I really, really wish all objectivists had been born (actually) underprivileged.
Where you start in life doesn't matter, but how big a jump you make in improving your lot does, and that's something that's entirely up to you. Please lay off the Rawlsian stuff - it doesn't square with the things I've observed in my own life. Nor does it square with the experiences of many of my friends that started life out poor, and chose to make something of themselves.
At this point, some might say, "you didn't earn your brain/parent's money/etc." I say that's nonsense, because the entire idea of "earn" arises in order to distinguish real people who choose to act toward a goal from those that choose not to. To do that, we have to look at adults - lots of them, ranging from bums to billionaires, across time and professions, on and on. Then at young adults, then at small children (to fully see the contrast with adults). Choice is the crucial thing here: nobody could arrive at the idea of "earning" or "deserts" or "justice" by studying newborns or fetuses.
Relying on "earn" (which depends on the idea of choice and free will, as I've indicated above) in a statement intended to undermine the idea of choice and free will is bogus.
EDIT: I am making some serious points here. Disagree all you want in comments, but downvoting me reflexively does not refute my argument.
How big a jump you can make in improving your lot is a function of where you start in life.
It is significantly more difficult for someone born into a poor, single-parent household to bootstrap and "choose to make something of themselves" compared to someone who is born into a white middle-class family.
Says you, but my experience contradicts it. You have not convinced me.
"It is significantly more difficult"
So? Why does that matter? None of us are equal in any way, and none of us ever will be. You might as well decry the fact that some people are taller, or have an eye color that you prefer, or keep a head full of hair into old age. In a just (my definition of that word, not necessarily yours) society, we are equal in one respect alone: equal before the law.
Before you rattle off a point about "justice," see my amended comments in the post above. The concept of justice pertains to choice, and applying it to situations where there is no choice involved (e.g., who your parents are, how much money they have) is not a valid use of the concept.
Your experience is dependent on several factors including how willing you are to listen to and engage people with different lives than your own. I can close my eyes and shout that there are no colors, but that doesn't invalidate everyone else's experience. Don't pretend like you have an authoritative background to make general conclusions.
One of my friends left home (when he was ~19) with little more than the shirt on his back, a pickup truck, and ruined credit. He managed to rebuild his life, and he did it all on his own. This was ~15 years ago. Great guy!
I don't want to get too autobiographical on you, but I didn't have the smoothest time myself: I bombed out of college before my first semester was up. I spent years working (and not on anything that you could call high-paying). I went back to school as an adult, graduated with distinction, and got a better job. I'm 32 now, and I've met enough people to know what I'm talking about.
Your experience is anecdotal. Surely you can understand why basing opinions and worldviews on pure anecdote is problematic, yes?
>>None of us are equal in any way, and none of us ever will be. You might as well decry the fact that some people are taller, or have an eye color that you prefer, or keep a head full of hair into old age. In a just (my definition of that word, not necessarily yours) society, we are equal in one respect alone: equal before the law.
Nobody argues that everyone is equal in terms of physical and personal characteristics. What is important however is for everyone to have equal opportunity. If you come from a well-off family who pays for your college, you are an order of magnitude better off than someone who had to take student loans. While you were studying for your classes and partying (or otherwise networking) in your spare time, they were working several minimum wage jobs. Similarly, after college, your job prospects will be better, not only because of higher grades (due to having had more time to study) but also parental connections, which may have landed you internships during summer breaks or full-time jobs after graduation.
If we move beyond anecdotes and look at the data, we see that it supports my argument. Do a Google search for social mobility in the USA and you will see that those who come from poor families are much less likely to proceed to middle class or higher throughout their lifetime. This is not because they are shorter or dumber or start balding at an early age, but because they did not have the same opportunities and therefore could not make as big of a jump as people who had better means.
> it doesn't square with the things I've observed in my own life.
> To do that, we have to look at adults - lots of them, ranging from bums to billionaires, across time and professions, on and on. Then at young adults, then at small children (to fully see the contrast with adults).
I like that you've indicated your own confirmation bias right there.
Does that really make any sense? Everyone, including you, has beliefs and hypotheses.
I've summarized some of what I've considered in coming up with my conclusion, and all you've done is to throw a convenient label on me. You'll have to try harder than that.
You are free to present contradictory evidence and conclusions if you think he's made a mistake.
He's not talking about evidence limited to his personal, one-on-one interactions. He's talking about all the evidence available to us, about people in society.
Where you start in life matters. It squares with the things I've observed in my own life; hardworking people who spend every waking hour working for the betterment of their friends and family are nevertheless constantly battered by mischance and bad fortune. I've learned to differentiate the good luck that I possess in my own life from the bad luck that others have. Despite my continued work in supporting them with financial aid, useful contacts, and marketable skills, they are still forced by circumstance to end up destitute.
At this point, some might say, "you didn't earn your brain/parent's money/etc." I say that's nonsense, because the entire idea of "earn" arises in order to distinguish real people who choose to act toward a goal from those that choose not to. And of course, that is the point. None of these things were earned. This is a basic framing problem[1], and the entire basis of chaos theory[2]. Initial conditions matter. A proper scientific experiment includes a control group measured against an experimental group, and both of these groups are impossible to meaningfully distinguish at the beginning of the observation. If this is not the case, say because one group is more intelligent by some accepted measure of intelligent, then the measurement of a variable, say the application of choice to arrive at earnings, becomes utterly nonsensical. The causative agent could be either the initial difference or the experimental variable.
Using simplistic philosophical bases for one's beliefs is tantamount to unexamined religious dogma and in no way demonstrates any kind of empirical basis. Furthermore, claiming to have surveyed "bums to billionaires" without proof is merely, in the sophistic style of javert, a logical fallacy.
But it's cute you two believe you have any grasp of epistemology, rhetoric, or logic.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)#Exper...
Whoa there - why do you call what I've written "simplistic"?
But it's cute you two believe you have any grasp of epistemology, rhetoric, or logic.
And of course, that is the point. None of these things were earned.
That wasn't my point. Let me put it another way: it is not valid to apply the concept of "earn" as you do, in a situation where no choice exists. You can't say that a person has earned his brain, nor can you say that he hasn't. I've already explained why. This is not some minor epistemological issue that I'm going to simply let pass.
But it's cute you two believe you have any grasp of epistemology, rhetoric, or logic.
Please stop with the insults.
Because it does not appreciate complexities. This is the danger of confirmation bias; it reduces a complex reality down to a simple explanation by dismissing contrary evidence.
> You can't say that a person has earned his brain, nor can you say that he hasn't. I've already explained why.
And you're wrong. Your central claim is this: "A person has earned any given X if and only if this person has made a choice." We can say "A person has earned any given X" is P and "A person has made a choice" is Q. Thus, the claim is a simple P <-> Q, which is shorthand for P -> Q AND Q -> P.
Your next claim, however, is "If a person has not made a choice, then this person has neither earned nor not-earned the given X." This looks like ~Q -> ~P, which is logically valid, but it's not. The claim depends on a statement which is completely new. You've defined a third category of existence.
> Please stop with the insults.
Earn my respect. That's a choice on your part, right?
This is supposed to be a community where we all respect each other. There is no excuse to be disrespectful to other people here, especially over disagreements about politics and philosophy.
If you want to be part of a community where you are free to be disrespectful to people until they "earn" your respect, you should go somewhere else.
I'm not even commenting on how you made fun of me and maxharris, which is kind of irrelevant because it doesn't support your argument intellectually. I'm only talking about your explicit assertion that you don't have to be respectful as part of the bargain of being in this community.
Actually, yes, yes it is.
How can you possibly say that?
For this reason, I think it's common for people born at any station in life who are successful relative to that starting point, to be happier than people born at a higher station that are not successful or are motivated by the wrong things.
What I like is the focus on looking at empirical evidence and then forming the right abstractions based upon that evidence.
What you're actually implying, which wouldn't be a logical fallacy, is that my view is subjective, because of the circumstances of my (middle class) upbringing.
I don't think that argument holds water. The subjectivity or not of things is probably too big of a discussion to really tackle on hacker news, though.
b) The statement was made to draw attention to what I perceive as weakness in your argument.
c) Notwithstanding the points made by others in the comments below, it should be said that I completely understand how and why people are objectivists. If, as I proposed, all (or even most (or even a significant number of)) objectivists had been born underprivileged, I think that I might be more inclined to agree with it.
d) > If you want to see what happens to an economic sector as the government becomes more invasive, look at the finance sector, which is the most controlled sector in the US, or look at the "federal telecom bureaus" (AT&T, Time Warner and Verizon).
In the finance sector, people broke the rules or rushed to fill in spaces where the rules were rolled back. Then things went really bad.
In the telecoms, they are breaking the rules but not being held accountable by the government.
In both cases, the fact that they are not following the rules is the actual problem. I'm not sure how this supports your claim.