• salarua@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    taking Ayn Rand’s work seriously. five seconds of critical thought and her entire philosophy comes crashing down

    • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      One thing that few people seem to accept when saying that they believe in Ayn Rand’s philosophy is that you are supposed to pay people what they are worth, not what you can negotiate with them.

      For instance, in Atlas Shrugged, it is made explicit that Rearden pays his mill workers far above typical salaries because it is worth it to him to have the best staff working in his mills. Rearden is also the kind of person who isn’t going to make racist or sexist jokes because he wants the best person regardless of sex or color.

      What Objectivist is that moral?

      • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That’s actually the root of all social philosophies: they require decent people.

        No matter which system you take, capitalism, communism, anarchism, monarchy, democracy, etc. they all would work perfectly fine, if people wouldn’t be stupid, selfish and about 1% downright psychopaths. And I’m not even talking about real crimes. In your example it would be perfectly legal, to pay the workers the absolute minimum possible, but it would be a dick move.

        At the end of the day, a system always has to answer the question: How do you reign in assholes? That’s it. Designing a system based on Jesuses is trivial.

        • metallic_z3r0@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not enough to reign in assholes, the system has to be designed in such a way that carriers of “dark triad” traits (i.e. the usual bad faith actors in a system) are still incentivized to contribute to or improve society without gradually dismantling it to increase their wealth/power/status. That’s a hard problem to solve.

          • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s pretty much what I meant, or at least an aspect of it.

            “Asshole” is an umbrella term for me that means every anti-social behavior or more general, behavior against the spirit (not the text!) of whatever ideology you’re implementing.

            Whether your system fails because one “dark” person can manipulate 100s to do bad things for him or 100s of persons do small bad things every day doesn’t really matter at the end - the system failed.

            So you have to find a way to reign this behavior in. Psychopaths react similar to every other person, just way more extreme.

        • DubiousInterests@lemmy.fmhy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think capitalism is the outlier there. Some atleast expect knobheads but the free hand of the market or something is supposed to take them out of business.

        • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          In your example it would be perfectly legal, to pay the workers the absolute minimum possible, but it would be a dick move.

          How does that differ from the current way things are done? (especially in the US)

          • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Largely it doesn’t. There are some boundaries, like minimum wages and maximum working hours, etc. But according to the hypercapitalists, even those minimums are already undue influence by the government.