relic17
He was moral because of his values - the relentless pursuit of beauty and perfection in his work and life, to the utmost of his ability. He was moral because those values came from within himself, from the functioning of his own mind, and not second-hand from the morass of ideas going by the name of “morality” today. He was moral because he never gave up his ideas for the sake of others’ approval. He was moral because he did not give the unearned and undeserved and he did not seek the unearned and undeserved from others. He was moral because he had a SELF that embodied the best in man.
Those who measure morality by how much you give away to others, known or unknown, deserving or undeserving, do not understand that. They do not understand that before you can give, you have to create, but before you can create, your primary concern must be the process of creation itself, not the potential beneficiary of that creation. Yet, that is the only mechanism through which all can truly benefit. They do not understand the difference between forcing or cheating or defrauding and signing a voluntary contract. They feel guilty for buying a phone, but never question the morality that tells them they should feel so and never seek the roots of that guilt. They rail against the capitalist creator, but ignore the fact that bad working conditions are the logical result of a controlled economy, as if hundreds of millions of victims of communism were not enough to prove that. They scream in defense of the poor Chinese worker, but never ask how it happened that that worker never rose against its real oppressor.
Yes, Steve Jobs is my hero. And my other hero is Ayn Rand, who helped me understand what makes people like Steve Jobs possible. But she only showed me - my mind had to do the rest. I thought for myself, taking nothing for granted. I urge everyone to do the same.
The whole issue is not economic, it is philosophical, about ethics - i.e. what is moral and what rights people have.
Mr. Wu, with whom you agree, goes well beyond anti-trust. For him, as long as a business is considered essential to the public good, that alone is enough to justify "compulsion" (see your first quote). Do you agree with that? Or would you try to prove (as hard as that can be) that Facebook and Google are monopolies first?
You say "we should vote with our attention", and I fully agree. This is a proper way to make a change. Another would be to write articles like the one you've just written, using your own means. Compulsion should be reserved for criminals.
She urges people to relentlessly ask the question why, to examine every premise for every important idea that guides our lives, to follow that premise to its roots, to look for contradictions. I put in the effort to do just that with her philosophy, and that effort matched the brainpower I had needed to build some of my most complex programs and models.
I am 30 now, but I really wish to have read her work when I was 20. If I could offer any advice, it is to read her books before you reach 30 and to think deeply about what she has to say until you are convinced (based on your best effort and knowledge to date) that you either agree or disagree with her. This would be much better than taking someone else's word for it.
When a customer purchases an Apple device, he/she knows what that Apple does not guarantee continued service. Apple does not contractually promise that apps will continue to be there, it does not promise it will work with developers, it does not promise it won't change the rules, it does not promise that it won't get out of business in six months and close the app store altogether. The customer is aware of all that beforehand but still buys the device.
Many people talk about user rights. The only rights a user has are 1) to sue Apple if the company violates a written contract between itself and the user and 2) to refuse to buy Apple's products in the future.
Also, there is no such thing as user rights. The only right a user has is to sue Apple if he/she thinks Apple is in violation of its explicit written contract with any individual user. Before purchasing an Apple device, a customer knows that he/she may be "locked" out of the device, but he/she buys it anyways. A user knows all the conditions before the purchase. Apple does not guarantee that after you buy a device they will always provide a great variety of apps at a price you find acceptable. Apple does not guarantee a wonderful service, it does not guarantee great partnerships with developers, it does not even guarantee that it will be in business in a few months. All of that is perfectly clear to anyone who buys a device in almost any market.
Apple also has no obligation whatsoever to help any of its competitors innovate. If they cannot "innovate" without Apple, it is their problem to solve, they have to be smarter and more resourceful, create something on their own or convince Apple to work with them by demonstrating a compelling product. This is how a free economy operates.
What a user can do is vote with his/her wallet.
You also use terms such as "unavoidable 30% tax" and "forcing application developers". Do you really think Apple has the status of a government (i.e. the ability to charge mandatory tax) and do you really think Apple is actually physically forcing anyone to do anything? And finally, since you believe their platform policy of taking 30% is "crooked", why do you think that charging for the use of your property is immoral? Or do you think that there are some "moral" boundaries that should be acceptable? What prevents the other parties from walking away if they don't like these terms?
About the role of the FTC: My understanding is that the FTC, together with the Antitrust Division of the DOJ, tries to ensure that companies comply with antitrust laws. Even though this is a different discussion, based on my knowledge of this field, I think that antitrust laws, generally, lack in objectivity. I disagree with many of them. This, however, does not mean that a company should break them. I would certainly not agree with such an action. A serious problem for companies is, however, that even with their hordes of sophisticated lawyers, it is very difficult for them to determine what constitutes a violation. As proof, consider the lengthy battles Microsoft has had with the European Commission. After years of fines and appeals, neither side fully understands the problem and neither side can define the actions that would guarantee compliance with the law in the future.
It appears that your acquaintance agrees with having her government take away part of her income and give it to the janitor. She accepts the janitor's claim to part of her property as the janitor's right - i.e. the janitor does not owe her any gratitude, and her act is not a voluntary act of benevolence - she is simply giving him what is already his due.
So where does this right come from? The janitor's need. The question here is whether need can give rise to a legitimate right.
You say that your acquaintance thinks that her giving away part of her wealth helps prevent poorer people from becoming criminals. And that this danger gives them the right to claim part of her wealth. But if you extrapolate this thinking further, you'd get people keeping others hostage by means of a threat - i.e. if you refuse to share with me what you earned but I didn't, I'll turn into a criminal and hurt you. This way of thinking about rights is very dangerous.
My view of happiness is simply the achievement of your values, which you have defined consciously and rationally and which do not infringe on the rights of others. The questions for your acquaintance are "Is she feeling happy because she can buy a protection from criminals", or "Is she feeling happy because she truly loves all her fellow citizens (known and unknown, good and bad, lazy and hard-working)?". Regardless of the answer, the more important question is: "Why does she prefer a situation where she is given no choice, no right to refuse to give away, to a situation where she could give away voluntarily, as an act of kindness?"
A similar view is at the root of most governments around the world today and it certainly underpinned the socialist/communist block in the 20th century, though to a different degree. The United States has been a notable exception.
But let's focus on Norway and the idea that it can serve as a model. To take a small example, who believes that a skilled doctor is genuinely happy to have half of his income taken away by law and given to the janitor of his hospital, so that the latter receives the roughly same pay? Well, the surveys say that the level of happiness in Norway are very high, so the doctor must be happy. Happiness measures aside, does that make sense? Is the doctor genuinely happy or has he been told by generations of intellectuals what he should feel happy about and what he should feel guilty about? This is a question that everyone who nominates Norway as a model for the US should answer logically.
The sad thing, however, is that the major premise of his philosophy will prove more damaging to capitalism (which he so passionately professes to defend) than most socialist ideas would. That premise is the notion that capitalism, or whatever remains from it in the mixed world economy of today, is fundamentally broken. That even those businessmen who thrive (or survive) by their own ability and productive effort are fundamentally guilty of looking after their own interest. They are guilty by popular opinion and have to find a way to exonerate themselves.
I urge all HN readers who have read the article carefully and understand that there is something wrong about it, to also read Ayn Rand's "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" (http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Ideal-Ayn-Rand/dp/045114795...) and judge for themselves dispassionately. Just because I happened to be reading the book today, I quote a couple of paragraphs, with which I agree:
"I [Ayn Rand] want to stress that our [objectivists'] primary interest is not politics or economics as such, but "man's nature and man's relationship to existence" - and that we advocate capitalism because it is the only system geared to the life of a rational being. In this respect, there is fundamental difference between our approach and that of capitalism's classical defenders and modern apologists. With very few exceptions, they are responsible - by default - for capitalism's destruction. The default consisted of their inability to fight the battle where it had to be fought: on moral-philosophical grounds."
"There are the businessmen who spend fortunes on ideological ads, allegedly in defense of capitalism, which assure the public that all but a tiny fraction of an industry's income goes to labor (wages), to government (taxes), etc., with these shares represented as big chunks in full-color process, and, lost among them, an apologetic little sliver is marked "2 1/2 percent" and labelled "profits."
"There is the display of charts and models, in a hallway of the New York Stock Exchange, presenting the achievements of free enterprise and captioned: "The People's Capitalism."
"Since none of these attempts can succeed in disguising the nature of capitalism nor in degrading it to the level of an altruistic stockyard, their sole result is to convince the public that capitalism hides some evil secret which imbues its alleged defenders with such an aura of abject guilt and hypocrisy. But, in fact, the secret they are struggling to hide is capitalism's essence and greatest virtue: that it is a system based on the recognition of individual rights - on man's rights to exist (and to work) for his own sake - not for the altruistic view of man as a sacrificial animal. Thus it is capitalism's virtue that the public is urged - by such defenders - to regard as evil, and it is altruism that all their efforts help to reinforce and reaffirm as the standard of the good."
The above paragraph suggests that the author is aware of Ayn Rand and disagrees with both her (who was not libertarian) and the libertarians. Then the author goes on to imply that the free market is responsible for the rising income inequality and to put all the rich under the same common denominator, with no regard for the source of their wealth (note how many names are cited and the widely varying reputations of the businessmen in question). Ayn Rand is very explicit on the distinction of gaining wealth through thoughtful and productive effort on the one hand and through special privileges on the other. It is this observation that the author has ignored.
Second, the author concludes that "the lesson of history is that, in the long run, super-elites have two ways to survive: by suppressing dissent or by sharing their wealth", so they must choose one of these options. This message ends an article that would constitute a weak response to Ayn Rand (if the article was meant to be one). It sanctions a systems that says: the rich, no matter how they got to be rich in the first place, should either abuse the rest of the population, as they often did in feudal times, or will have to see their property seized by force, as it is done in socialist and communist countries. Otherwise, they cannot survive. Well, that's a very dangerous proposition for individual rights.
The problems with education, healthcare, infrastructure, and other areas that Mr. Harris bemoans, have most likely arisen due to legislation that distorted the real economic incentives of the people using these markets. Pouring other people's money into these disfunctional areas would achieve nothing more than a short-lived alleviation of the symptom. The root cause will remain intact.
"Make college free for anyone who can't afford it," Mr. Harris calls. Well, someone has to pay (for teachers, facilities, equipment, etc.). Who will do that? The rich? What if they don't want to? Should we grab a gun and go to their homes to take their money away? Or should we revile them in blogs and newspapers? Why do most people forget that it is precisely the rich (except those who amassed their wealth in non-free markets, distorted by government intervention), who, by virtue of their ability to build businesses or to create value for their employers, have already created the most wealth for others as well? Any reliable machine we use, any good service we enjoy was created by able people, and their wealth is miniscule in comparison with the benefit they have brought to others as a by-product of their effort. To deny such people the freedom to use their wealth as they please will likely kill their incentive to be productive.
To tackle another of Mr. Harris' points - it is obvious that chance is involved in success. However, it is illogical and unethical to claim that since chance played a role in someone's success, that person is obliged to give away part of his/her wealth to another person, who has nothing to do with the life and work of the former. Chance does not give anyone the right to claim a portion of another person's wealth.
The solution is not in more aggressive income transfer. It is in freeing markets and letting people do the best for themselves.
The above is the main premise in this discussion. Next comes the entitlement argument. The UK government is not introducing a new policy, rather it is scaling back on an old one, restricting its involvement in education. It is sensible to bring back more freedom in education, where prices, just like in every other market within a free uncontrolled economy, should reflect fundamental value.
Obviously, the government has to be careful not to withdraw its support too quickly. After all, its involvement has distorted incentives in education to such an extent that withdrawing substantial funds too fast can cause a major economic upheaval. From what I know about the issue, this is not the case. I hope this is a gradual change in the right direction.
The best the students can do is re-evaluate their moral and philosophical stance on the issue and if they still believe that someone else should pay for their education, rather than their parents or themselves, they should try to persuade the government by peaceful means. But obviously, I question the "ethics" of forcibly taking away someone else's income to provide for cheap education. Some student leaders in the UK claim that it is only fair that the super-rich pay for their (the students') education. It is ok, if such rich people want to donate to universities and sponsor students voluntarily, but it is unethical to force them to pay (as some students want, although the majority are indifferent about the outside source, as long as the money is provided). To me, a person who advocates the violation of someone else's rights cannot claim that he/she is protecting his/her own "rights" from a moral standpoint.