Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I don't define myself as an Objectivists, but I tend to agree with a lot of Rand's philosophy (mostly about work ethics, individuality and productivity). Unfortunately, she has a rather lopsided view about emotions and human relationships. I'm sure if the following words were coming from someone who is not a bestselling author, that person could be loosely defined as "batshit insane":

> If they place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral. Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man's life.

In today's world, Rand would probably be suffering from burnout.




It is curious that a proponent of individualism like Rand advocated that her point of view on relationships, family etc is the only one that's moral.

I really fell in love with objectivism as a teenager, and am a very strong supporter of free markets (yes, despite all the 'misery' they bring to workers in out-of-date industries). But examining her work and everything she said as a whole, it's clear to me that she took her opinions to the extreme. Who is she to say what should be primary in my life?


There's a clear difference between dictating what someone else should have as primary in their life, and declaring something to be moral or immoral.

You may choose to take immoral actions, but those are actions that are not best for you.


>There's a clear difference between dictating what someone else should have as primary in their life, and declaring something to be moral or immoral.

Rand does both.

She declares putting family over work as immoral:

"If they place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral."

Then she says family and relationships are not (should not be) primary in a man's life:

"Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man's life."


So why is 'misery' in quotes? Are the workers bluffing?


Misery:a state of ill-being due to affliction or misfortune;

I don't think the problems workers face due to globalization are non-existent. I do think that they aren't unforeseen (which is the definition of misfortune). I would argue that as programmers, our skills become obsolete faster than those of factory workers in a particular industry. If we can foresee this and learn new programming languages, it should be possible for workers to do this as well.

In short I think any misery globalization brings is avoidable but it would take not just efforts by governments but also awareness on the part of individuals and a willingness to accept change.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: