
Meeting Ayn Rand on the Las Vegas Strip - dnetesn
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/meeting-ayn-rand-on-the-las-vegas-strip/383608/?single_page=true
======
PhasmaFelis
> _“There is nobody out there who can talk about self-esteem, about
> individualism, and about capitalism with the moral certainty and the moral
> fervor we can,” Brook declared._

It is so telling that this guy thinks moral certainty and "fervor" are a good
thing. A person who is 100% certain and unquestioning in his beliefs is a
person who cannot be reasoned with. This avowed rationalist speaks with the
language of religious fundamentalistism.

~~~
lucio
by definition you cannot support objectivism and at the same time be
impervious to reason.
[http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/reason.html](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/reason.html)

~~~
pja
Human beings are really, really good at constructing logical arguments for
things they want to be true and ignoring or downplaying counter-arguments.
Objectivism is no exception.

~~~
Retric
Further, any philosophy that includes axioms limits the value of logical
reasoning.

If X (which is assumed to be true) and Y then Z. It might be logically valid,
but it’s still meaningless.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Further, any philosophy that includes axioms limits the value of logical
> reasoning.

On the contrary, as logical reasoning in any particular system of logic
depends on the set of axioms defining that system of logic, any philosophy
which _does not_ admit any axioms likewise does not admit logical reasoning,
and any philosophy which only includes those axioms necessary to support a
system of logic can't lead to any conclusions other than those that constitute
the description of the system of logic. In order for a philosophy to have
interesting consequences, it must have substantive axioms.

~~~
Retric
And that’s a swing and a miss. Axioms might include input from observations.
"If I observe X then the gods are pleased." Followed by a lot of meaningless
but perfectly logical thought.

Side stepping that, from a pure logic standpoint you can reason about
philosophies independent from reality. But, with nothing actually connecting
them to physical reality the value of such effort is basically just aesthetic
in nature. "TRUTH is ..."

------
dang
This story was killed by user flags. That was a bad use of flagging, so we've
overridden it. The article is clearly substantive enough to pass the minimal
bar for this site. Whether it's great or not, or even good or not, is a
different question.

~~~
chc
It is substantial, but it is not relevant. This article is clearly far enough
afield from the topic of this site that it deserves to be flagkilled. Whether
it's substantial or not is a different question.

Also, if you're going to override people's flags, you should also override all
the upvotes, because there is no way to just downvote irrelevant crap like
this, so political diatribes, Buzzfeed links and everything else that has a
solid core of upvoters will dominate if we can't filter for relevance.

~~~
dang
> This article is clearly far enough afield from the topic of this site

I'm afraid you have a misconception, and it's a crucial one. There is no
"topic of this site". The axiom of Hacker News is intellectual curiosity, and
intellectual curiosity does not limit itself to one set of things.

Of course we're not all curious about the same stuff. That's why we have
voting—to express personal interest. But to flag an article like this one is
to say it has no (or nearly no) potential for intellectual curiosity at all,
and that seems clearly to be a bad call.

~~~
chc
I think the guidelines suggest something a little less broad than "whatever
you personally find interesting":

"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're
evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters,
or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-
topic."

Let me elaborate: Should I start spamming links to long-winded vegan
propaganda? _I_ would find it interesting, because it appeals to a viewpoint I
happen to agree with. I also find Sailor Moon to be interesting. Should I
start linking Sailor Moon content? Exactly how ridiculous and fluffy do my
interests have to be before we can agree that there would be a better forum
for the content?

Although they might be interesting to some particular hackers, vegan
evangelism, libertarian politics and Sailor Moon are pretty far from the
obvious intent of "things that good hackers would find interesting."

More than that, political content is poisonous to good discussion. The more
you allow politics in, the more politics will consume everything, and the more
comment threads you'll have that only gratify people's need to be outraged. I
can understand that some political stories legitimately reflect a new trend
that affects hackers and entrepreneurs, but allowing anything that interests
anyone just allows far too much junk and hastens the site's decline.

~~~
dang
It isn't whatever you find interesting, it's whatever you find
_intellectually_ interesting. Intellectual interest is only one kind of
interest. I think this answers the examples you raise—e.g. long-winded vegan
propaganda wouldn't be intellectually interesting, but an article about the
history of veganism might be.

The guidelines do say that most political stories are probably off-topic. But
"note those words most and probably" [1]. They're not there by accident.

1\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4922304#up_4922426](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4922304#up_4922426)

------
techpeace
[http://wonkette.com/561974/john-oliver-presents-the-
philosop...](http://wonkette.com/561974/john-oliver-presents-the-philosophy-
of-ayn-rand-or-being-a-selfish-ahole-video)

~~~
t0rb3n
Last Week Tonight is a great show, but this piece made me think about it... if
he misrepresents Ayn Rand so blatantly, how accurate is he on other topics?

edit: fixed name of the show

~~~
techpeace
What, exactly, is the segment misrepresenting? It was mostly video clips of
Ayn Rand expressing her thoughts directly, with a voice-over (rightly) mocking
conservatives for supporting her given the fact that she was both militantly
atheist and militantly pro-choice.

~~~
t0rb3n
You're right.

Also, the absurdity of expecting facts from a comedy show has been brought to
my attention just recently. All in all, what a great first comment on this
site ; )

Anyway, I'd argue there is an obvious atmosphere of disgust. The voice-over
before the first interview segment states her philosophy amounts to being a
selfish asshole. See the relevant part of the interview:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFy9A7WEzPA#t=104](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFy9A7WEzPA#t=104)
from 1:45 to around 3:40.

The net result is the impression that everything she's saying is basically
bullshit. It seems to me that it's considered unacceptable to refer to her
ideas.

------
phelmig
I liked Atlas Shrugged when I read it. But I think if Dagny Taggart would see
today's world she wouldn't be too happy as well. While capitalism won over
communism the corruption of governments didn't die out it just became more
clever.

I sometimes toy with the thought of writing a second ending to be Atlas
Shrugged where old Dagny looks at our world and can't grasp what is wrong with
it.

~~~
SkyMarshal
In Atlas Shrugged she didn't just rail at communism, but also at the use of
political "pull" over merit to shape (distort) the economic landscape. That's
still very relevant in many domains today, though I think the "Dagney's" of
the world (and most hackers and other astute observers) just as easily grasp
it then as now.

~~~
phelmig
It's not only about the "pull" over merit as you state it but about
politically established priorities that harm good businesses. Just as the US
cloud business was harmed by the NSA when national security (and intl.
espionage) was put above competitiveness.

Those political priorities still come from "Washington" and rule over NY (or
Silicon Valley). Both cities are meant within context of the book.

------
lucio
"When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion - when
you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who
produce nothing - when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in
goods, but in favors - when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull
than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them
against you - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a
self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed."

Source: Atlas Shrugged, Francisco's "Money Speech"

Anyone living and producing goods or services in a corrupt country will
understand this. You need to experience several years in the society described
in the quote to fully understand the implications.

~~~
santacluster
> when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from
> men who produce nothing

This part alone shows how much superficial BS this is.

You cannot produce anything without using the earth's resources. They do not
naturally belong to any man.

So it's either "take what you want, by force, and fuck everyone else", or we
find some peaceful way to share those resources amongst each other. Preferably
without terminally destroying them for future generations.

Yes, the latter is done through a huge variety of intricate social constructs,
and all of them are corrupt to some degree, because such is mankind.

But the only society in which you do not need permission from your fellow men
is one in which the majority of the population has the status of serfs.

~~~
notahacker
To put things into perspective for those not familiar with the book, the
character Francisco is supposed to one of the world's richest men having
inherited a mining fortune from his conquistador ancestors. According to
Rand's back-story, it's all down to the family lineage passing on genius from
one generation to another and nothing at all to do with working slaves to
death, as _actually_ tended to happen in South American mines. It's not
documented whether his ancestors asked permission from the indigenous
population.

Atlas Shrugged is basically the _reductio ad absurdum_ version of saner
arguments for capitalism.

------
Afforess
I think the biggest draw for Ayn Rand and her works is that there are very few
"role models" for fiscal conservatives in today's political environment. Most
Republicans are neo-conservative warhawks that only pay lip-service to fiscal
conservatism. Very few of them represent the older, Eisenhower traditional-
Republicanism, who feared the Military-Industrial complex and understood
fiscal conservatism. Even the "tea party" conservatives are mostly anti-
intellectual, anti-tax, social conservatives. Fiscal conservatives are usually
intellectuals who have a wide range of social beliefs and do not fit in with
that crowd.

Ayn Rand's Objectivism aligns well with fiscal conservatives and capitalists
in a way that is hard to find elsewhere. I have met a lot of people who are
pro-capitalism fiscal conservatives and they seem to have fallen through the
political cracks. I see very few politicians or public-figure role models who
appeal to Capitalists.

~~~
digisign
Agreed, in America the Goldwaters, Buckleys, and other intelligent
conservatives died out in favor of the fox contingent. A shame really.

~~~
api
One reason: fiscal conservatism doesn't offer anyone any advantage, and
politics is (sadly) mostly about competing over unfair advantage. The goal of
a political campaign is to exercise your power over someone else (e.g.
theocrats, PC fanatics), slant the law in your favor (regulatory capture), or
directly access the treasury.

The second reason: Keynesian economics works, at least in the short to medium
term. When a recession hits, real fiscal conservatives lose _big_. Democrats
know this and play to it explicitly. Republicans also know it, and are masters
at politically weaponized Keynesianism. They espouse fiscally conservative
rhetoric while being ardent Keynesians in practice, usually through military
spending and financial bubble-blowing.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> One reason: fiscal conservatism doesn't offer anyone any advantage...

I disagree. Fiscal conservatism means that I get to keep more of my money,
instead of having the government take it. That's certainly an advantage to me.

But I think you meant "it's not an advantage of one person over another",
which is true. And by extension, I think you meant "therefore it doesn't help
one candidate get elected over another", which I think is false. Telling
people that you're going to let them keep more of their money shouldn't be a
very hard sell. (Now, true, most conservative candidates don't seem to be able
to articulate such a message, but I think that's because most "conservative"
candidates aren't fiscal conservatives at all.)

------
applecore
What I learned from this discussion: Ayn Rand (and, to a lesser extent,
Objectivism) is the highly electrified third rail of Hacker News.

------
Tycho
I think one of the appealing things about Objectivism is that it's a complete
top-to-bottom guide to how life should be lived for individuals, communities
and nations. Most rival philosophies seem narrower. Christianity, for
instance, has lots of advice for dealing with individuals but seems
disconnected from politics. Something like Marxism talks about the
organisation of industries and classes but not so much about personal
situations. Mainstream political movements seem more like packages of stances
(on things like abortion, welfare, immigration...) with no clear unifying
principles. Then there's interesting philosophies like say Utilitarianism,
that lots of people know about and write about but seemingly no one seriously
adheres to as a way of life.

If you agree with the principles of Objectivism you can more or less follow it
as a way of life, without doing anything drastic like abandoning all your
worldly possessions, or feeling like a hypocrite.

~~~
adamnemecek
Idk, is being wrong on multiple fronts that much better than being wrong only
on one?

------
teekert
"For eight days last summer, a new generation of Randians was indoctrinated in
the auditoriums of The Venetian. Where better to absorb Atlas Shrugged 's
teachings than in a city of extremes?"

Indoctrinatied? What a way to start but he sure makes his stance clear with
that sentence.

As someone who really values Ayn Rands work (I am one of those who was
influence by Atlas Shrugged), I find it difficult to get through this piece
(as it is with things you disagree with). I find it very biased yet it never
really gives any good arguments against objectivism.

Of course one should not treat Ayn Rand as a god and be dogmatic about her
ideas, and certainly don't judge her by the people that do.

------
lordnacho
I'm reasonably sympathetic so some libertarian views. But I've never been able
to motivate myself to read Ayn Rand. Can someone tell me how a fiction book
can make a good argument for any political view? Is it just a thin layer of
story-writing on top of actual, evidence-based argument? Or is it like I fear,
just a long story where everything goes right for the guys with the right
views? Because I'm pretty sure you could write a book where the righteous
commies win.

Considering how big the book is, I'd like to know before I try to read it.

~~~
bcheung
People often think Objectivism is right wing conservative. In some ways it is,
but in others it is pretty far to the left as well. Rand spends quite a lot of
time attacking crony "capitalism".

The book creates exaggerated scenarios in order to illustrate certain
principles and beliefs.

Some of those beliefs are:

1) If you created value as a producer then you deserve to keep and use that
wealth you created. Others don't have a right to it and must trade with you
through voluntary win/win means.

2) There are devious individuals who will use their influence to make
government force others to provide them with benefits and harm their
competition.

3) Being competent and producing value is one of the highest moral virtues. It
is what advances society forward and promotes the "common welfare".

4) Objective thought should be relied upon rather than the opinion of others.
You don't need to have a title in order to have an opinion. You just need to
be competent on the subject matter.

5) Society will try to make you feel guilt for your success. As long as you
created wealth through moral means then you should be proud, not full of
guilt.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
> _People often think Objectivism is right wing conservative. In some ways it
> is, but in others it is pretty far to the left as well._

If nothing else, Objectivism is a pretty convincing argument that the
left/right political binary is bullshit.

------
mangoldm
Who should be the beneficiary of your actions? Answer that and all the rest
follows.

------
dmfdmf
The only way to meet Rand now is by reading her books.

------
andrewvc
In this thread: Randians downvoting all dissenting views so as not to disturb
their carefully constructed echo chambers. Hi guys!

~~~
jessaustin
Umm, that's not what I see. It looks more like the Rand aficionados are
getting downvoted, not that that is actually any more valid than what you
hoped for would have been.

~~~
dang
The downvote situation is always in flux. That's one of the reasons not to
post comments about downvotes on HN: by the time people read the comment, it
will probably be obsolete.

The greater reason not to post such comments, of course, is that they're
inevitably off-topic and tedious.

------
fourspace
Regardless of your views on Ayn Rand, this journalist goes to a week long
conference and writes about two talks? Click bait. Pass.

~~~
ghaff
Umm. He's not a journalist. He's an academic. And he's hardly obliged to do
blow-by-blow reportage of an entire event.

~~~
nickff
This article is more of a rambling tirade than anything else. The only things
I learned from it are how much the author disdains Rand and Las Vegas.

I think the quote that demonstrates the author's slant is the following one
about the Venetian hotel, and how "[o]nce inside, you have to follow the
arcade of shops along a faux canal". This canal seems to conform to the
dictionary definition of 'canal', and the author seems to be trying to
exaggerate what he deems to be the flaws of Las Vegas.[1] There are numerous
other instances in the article where similar hyperbole is used, and I will not
bore you with a list, but they show that the writing is more sensationalist
than journalistic or academic.

[1]
[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/canal](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/canal)

