed his
question was an answer....which made sense as a simple point that
unpacked into an answer. Deutsch is the boss, so it seemed reasonable
for him to answer in that way, presumably because the challenge of
'unpacking' promised some extra insight. But I could unpack it!
Because it wasn't an answer an answer to unpack but a question to
answer!
The intents and motives look alright all round to me.