quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: cmon objectivism, what the hell. Even scientology can plunk down a hundred mil for battlefield earth, and you can't do half that for your own private inchon?
That's not very fair. Scientology is known for actively recruiting wealthy celebrities.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it isn't really the issue. What Rabbit said was this: If you deny the reality of all social units except the individual (as Ayn Rand does), you have gutted ethics. I replied that this was so only in her own ethics, and then she made the claim that it was so in Judaism. It isn't.
The Sages say that "Derekh eretz" (roughly: ethical behavior) preceded the Torah by 26 generations. The reference is to the 26 generations from Adam to Moses. So ethical behavior exists the moment there's even a single person. Dealing with individuals rather than social groups hardly "guts" ethics.
You are missing the key point. An ethical system can only deal directly with individuals without denying the the reality of social groups.
In fact, the extent to which a proposed moral system deals with individuals vs groups is not correlated to whether or not it recognizes the reality of social groups. "Objectivism", for example, denies the reality of social groups yet has a great deal to say about the ethical obligations of social institutions (like government) to individuals.
[ February 14, 2011, 08:05 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it isn't really the issue. What Rabbit said was this: If you deny the reality of all social units except the individual (as Ayn Rand does), you have gutted ethics. I replied that this was so only in her own ethics, and then she made the claim that it was so in Judaism. It isn't.
The Sages say that "Derekh eretz" (roughly: ethical behavior) preceded the Torah by 26 generations. The reference is to the 26 generations from Adam to Moses. So ethical behavior exists the moment there's even a single person. Dealing with individuals rather than social groups hardly "guts" ethics.
You are missing the key point. An ethical system can only deal directly with individuals without denying the the reality of social groups.
Yes it can. You assume that the only way to recognize the reality of social groups is to give them a life of their own. To say, for example, that while an individual doesn't have the right to take your money and give it to someone else, a large aggregate of individuals identifying as a social group does.
Which is why I said "...according to your ethics", which are essentially based in pragmatism. The "principles" come later.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The metal itself is a McGuffin. It's like a time machine in a science fiction novel.
Well, of course. But we do take apart science fiction all the time. Had a pretty good time with Avatar's "unobtainium," you know? Then there's Plinkett's review of star wars.
But the point here is that this rearden metal metaphorically represents the self-made man, when in reality it couldn't have been created by anything less than a large collective effort. It's one thing if the bad science is merely a plot tool, it's another when the thematic symbolism is based on an unworkable fiction.
But it's not true. Tesla didn't require a large collective effort to invent alternating current. Eli Whitney didn't need a large collective to invent the cotton gin. The transistor wasn't invented by a single person; but it wasn't a "large group effort", either. It was a handful of people.
And WADR, I don't believe you. I think you're using a double standard here. No one kvetched about the FTL drive in Star Wars. No one bellyached about the time machine in Wells' book. I mean, hell, Wells was a socialist to the core, but even he had his Traveller invent and build the thing himself.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The metal itself is a McGuffin. It's like a time machine in a science fiction novel. How it works isn't the issue. How it makes the people surrounding it act is what's important. Do you have a problem with SF stories that include things like time travel or FTL travel without going into the whole deal of how they work? Or is this something special for Atlas Shrugged?
When the McGuffin fundamentally contradicts the major core moral and philosophical premises of much of the entire rest of the film...well, sure, things can get a bit problematic, yeah. Rearden's a liar...which is a pretty solid premise for the film, really, heh.
That's dishonest. How is he a liar? Now you're just trying to find excuses for disliking the story.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someday, you'll be better at picking out which things are actually immature and dishonest rather than in staunch disagreement with your ethical leanings and personal taste.
By doing that you might know Rakeesh isn't just "trying to find excuses for disliking the story". That perhaps he is saying something which is neither dishonest nor immature, but you felt compelled to belt out these insinuations about him or us because you like to get in fights about these things.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:You assume that the only way to recognize the reality of social groups is to give them a life of their own.
This is a gross misunderstanding of my position. You presume that the only way for an ethical system to recognize social groups is to consider them as persons. This is fundamentally wrong. Social groups can be recognized as units with rights, responsibilities, and ethical roles that are different from the rights, roles and responsibilities of individuals.
Let me offer an analogy. An body is made up of individual cells. Those cells are organized into organs and the organs work together to ensure the health of person. The health of individual cells is a critical part of the health of the body and a body can not be healthy unless it is organized to promote the health of individual cells. Nonetheless, there are occasions when the health of the body is achieved by the sacrifice of individual cells. Trying to determine what constitutes a healthy cell without considering its function within the various levels of structure to which it belongs is absurd. A cell that thrives and yet disrupts the healthy function of the body is a disease. When a cell operates to maximize its own vitality, without regard to the body, it becomes a cancer.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Lisa, if the film remotely follows the book then yeah, he's gonna be a liar or the film will be founded on a total nonsense McGuffin, because you can't create such an uber awesome metal like that alone or even in a small group. As has been repeatedly stated, it needs a huge collective, collaborative effort.
In the film, did he make the metal alone (impossible), or with such an effort, contradicting the rest of the book's philosophy? I'm not being dishonest, there's just a fundamental contradiction here. I can't say for sure but it looks like you're not very happy about that, because it's a pretty basic one.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, Lisa, if the film remotely follows the book then yeah, he's gonna be a liar or the film will be founded on a total nonsense McGuffin, because you can't create such an uber awesome metal like that alone or even in a small group. As has been repeatedly stated, it needs a huge collective, collaborative effort.
You know, just asserting something over and over doesn't make it true. Just boring.
It does not require a collective or collaborative effort. I can see why someone living in a culture that thinks of everything in terms of collectivism might think that, but it simply doesn't jibe with reality. I gave examples above. Do I need to do so again? Eli Whitney. George Washington Carver. Nicola Tesla. Benjamin Franklin. Thomas Jefferson. Lewis Waterman. Joseph Bramah. Linus Yale Sr. Jonas Salk. Louis Pasteur.
History is absolutely replete with individuals who worked on inventions alone in a basement or a garage and came up with things that changed the world.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Albert Marsh and William Hoskins coinvented the alloy Nichrome, which is the basis for toasters and electric space heaters. Just the two of them, experimenting.
Richard Waterstrat seems to have invented Reardon Metal, or something pretty similar.
Alfred Wilm discovered age hardening. Perhaps Reardon invented a process by which steel could be altered. The story doesn't get into it because, again, it's a McGuffin. It doesn't matter how he did it; he did it. And all the outraged claims of "But no one can invent things themselves!" simply go to prove Rand's point. Y'all sound like the more pathetic supporting characters in Atlas Shrugged.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did you really have to state that last sentence? Seriously, would the effectiveness of your point be diminished if you hadn't said it?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pretty much every example you gave, Lisa, is while a huge invention also very specific. We'll just have to see how magic Reardon's metal really is. But thanks for the name-calling! Makes me feel better about going out of my way to use the correct terminology for fans of Rand. Classy as usual.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, None of those are examples of independent invention. There are good reasons that none of these things were invented by orphan children living in the Serengeti. There are good reasons why Nichcrome alloy wasn't discovered in the 13th century and semiconductors weren't invented in the 19th. The rate of invention has exploded over the past century because the knowledge base our society possesses and shares freely. Everyone of the inventions you list is the culmination of a huge body of scientific research. Those invention build on a body of freely exchanged knowlegde that is the product of thousands of people who are supported by society. The people who discover that foundational science almost never produce anything patentable or invent a marketable product, yet there without there work none of these inventions would have been possible.
Most of the greatest scientists in history never held a patent or invented a marketable product, yet without their work most inventions would be impossible. In this sense, every invention is the collaboration of a huge group of people and would be impossible without the society that sponsors basic research and shares knowledge freely.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are good reasons that none of these things were invented by orphan children living in the Serengeti. There are good reasons why Nichcrome alloy wasn't discovered in the 13th century and semiconductors weren't invented in the 19th.
I think these points are particularly salient. Intelligence, creativity, drive, knowledge, etc...don't exist in a vacuum. Many of these people who made great individual inventions were able to do so because of an education system that gave them tools and prepared them to, a social system that afforded them certain opportunities, possibly a supportive family that was integral during their formative years, etc...one of my main criticisms of objectivism is that it seems to ignore factors like this. And along the lines of something I mentioned in the jewish thread, also seems to ignore psychological and neurophysiological facts regarding the constraints and causes of human behavior.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Did you really have to state that last sentence? Seriously, would the effectiveness of your point be diminished if you hadn't said it?
Didn't you mean to post this as JanitorBlade?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Lisa, None of those are examples of independent invention. There are good reasons that none of these things were invented by orphan children living in the Serengeti. There are good reasons why Nichcrome alloy wasn't discovered in the 13th century and semiconductors weren't invented in the 19th. The rate of invention has exploded over the past century because the knowledge base our society possesses and shares freely. Everyone of the inventions you list is the culmination of a huge body of scientific research. Those invention build on a body of freely exchanged knowlegde that is the product of thousands of people who are supported by society. The people who discover that foundational science almost never produce anything patentable or invent a marketable product, yet there without there work none of these inventions would have been possible.
Most of the greatest scientists in history never held a patent or invented a marketable product, yet without their work most inventions would be impossible. In this sense, every invention is the collaboration of a huge group of people and would be impossible without the society that sponsors basic research and shares knowledge freely.
So what? They also wouldn't have been able to invent those things if God hadn't created the earth. You might as well say that Rand didn't write her novels alone. She was inspired by Victor Hugo, she used a typewriter, which she neither invented nor assembled, and she probably ate food that was grown by other people while writing.
You've taken this to such a ridiculous extreme that it's pretty clear you have no real argument and are just arguing for form now.
We're human beings. We don't have to reinvent the wheel every time. That doesn't mean that what I do with my mind is a collaborative act. If I write something, I did it. Me. The fact that I made use of things around me that may have been created by other individuals is a good thing, but it doesn't mean my creation was a collaborative one.
When you define absolutely everything as collaborative, you rob the word of any meaning.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everything IS collaborative. That's reality. That's my point. An ethical system that ignores that reality is the equivalent of a scientific theory that ignores the laws of motion. Its meaningless. It doesn't apply to the reality of human existence.
Human beings are a social species. Without society, we would lack most of the traits we think of as be characteristically human. The very thoughts we think are formulated in words we learn from our communities.
You can't build a rational ethical system if you ignore that reality.
[ February 14, 2011, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guys, let's be fair. Lisa does seem to have counterexampled the specific point at issue, namely that Reardon couldn't realistically invent a new alloy without a large team.
It comes as a surprise to me too, but maybe that's just because I'm too accustomed to big-lab research myself.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really an either-or. The individual inventor is credited with the spark of creativity that uses previously-discovered principles and engineering to create something new. That inventor should certainly receive credit for the breakthrough, but it was not created in a vacuum and would have been impossible without the previous work of others.
"If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants." -- Albert EinsteinPosts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa's counter-examples were almost entirely much older inventions, though. Hell, 17th and 18th century inventors? Really? I wasn't aware Reardon lived back then. Which is the point Rabbit touched on.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll grant that Destineer, but my particular response was more of a general comment on objectivism. Whether you want to call the factors that I describe above "collaboration" isn't quite so important to me. But accepting those facts, and the types Rabbit brings up, should make us question what we as individuals owe to others besides ourselves. About how much praise or responsibility we deserve for our actions. About whether a laissez faire capitalist system would really ensure non-coercive contracts simply because the government doesn't intervene. Michael Sandel has a great exploration of this in regards to joining the military in his Justice book. It would also seem that almost all of the data coming out of behavioral economics would contradict this notion that individuals make rational economic decisions based on optimizing or maximizing their benefits or well being or whatever.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Did you really have to state that last sentence? Seriously, would the effectiveness of your point be diminished if you hadn't said it?
Didn't you mean to post this as JanitorBlade?
No, I was speaking to you as just another poster.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's also hard to tell which inventors were truly solo workers. Harry Brearley is credited as the sole inventor of stainless steel, but at the time he was the head of Brown-Firth Research Laboratory, which was tasked with finding ways to reduce rust in gun barrels. He's the one who noticed the lack of rust in one discarded sample, but did he actually create the specific alloy?
Much of the research, experiments and gruntwork that resulted in Thomas Edison's experiments were done by his assistants under his direction. He is listed as the inventor of the results, but can it be said that none of the insights came from his team?
I think you've got a fair example with Tesla, though.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, but the initial question had mainly to do with whether Atlas Shrugged is a realistic story. And she did show that this aspect of it isn't unrealistic in a way that undermines the point.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Right, but the initial question had mainly to do with whether Atlas Shrugged is a realistic story. And she did show that this aspect of it isn't unrealistic in a way that undermines the point.
Only if the invention in the film were a much older item than it appears to be.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Right, but the initial question had mainly to do with whether Atlas Shrugged is a realistic story. And she did show that this aspect of it isn't unrealistic in a way that undermines the point.
Undermines what particular point?
I think my critiques undermine several of Ayn Rand's main points.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point that was specifically getting addressed at the time was that an inventor could invent something industrially relevant by himself. While I think it's legitimate to criticize objectivism for the reasons you mention, its harping on a different point than what was relevant at the time.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Everything IS collaborative. That's reality. That's my point. An ethical system that ignores that reality is the equivalent of a scientific theory that ignores the laws of motion. Its meaningless. It doesn't apply to the reality of human existence.
Human beings are a social species. Without society, we would lack most of the traits we think of as be characteristically human. The very thoughts we think are formulated in words we learn from our communities.
You can't build a rational ethical system if you ignore that reality.
Objectivism recognizes that we accumulate knowledge. I can point you to direct quotes from Rand where she talks about it. You want to derive from that that society has rights that the individuals that comprise it do not. That absolutely does not follow. You can believe it, but it doesn't follow from the premise.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Lisa's counter-examples were almost entirely much older inventions, though. Hell, 17th and 18th century inventors? Really? I wasn't aware Reardon lived back then. Which is the point Rabbit touched on.
Really. So a person living today can't do what a person living 150 years ago could? I'd love to see you try and support that.
And "almost entirely" is weaselly. There were modern examples, including one which is extremely close to Reardon Metal itself.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Guys, let's be fair. Lisa does seem to have counterexampled the specific point at issue, namely that Reardon couldn't realistically invent a new alloy without a large team.
It comes as a surprise to me too, but maybe that's just because I'm too accustomed to big-lab research myself.
I appreciate that, Destineer. That's the sort of honesty I actually expected from a number of other posters here (hello, Rakeesh) based on prior interactions. But I guess dogpiling me on the subject is far too much fun to bother with such niceties.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Right, but the initial question had mainly to do with whether Atlas Shrugged is a realistic story. And she did show that this aspect of it isn't unrealistic in a way that undermines the point.
Only if the invention in the film were a much older item than it appears to be.
quote:Right, but the initial question had mainly to do with whether Atlas Shrugged is a realistic story. And she did show that this aspect of it isn't unrealistic in a way that undermines the point.
Only if the invention in the film were a much older item than it appears to be.
Oh come on Rakeesh, I know Lisa was rude to you but it seems like you're really pushing this to a silly degree.
Individual inventions continue well past the 18th century. The Wright Brothers were inventing around the changeover from 19th to 20th centuries, for example.
Many inventions of the 20th century were joint efforts, but many more were not. The superconductor, the Fleming valve, the tractor, the electrical ignition system, the bra, the laser, the pacemaker, BASIC, kevlar, the mouse... these were all invented by one or two people. The microchip was invented by a single inventor... twice. And all that's to say nothing of the perhaps more frivolous ones like cornflakes, hacky sack, and instant coffee.
The fact is, even today, individual inventors still exist.
And beyond all that, even if Reardon metal was the work of a group of researchers, whom Reardon had funded entirely out of pocket for that express purpose, it would still be perfectly reasonable for him to claim it as his and guard the secret of its creation.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And beyond all that, even if Reardon metal was the work of a group of researchers, whom Reardon had funded entirely out of pocket for that express purpose, it would still be perfectly reasonable for him to claim it as his and guard the secret of its creation.
You are begging the question. Whether or not it is ethical for him to guard a secret that could benefit many in order to secure his own profits is the question at hand.
Its certainly the way things are done in our society, but that's a long way from demonstrating that it is the ethical way to do things.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pft, if? Lisa, I don't really expect much courtesy from you when it comes to discussing Rand or Objectivism. Anyway, the rudeness isn't the point though it was irritating when you're permitted to get huffy about what I consider to be trivial terminology.
The point is that, as has been discussed at length, it's not just a McGuffin. (And no, it's been discussed in more ways than to just repeat it). My point isn't now and has never been that individual inventors don't exist in the present day. I don't think you'll look around, Dan or Lisa, and see anyone else saying they don't. What you will see is that the more complicated an invention gets, the less likely that it was invented by one lone Producer!, in proportion to its complexity.
Lisa's list of lone inventors does nothing to contradict this point, for two reasons: one, almost all of those inventions are not modern at all and two, most of them are when compared to the kinds of invention we're discussing now not very complex. And even if you break things down to the things you mention, Dan, well then another problem emerges: all of the things you mention require collaborative effort too, but Objectivism requires we reject it for...well, some reason, it's not too clear exactly.
Wait, here it is:
quote: We're human beings. We don't have to reinvent the wheel every time. That doesn't mean that what I do with my mind is a collaborative act. If I write something, I did it. Me. The fact that I made use of things around me that may have been created by other individuals is a good thing, but it doesn't mean my creation was a collaborative one.
No, what it means is: you couldn't have done it alone. Something which Rand and Objectivism, at least every time I've heard people in support of those ideas ever speak out about it, reject with surprising vehemence.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: We're human beings. We don't have to reinvent the wheel every time. That doesn't mean that what I do with my mind is a collaborative act. If I write something, I did it. Me. The fact that I made use of things around me that may have been created by other individuals is a good thing, but it doesn't mean my creation was a collaborative one.
No, what it means is: you couldn't have done it alone. Something which Rand and Objectivism, at least every time I've heard people in support of those ideas ever speak out about it, reject with surprising vehemence.
No, you haven't. Clearly you think you have, but you've simply misunderstood. When we say that individuals create, we don't mean that in a vacuum; we simply reject the comparison to that and any kind of collaboration. Because that is not the same thing as collaboration, and the false identification of it as such is a dishonest rhetorical trick, and nothing more.
As I said to Rabbit, if you want, I'll show you where Rand talks about how we build off of a general knowledge base.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: And beyond all that, even if Reardon metal was the work of a group of researchers, whom Reardon had funded entirely out of pocket for that express purpose, it would still be perfectly reasonable for him to claim it as his and guard the secret of its creation.
See, this I don't necessarily agree with. In fact, I disagree with the notion that just because Reardon did all the work himself, that automatically gives him the right to claim it as "his." Because I don't think that facts about "who owns what" are part of nature. They're for civilization to decide.
This isn't to say that there's no right or wrong decision to make about how to put together a system of property. But constructing such a system and making it work is a practical problem. If we do an effective job of it, we've done well even if not everyone gets to keep what we might naively call the fruits of their labor.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants." -- Albert Einstein
That would be Newton, actually. And he wasn't being generous, he was mocking Hooke, who had accused him of stealing results. Hooke was short, and sensitive about it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
More on-topic: Can I just point out that existing laws about patents and whatnot, horribly statist as Lisa no doubt considers them, do in fact recognise the individual inventor? If someone invents Rearden metal tomorrow and patents it, he will be free to make a humongous profit off it, if the patent system works as intended. Indeed, he'll likely make a bigger profit than in a purely libertarian system, which presumably would not prohibit other people from reverse-engineering his process. So I suggest that those who object to the individual inventor should take a deep breath and recognise that they're just wrong on this point. Such people do exist, and even current law recognises that they are entitled to compensation for their work, whatever the degree of giantism in the shoulders they stood on.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lisa does seem to have counterexampled the specific point at issue, namely that Reardon couldn't realistically invent a new alloy without a large team.
Obviously I wasn't precise enough when I used the phrase "collaborative effort." I wasn't necessarily talking about working in a large team. Rabbit is definitely on my wavelength. Inventions don't happen in a vacuum. There has to be the right environment, in terms of prior art, available technology, information exchange, and support from other branches of society to allow for an invention to occur. Albert Marsh and William Hoskins could not have alloyed nickel and chrome unless someone else had been able to isolate those particular elements. The Wright brothers borrowed glider and engine designs from others. Many inventors couldn't reduce their work to practice without government funding, etc.
quote:Tesla didn't require a large collective effort to invent alternating current.
Let's start with the fact that Tesla didn't invent alternating current. He built on it. And given that Tesla worked for Edison, and Westinghouse, among others, it's not really possible to identify which of Tesla's inventions were purely his, and which were inspired by his coworkers, fellow students, or his teachers. He most certainly did not work in a vacuum.
quote:No one bellyached about the time machine in Wells' book.
Because the point of Wells' book was a thought experiment about the human tendency to ask "what if?" As I said before, the time machine was merely a plot device that allowed him to examine that question. Rearden metal is a metaphoric device that allowed Rand to argue that since Rearden invented it, he should be entitled to all of its rewards. Once again, I haven't read the book, and I'm planning to, but that's my understanding of it. But unless he saw the need, funded the research, figured out how to isolate the ingredients, and did the grunt work of trial and error combinations, and all the other myriad details that lead to the invention, then the system that supported him as he invented it deserves to benefit to a certain degree. I'm with you 100% that those benefits shouldn't drain him, or cripple further efforts on his part, but hell, you can't even build a railroad unless you've got a government that can use eminent domain to secure contiguous land, and he wouldn't benefit nearly as much if the railroad didn't exist to provide a market for his invention.
Curious, what do you think of businesses that exist merely by taking a cut off of transactions?
quote:As I said to Rabbit, if you want, I'll show you where Rand talks about how we build off of a general knowledge base.
quote:If someone invents Rearden metal tomorrow and patents it, he will be free to make a humongous profit off it, if the patent system works as intended.
Bear in mind that the reason patents exist is not to ensure that inventors profit, it is to ensure that inventions are published so that others can learn from and build on that art.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never thought about eminent domain and how it makes railroads a horrible example to use for the vindication of objectivism, since rail systems basically require eminent domain to be functional.
I am sure that it can be as easily sidestepped in the movie.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:If someone invents Rearden metal tomorrow and patents it, he will be free to make a humongous profit off it, if the patent system works as intended.
Bear in mind that the reason patents exist is not to ensure that inventors profit, it is to ensure that inventions are published so that others can learn from and build on that art.
Actually, this isn't even a matter of opinion. That may be one benefit of them, from your POV, but the Constitution (Article I, section 8) lists the power of Congress, including:
quote:To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Since it actually states the reason for patents, it's kind of hard to argue about it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tesla didn't require a large collective effort to invent alternating current.
Let's start with the fact that Tesla didn't invent alternating current. He built on it. And given that Tesla worked for Edison, and Westinghouse, among others, it's not really possible to identify which of Tesla's inventions were purely his, and which were inspired by his coworkers, fellow students, or his teachers. He most certainly did not work in a vacuum.
Considering that Edison tried to ruin Tesla, as well as AC, using every dirty trick in the book, it's pretty unlikely that he invented it himself. And inspiration isn't the issue. A hundred people can be inspired, but only a few of them are going to act successfully on that inspiration. They're entitled to claim that achievement for themselves.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:No one bellyached about the time machine in Wells' book.
Because the point of Wells' book was a thought experiment about the human tendency to ask "what if?" As I said before, the time machine was merely a plot device that allowed him to examine that question. Rearden metal is a metaphoric device that allowed Rand to argue that since Rearden invented it, he should be entitled to all of its rewards.
What distinction are you trying to make? Reardon Metal could have been Reardon Foam Rubber. That it was an alloy is utterly nonessential to the point of the book. Reardon Metal, to phrase it as you did with Wells, was merely a plot device that allowed Rand to examine the question of whether a creator is entitled to his creation.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Once again, I haven't read the book, and I'm planning to, but that's my understanding of it. But unless he saw the need, funded the research, figured out how to isolate the ingredients, and did the grunt work of trial and error combinations, and all the other myriad details that lead to the invention,
That's the implication in the book. Except for the "funded the research" part. It seemed to me that he did the research. That he experimented until he came up with Reardon Metal. I can't swear to it, but I'm pretty sure the book even mentions the effort.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: but hell, you can't even build a railroad unless you've got a government that can use eminent domain to secure contiguous land, and he wouldn't benefit nearly as much if the railroad didn't exist to provide a market for his invention.
Again, that's not true. There was one transcontinental railroad in the days of the robber barons which refused to take grants from the government, and operated independently. And thrived while railroads based on government grants crashed and burned. The whole "robber baron" phenomenon was yet another example of how government interference makes things worse.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Curious, what do you think of businesses that exist merely by taking a cut off of transactions?
Insufficient data. Capital is the lifeblood of innovation. Few people can afford to produce in a big way without the investment of capital from the outside. People who facilitate this investment are providing a vital service. So it isn't simply a matter of taking a cut; it's a matter of getting paid for services rendered.
Yes, there are people who take a cut without actually providing any real service, and those are parasites, worth about as much as the stuff stuck to the bottom of my shoe. But there will always be bottom feeders.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:As I said to Rabbit, if you want, I'll show you where Rand talks about how we build off of a general knowledge base.
Please do.
Sure.
quote:Can man derive any personal benefit from living in a human society? Yes--if it is a human society. The two great values to be gained from social existence are: knowledge and trade. Man is the only species that can transmit and expand his store of knowledge from generation to generation; the knowledge potentially available to man is greater than any one man could begin to acquire in his own life-span; every man gains an incalculable benefit from the knowledge discovered by others. The second great benefit is the division of labor: it enables a man to devote his effort to a particular field of work and to trade with others who specialize in other fields. This form of cooperation allows all men who take part in it to achieve a greater knowledge, skill and productive return on their effort than they could achieve if each had to produce everything he needs, on a desert island or on a self-sustaining farm.
But these very benefits indicate, delimit and define what kind of men can be of value to one another and in what kind of society: only rational, productive, independent men in a rational, productive, free society.
--Ayn Rand, "The Objectivist Ethics"
If you want to read the whole article, you can read it here. The problem is when someone comes along and says, "Because you benefited from others (any others), you owe all others a piece of your life." That's a lot like a kid running into an intersection and washing windshields (without asking permission) and then demanding payment. It's the moral equivalent of extortion.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There was one transcontinental railroad in the days of the robber barons which refused to take grants from the government, and operated independently.
How did they acquire land from people that didn't want to give or sell it to them?
quote:People who facilitate this investment are providing a vital service.
Then government provides a vital service.
quote:Because you benefited from others (any others), you owe all others a piece of your life."
Strawman. Because you benefitted from others you owe those others a share of what you were only able to create due to that support. Where that share goes is irrelevant, although in a system of democratic government you have a say in making that decision.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
