I will preface this by saying that I am not an objectivist by any means. I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, which I found a potpourri of intersting ideas, extremism, unrealism ( is that a word? ) and lack of compassion. Objectivism is a supremacy doctrine, based on the allegation that 'the source of production is man1s mind'(3), i.e. that since only 'smart people' (scientists, entrepreneurs, and artists) invent the technological advancements and comforts enjoyed by civilization the 'stupid people' (wage-workers) should be grateful to receive even the smallest downward trickles of such benevolence.
I don't think this is entirely accurate. Rand wrote that the so-called 'smart people' do a great deal that has significant benefits for everyone in society, including the 'working class'. Banting and Best, for example ( the inventors of insulin ). She argued that the 'smart people', through their inguenity, etc., improved society and standard of living for everyone, by improving products and services and creating wealth. Hank Rearden ( Atlas Shrugged ) is an example of this, the ideal Randite businessman - through his invention of a superior alloy, he benefits everyone. Whether this plays out in real life is another matter entirely, of course.
(Such distinctions, of course, are impossible to make---other than arbitrarily---because the industrial revolution irreversibly merged all relations of labor and technology. To treat them as if they could be separated for individual analysis---one potato for you, five potatoes for me---is as disingenuous as treating food and diamond earrings as being equally 'elastic' market components.)
Huh?
BS: The classic form of this idea (brains is might) was presented in Atlas Shrugged. In this novel, all the inventors and business men decided that they were tired of taking crap from the wage-workers and 'collectivists' so they all went on strike.
KS: I don't feel this is entirely correct. The inventors and businessmen were tired of taking crap from a rampantly corrupt government whose only purpose, it seems, was to secure favours for government officials and their friends.
Needless to say, without all the great minds illuminating life for all the inferior 'brute' laborers, civilization collapsed somewhat in the manner anticipated by Charlie Manson.(4)
Civilization also collapsed because, as a sign of generosity, a number of businessmen and inventors destroyed their products and factories before leaving.
Therefore, through the mechanism of supply and demand, quality education is put out of the reach of most people, thus providing a low-skill workforce as well as an ideological justification for paying them so little.
For many people, affording quality education is all theory anyways. How many kids from ghetto don't get to go to Harvard because of money? ( Alternately, they could go to Princeton, which provides grants for all but $2,000 of expenses for the lowest income student - and loans for the rest ) Socio-economic factors and a abysmal public education system ensure that the cycle of poverty is perpetuated.
1. People deserve what they get. (Biological determinism.)
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.
#2 is bang on.
3. Only individual self-interest motivates superior performance. (Businesses should forbid teamwork because it lowers the quality of individual achievement.)
Where does it say this?
#4 is essentially correct, #5 I don't get, #6 and #7 are bang-on ( by the way, what on earth is dialetics? ), #8 and #9 are correct too,
(as the King George of England once suggested to Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, et al.).
Well, I guess they showed him, didn't they. They were also fleeing an oppressive theocracy.
Kula
