Objectivism has a lot to do with objectivity. I'm sorry if this is news for you. How reality is perceived and how objective knowledge is attained are at the core of this doctrine -- without these one cannot even talk about rational pursuit of self-interest.
I wasn't even asking a question about HN, just making a remark.
That's a novel argument. I believe what Rand was ultimately concerned with was a morality that is rational and objective; the idea being that one only needs to rely on one's own reason in order to judge what is moral and what is not. As to universality of moral doctrines, if I was feeling malicious, I'd say that the Catholic church was there first (that's what 'Catholic' means, after all). Some rather remarkable moral notions have historically been 'universally accepted', as you say.
@yboris. Your account says that you are an 'Effective Altruist'. In a nutshell, Ayn Rand believes that altruism is immoral and argues why.
Given your eloquently put understanding of her philosophy, I doubt that you are interested in digging deeper. But in case I'm wrong, everything is summarised in a short interview with Mike Wallace (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHl2PqwRcY0).
You're quite right. Arguably, an attempt at formulating an objective morality has been made: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism . However, it is anathema on HN.
> Speaking about legality is so much better than speaking about morality, yes?
It isn't better, nor is it worse; it is merely more objective, that's all.
> I wasn't aware we were making economic arguments- after all your original comment ended asking whether it was immoral.
Yes, sorry, that was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but you're quite right on this count. I was simply attempting to rubbish an anti-capitalist argument in the article, but it blew up in my face.
> Perhaps I am too, call it unrealistic or idealistic, for your taste.
That's ok. Who's to say which one of us is 'right'? We can just say that we have profound disagreements about the merits of capitalism as an economic system -- I think that's fair and it shouldn't be a problem in a democracy.
> I'm going to believe people like you overlook problems because they have found or earned enough to have the luxury to.
You believe that if it gives you any comfort. For now, I'll just continue believing that "economics is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses" and leave it at that.
Similar story here. Perhaps arts degrees are different, but I could not relate this piece to any of my experiences from when I was studying for a CS degree. It felt as though the author was writing about a different country.
Ok. This sounds like a bit of a change of subject, but I think I follow. This all sounds a bit general: which 'underpaid workers' (and what is 'underpaid'?), which bosses, and how much are they 'raking in', is it illegal? You need to be more precise to diagnose a problem.
More importantly -- what are these people of whom you speak doing about improving their condition? Are they demanding a raise? You have my sympathy if you are the one stuck with an unreasonable employer and feel that you are underpaid: my advice would be to look for a new job and tell your employer where to go once you've found one.
However, if you are not in that category -- I have to say that I've never found the altruistic Guardianista (there -- I've said it!) approach to economic problems to be at all credible. It all smacks of some perverse neo-Christian moralising about what's 'fair' and 'good'. You can nearly always tell that an economic argument is lost when people start speaking about morality. If you want to go to Heaven, you're welcome. Me -- I'd rather go to Disneyland : at least it's actually there (besides, I've never been before).
Could you develop that point? I went to a northern comprehensive; I now lecture CS, but I have no recollection of being 'stepped on' by the Tarquins and Glorias of this world along the way -- in fact, I always felt that it is they who should be worried if they try. You may have some self esteem issues, mate.
@odshoifsdhfs: Well, I hate to quibble, but it's actually 'Belarusian' (just one 's', you see). I've lived in Western Europe (UK) nearly all my life and I'm afraid I disagree with you fundamentally: '95%' of the people in 'the West' are quite indifferent to the broader region of Eastern Europe, but never in my life have I encountered the kinds of chauvinistic attitudes even approaching those I encountered from Russians. To give you an example: 'govori po-chelovecheski' (in Russian - literally 'speak like a human being') -- can you believe this s**t? Also 'US/Western Europeans' aren't living in tinpot dictatorships with aspirations to annex territories from their neighbours -- a slight, but important difference, which to my mind excuses any ignorance of the region and its politics.
It's amazing how every time Ukraine is mentioned in a thread, a poster (from Mukhosransk or some such place) suddenly appears to tell everyone about the virtues of living in an authoritarian petrostate.
In any event, I think this is all getting rather silly. I was simply making the point that historically science in the US has benefited tremendously from having a large number of capable people that were trained within a different system. Where they were born is absolutely irrelevant. A certain W. von Braun was indeed an American, as were his 'major technological advances' that many in the US are rightly proud of, but he was very much a product of German science (I hope you don't find this point controversial).
cm2187: I wonder if you realize that a significant factor in the US scientific prowess is a certain event in the XX century history of Europe which forced a huge number of scientists to move to the US because they weren't 'Aryan enough'. After said XX century event another wave of scientists arrived (or were brought) to the US, only these were 'quite Aryan' but facing career oblivion in Europe due to their past political associations. One way or another, a critical mass of excellent researchers ended up in the US and became a technological asset that no other country could frankly match or even get close, solidifying its technological preeminence for the rest of the century. Obviously, this wouldn't have been possible without generous US funding for science as well (the economy being another area where the US has dominated the XX century).
Also, '90%' sounds suspiciously like a number you produced from deep within your colon.