This is the country that has spawned the richest people on the planet, many of them from very lowly backgrounds. The most influential web sites on the planet came from the United States. The greatest TV shows I've seen were all but one American, and the one - The Office - managed to at least win Ricky Gervais an Emmy once he brought it over here. Ditto greatest movies. In almost every field, America has got at least a distinctive presence. So obviously some people are escaping the stupid, impoverished culture.
I think that in Atlas Rand does abandon villains, but I feel that's because she's relying on her readers to have read The Fountainhead so we can already understand their justifications. In that earlier book, she spends a lot of time treating her villains with sympathy. She tries to explain why they are what they are. And while I agree that she does simplify in Atlas, I've absolutely met people who have similar mindsets to the villains from The Fountainhead - she's not just making up that type of person, and they often are as vile and as insignificant as she paints them to be.
He does make it easy for people to parrot things. But the human capitalization rate is a genuinely valuable concept. I read an article recently (possibly here?) about someone working on glasses that the users could adjust themselves, eliminating the need for an optometrist. He's trying to get these distributed on a really wide scale in countries which are too poor to afford optometry, because failing eyesight stops a great many from being able to work.
> So obviously some people are escaping the stupid, impoverished culture.
Individuals definitely do rise up from poverty, but that's a sociological rarity. Most people who grow up poor among other poor folks are indoctrinated into the idea that this is just how it is. It's extremely rare to find a poor person who's able to step back from all that and defiantly work his way up.
> I think that in Atlas Rand does abandon villains, but I feel that's because she's relying on her readers to have read The Fountainhead so we can already understand their justifications.
It's been a while since I read Fountainhead, but the only prominent villains I remember are Keating and Toohey. They seemed to be remarkably capable men, but Keating sabotaged his potential by constantly seeking others' approval. Toohey, I guess, was supposed to be the apotheosis of that mindset.
I'm thinking more about, say, the jaded bum from Atlas Shrugged, or the workers who don't have a love of what they do and aren't highly competent at it. Rand seems pretty happy to just treat them all with contempt, rather than understand where they're coming from and why.
Yes, that would explain why we're one of the wealthiest societies that have ever existed. </sarcasm>
As for stupidity in our society: there are many Americans who like to publically preen with a statement of the form "In our culture, we are so " + <negative social attribute>. The clear intent is to make the speaker seem simultaneously knowledgable enough about other cultures to make a fair comparison and slightly daring -- nay, a latter day Solzhenitsyn, such is one's daring.
That's not the stupid part, just boring vanity. The stupid part is those people who buy into it. Few of these people have ever lived in other societies (I've lived in two.)
If everyone created value by Rand's standards, were highly rational and reasonable, did not destroy value, and were otherwise law-abiding (or simply moral) citizens, then you might not need government, or at least a very minimal one. We're incredibly far off from such a world, however (assuming it's even possible), so we at least need military protection, law enforcement, adjudication, etc. A great deal of people, even if law-abiding, aren't living up to their potential for a variety of reasons (many having to do with circumstance and not choice), and so other functions of government have been created to deal with that (with varying success). Other functions include dealing with collective action problems, financing academic research, and other things I'm likely forgetting.
> what kind of complexity are we talking about here? Is it the reality that not everyone is a "Value Creator" or the reality of difference in the level of Value they create?
I mean the complexity of why many people aren't the productive juggernauts we would like them to be. I bought into Rand's picture of the world when I was introduced to her books, but over time, through constant checking of assumptions, realized that she was being grossly uncharitable towards the unproductive, content simply to label them as villains (which is why she's able to justify abandoning them). This, incidentally, has the self-reinforcing side effect of motivating aspiring John Galts to work even harder as a way of defining themselves in contrast to such villainy. Contempt for the unproductive is a limitless source of motivating juice. (That was my experience, anyway. Wish I still had access to it!)
Whatever its faults, I feel Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers gives a pretty good idea of the (often unintentional) social processes and historical contingencies that keep people from living up to their potential.
From an article previously linked on HN:
This time, he’s talking about a very serious academic concept, devised by the psychologist James Flynn (“One of my heroes,” Gladwell says, swooning), called the human capitalization rate, or “cap rate,” which, Gladwell explains, “refers to the rate at which a given community capitalizes on the human potential of those in its midst.” In the United States, Gladwell is sad to report, “cap rates are really low” owing to poverty, stupidity, and culture.
http://nymag.com/arts/books/features/52014/index5.html