"From your posts I get the impression that you have never allowed yourself to dream; to forget obligations for the moment, society's or your parents’ values, to lay them aside and think about some silly childish enjoyment you once thought of."

It is almost ironic, how incorrect you are. 

And it is utterly counter-productive to perpetuate the myth that with a "dream" you can have "millions in a bank account" It takes hard work.  It takes sacrificing a lesser value for a greater.  Sometimes those choices are not easy to make. 

Dreams are where inspiration comes from.  Perspiration is what makes dreams a reality. 

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

An interesting sprawl of a thread.

James: I have fulfilling work that I love. Life
is good.

In response, Guy: I cannot adequately convey the level of
disgust I feel when I read that.

On the surface, Guy feels inexpressible disgust when he reads that life is good for James Heap-Nelson. Why? We don't really know. We know nothing of Guy's life or strivings or successes. For all we know he may only be suffering from 'coffee anger,' and if we sat before his throne in the palace he has created with his heroic industry, he would regale us with tales of his individual accomplishments.

Guy turns to another SOLOist:

Let’s speak for a moment about Peter Cresswell.
I don’t know his exact details but this is what
I have gleaned from online. He is a creative
and excellent architect.

I entirely agree. I think Peter is a very talented architect, and I wish him the very best in his career -- commissions and glory and renown. I recommend readers check out a marvelous slideshow of one of his projects -- his massing, sense of form, light, scale and detail is impressive (see a representative sample of his work at Organon Architecture: Projects by Peter Cresswell).

I expect that Heroic Achiever Guy has blown his wad of diffuse crabbiness and pointless invective already, but if not, I am hoping he would illuminate his own self and not bother to throw a dark cloak of envy over people's lights.

For amusement, SOLOists may peruse Guy's Rebirth of Reason blurb:

I have been fascinated with Objectivism for years, since a
late teen. Somewhere along the road I noticed the difference
between employee and employer types, and I have noticed that
Objectivists fall roughly into either being fans or those
people who do. Which also reminds me of fat people falling
"in love" with young athletes–the disparity is noticeable.

Judging only words is really an interesting thing. Somehow,
the doers write a bit differently than the fans. Haven’t put
my finger on it yet, but I am looking forward to
understanding the epistemology of it.
RoR Stanton

Five Canucki bucks to the anti-charity of choice for the person who can successfully parse the second sentence of Guy's blurb. Like he says, "Judging only words is really an interesting thing."

Great pic of a Cresswell project:

WSS

Scott,

From your posts I get the impression that you have never allowed yourself to dream; to forget obligations for the moment, society's or your parents’ values, to lay them aside and think about some silly childish enjoyment you once thought of.

Maybe you once saw yourself as Zoro with a cape; or Tinkerbell with a magic wand; or Arnold Palmer, Julia Child–or JFK–maybe you liked to play with trains and build villages around them–or Santa Claus, giving presents to everyone. Maybe the music man, being one of the Beetles–or the conductor in Fantasia.

There are some of us who follow through with their dreams. And there are those that think they have the tougher life because they suffer doing the “right thing.” Nice climates, cleaning robots, a million or two in your retirement fund–all of that stuff is a smoke screen and drug, it’s “proof” that you have succeeded or been rewarded–but none of that stuff will pacify or resolve your id.

From the beginning of this thread that is what I have been talking about and I have been watching the lengths that others will go to not see it.

I really have to go now–it’s not my job to be here.

Guy

...with my head up my ass, but precisely what about Jim's writing is disgusting?  It makes perfect sense.

If we are not talking about Objectivist morality, then what chart does Jim's not belong on, while Peter's does?  You'll have to answer that before we go any further, so you'll have to stop being vague and define what you really mean.  It occurred to me that this was a discussion of morality because morality is nothing more than a guide to proper action with success and hapiness and existence qua man as the goal of morality.

So, Guy, since you are so upset over the idea that this is a moral discussion, define what 'chart' we are talking about, if not a moral one.

Peter's accomplishments may be greater than Jim's, based on the information you have provided.  Does that make you happy?  Yes, $1,000 is better than $100.  This is simple.  The founder of a business adds more value to the organization than a janitor.  But I assume that with the clarity you presumably have, not having your head up you ass like some of us, you were making more of a point than 1<2; 2>1.  And your earlier posts certainly suggest some value judgments and assessements about employees.  But if that is your entire point, I guess you can shut up, because we all understand 1<2

I think you mistaken--I think everyone on here esteems great acheivement and happiness--I do not know you could possibly come to this conclusion based on the contents of this thread.  But, some of us are clearer thinkers than others.  Even with our heads up our asses.

Make no mistake, I am heroic.  I'm not telling my story here and now, but I walk into work every morning thoroughly certain that I have surmounted terrible obstacles to reach where I am and I know that I do important, moral work, and self-direct my own success, which is very important to me.  But, I also work more than anyone I know, and am not happy about it.  I wish more people had a more realistic understanding of what it takes to succeed as an entrepreneur before damning those who evaluate and decide it is better a road not taken with such terms as "cog"

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Ok, you guys.

I am almost certain that you will not be able expand your brains to comprehend the next few thoughts, I will try once.

Jim wrote: “In order to function more effectively, an employee should act like an entrepreneur. The goal is to bring the right skills to the right place at the right time. Or as Andy Grove puts it: be where the invisible hand wants you to be. I haven't had any one boss for longer than two years, I leave a job when I'm unhappy. I have no debt and save 50% of my after tax takehome pay and I work 35-40 hours a week. I live in an area with a good climate. I have fulfilling work that I love. Life is good.”

I cannot adequately convey the level of disgust I feel when I read that. It has nothing to do with Jim; I wish him well, I am glad he is happy, I don’t wish to change anything he does. He is not immoral, indeed I am sure he is a very moral person. Ok? Got that? No? Ok. Let me try to explain.

Let’s speak for a moment about Peter Cresswell. I don’t know his exact details but this is what I have gleaned from online. He is a creative and excellent architect. He works for himself, which makes him an entrepreneur. That means no salary, no guarantee income, no clocking out at 35 hours. This is a phenomenal feat. It equals what Howard Roark did. (Please take note Scott, I think you have your head up your ass, and, for reasons of your own, will not, can not, or turn the other way from seeing heroic achievements in your immediate circle of acquaintances.)

Now, let’s keep going. Peter, I believe ran for high political office in New Zealand. He has written hundreds of pro-freedom, pro-value articles. He is now the editor of the Free Radical. Please keep in sight that he is making his living at profession that takes ruthless integrity and doing this other great stuff on top of that.

The level of intelligence, integrity, skill and guts it takes for him to do all this is phenomenal. We are talking light years beyond Kelly’s coaching, Jim’s work, Phil’s teaching–those are all values, all moral jobs–but they don’t compute on the same chart.

The Perigo rant is that there are all these Americans that don’t know the difference between a heroic life and doing a good job at work. Then to hear gripes about what is not admiral about average jobs, on a site that supposedly takes achievement, integrity, and freedom seriously–is downright stingy, petty, and self-centered.

Some of us hold a context in which great achievements and happiness are the standard. So for all you happy people out there that is an awesome value, but great achievement combined with it is deserving of our gratitude and admiration.

Guy

As a followup to Scott's post, it is important for an employee that accepts an employer-employee relationship to have enough savings or have a strong plan B or work to develop either. This is a recognition that the employer-employee relationship is an at-will arrangement that can be terminated at any time by either party.

In order to function more effectively, an employee should act like an entrepreneur. The goal is to bring the right skills to the right place at the right time. Or as Andy Grove puts it: be where the invisible hand wants you to be. I haven't had any one boss for longer than two years, I leave a job when I'm unhappy. I have no debt and save 50% of my after tax takehome pay and I work 35-40 hours a week. I live in an area with a good climate. I have fulfilling work that I love. Life is good.

Jim

I think there is alot to be said for the way he views his place in the larger economy.  Guy almost seems to suggest the it would be moral for Jim to strike out on his own, knowing he cannot afford the overhead of running his own business, because by some external standard, it is more moral.  But if happiness and life qua man is the moral standard, it is my position that it would be IMMORAL for Jim or Kelly to leave their jobs knowing that they are leaving a happy, productive situation, and seting themselves up for almost certain failure, because some Guy says it is more moral.

In very real terms, employees ARE individuals selling to a customer (employer), under terms they both accept.  One step from employee is independant contractor.  They do not get the protections of law, but they essentially fill the role an employee might fill, but they are considered a sole proprietor.  I know tons of employees and sole proprietors, some even in the same companies.  THe difference between their concerns and day to day responsibilities--none I can think of.

Guy does not explain what it is that morally distinguishes the above "cog" and "heroic independant businessman"  and I would argue that there is virtually no difference.  Their day today concerns and functions are identical.

Now if you want to examine a real extreme--a lazy stupid government employee and Bill Gates, for example--we can.  Of course we should esteem a guy like Gill Gates.  Notwithstanding that I hate his stupid crashy operating systems, way overpriced Office software (try OpenOffice--just as good and free--and compatible with Microsft file formats) and DRM policy that treats customers like crooks by default, he is one in a million a guy who literally took nothing and turned it into billions, a huge corp, etc.  But what alot of this discussion misses is:  the lazy stupid government employee could never have done what Bill Gates did--never, ever.  He does not have the drive, the intelligence, the other characteristics which are esential (including the desire, ability to work 18 hour days, for example).  We can call him immoral if we want.  Or less moral.  But how can him not doing something he is physically and mentally not capable of make him more or less moral?  Tryinh to go what Bill Gates did would be stupid, self-destructive, and therefore, immoral.  Why should we call him a cog--to make ourselves feel better?  Doesn't Bill Gates need people who are employees like this to work in the mail room?

If we define Objectivism as a philisophy for only John Galt, I have bad news for you.  I've never met one or heard of one.  And that includes Bill Gates (but his story s heroic and inspirational), Ayn Rand, both LP's, etc.  Galt is a fictionalized character.  Rearden Metal doesn't exist.  An ideal, not a real person.

I think the real problem I have with Guy is the nomenclature, the unspoken disdain for employees.  By definition, most people are average.  It is ridiculous and a precription for failure to pronounce 70% of the population as less moral when their choices are productive, represent a reasonable percentage of their possible productivity, and most importantly, make them happy.  The moral standard is life and happiness, here and now.

See?  No insults, no temper tantrums, no cursing.

Scott
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

It’s the 2nd time this month that I brought up Rand’s view of love as exception making. I am making an exception coming back to post a response and it is not so much as out of love for you guys as it is for the love of making sense.
Dear Phil,
In your apparent rush to criticize me you missed the context in which I spoke. I thought I would take you through two points at a more leisurely pace. This is the best I can do.
My exchange with Jim:
J: “I look at the company as my customer.”
G: Nice way to look at it. But I prefer reality.
J: “Were I running my own business in my chosen field, I would have prohibitively large overhead and my corporate clients would be no less demanding.”
G: Figured that out on your own did ya?
In the first quote Jim obviously is out of touch with reality here; he views his employer as “his” customer! Since, I prefer to first take things as face value, this was quite shocking in its denial of reality–you guys might live on different planets than me, but my rub is incomparably more mild then reality is/will be to Jim.

The exchange with Scott:
S: “You're fucked up. But I like you.”
G: “Be careful, or I will wrap you around my little finger. Which serves equally well for either of your last two statements.”
If you take people’s statements for their literal value, telling me I am “fucked up” is no small provocation. Warning Scott, the way I did, is extremely reasonable. I even warned him about liking me too much, because I doubt very much he would like to be probed as deep as I like to go.

BTW, I am the only person on this thread that congratulated Scott, dead seriously, on him going into his own practice.
“It is great that you enjoy going your own way in your work.” And, “Yeah. Congratulations. You have just risen in my appraisal of you.”
The worst thing I have said on this thread is that employees are cogs in the wheel of economy. As a cog, being truly independent is almost impossible; the products of your labors are not yours. Jim doesn’t own anything he makes and I doubt he has any rights to them at all. True or not?
All you guys ranting against me is only camouflage; you simply don’t want call a spade a spade and then spend your time “reading between the lines” but not what is in front of you. I can defineitely sympathize with Perigo’s view of American’s suffering from NOSA, the neurotic, obsessive self-absorption. For example, how many of you, Kelly, Phil, Jim, Scott, made suggestions for the Solo Olympics–could it be that the only articles you thought worth voting for were your own?
It’s a little late in the game, but it was Scott who was the first to get around to wondering what the hell I did. It is not playing “here, kitty, kitty.”

Guy

...I'm responsible for my own vitriol.

You'd think I'd learn to ignore nonsense better after all of these years.

I guess I just get too emotional in the face condescension, stupidity, dishonesty, that sort of thing.

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

........yes.  Much better now, thanks.  Sometimes you just have to let it all out, eh?

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

I'd pretty much blame Scott's tirade on Guy.

It shows how much damage a troll (whether he intends to be a troll or is simply an immature college student) can do, once you engage him and let him hijack potentially elightening rational discussions and turn them into anger. Scott's fury is more understandable than is the troll who caused it.

Just one more reason for everyone to be civil, not indulge in personalities, put-downs, or anything other than the prissy, factually-oriented, boring, "just the facts, maam" orientation that I keep (repetitiously, patronizingly. schooteacherishly, lecturingly) urging.

Once a thread starts down that road and post by post slowly or not so slowly escalates from personal putdown or mild insult into flame wars or mudwrestling and shit-slinging, it not only sheds more heat than light, but it disgusts thoughtful people and buries or drives away thoughtful posts in the histrionics.

Not rocket science.

Signed,

3P (Prissyholic Pedantic Phil)

off your chest now Scotty?

...this twat never told us of his great, multinational corporations he founded from scratch, while never having been anyone's employee, before taking his leave?  The three cats he lives with in his parent's basement obviously have much more knowledge of Objectivism than this lot, and a keener appreciation for success.  Maybe Damian "what kind of fake photos is that" can hang out some time and help Guy with his phormalistic writing style (G. Stolyarov, is that you...?).  You fucking employees.

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

" There is nothing immoral in being an employee–that was something Scott smeared me with."

I smeared you, huh?  Then how come almost everyone on this thread was able to read between the lines and figure out that your statements are essentially a smear on the employed?  I will not re-post my previous in which I excerpted your statements which make it quite clear what you think about employees.

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

...let me tell you something about people who hold beliefs like "As for me, on a personal level, the idea of holding a personal philosophy that does not transend "the typical - the average" - I can think of nothing more depraved."

The bravest of them once went out into the world with the idea of being some sort of prodigy.  When they saw that they were average or worse, or better than average but not a Galt-espque success, their fragile little ego took a hit, and they crawled back into their tower to proclaim how they aspire to excellence and anyone who settled for less is half-retarded and "depraved."

And those are the brave ones--most never even try to accomplish shit.

I say, they can go to hell.  While they are pontificating about their excellence and their supreme standards, I will be out in the world building a real business, even if  I faced attorneys who are more intelligent, talented, or gifted than I.  Even if I lose a case or two.  I will build a business, make love to women, drink wine, sing songs, and do all the other things that people who asscribe to the above fanciful ideas about life and accomplishment consider beneath them.

Esteem success and hold it as an ideal, yes.  But also esteem lesser acheivements, and realize that doing the best YOU can do in YOUR life is the most heroic thing any man is capable of.

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

...and I don't have much time for morons.  See, I come right out and say it.  You hide behind "golly are you slow on the draw?" bullshit.

Go ahead believing that employees are immoral and lesser people.  Just ignore that students have to be employees, people who try--and fail--in a business have to be employees, entrepreneurs often start out as employees until they go out on their own.  Go ahead and live in your fantasy world where all employees are dullards, lackwits, and cowards.

Do business owners care more?  Most do, some don't.  It does have to do with morality--in the sense that the standard for morality is man's survival qua man.  When your ass is on the line, you hustle more, is another way of saying it.

Your posts have the tone of moral condemnation where there should be none.

Entrepreneurs share common attributes, generally.  Some of it probably does have a genetic component.

I got your number.  You're one of those Objewctivists who grab ahold of an idea, fall in love with it, and then will not see a different perspective.  You have to be right, even when you're wrong.

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Aaron wrote: “I'm not talking about not striving for success and excellence.”

On that note I will leave from here. I have enjoyed my brief visit and discovered a friend, that I will probably have for life. Thanks Damian. With regards to formal Objectivism, if the mantra above is consistent with its followers, it’s dead.

In contrast to here, I will continue to hang out with my friends in the real world, an elitist group of people that celebrate success, excellence, and creativity.

Enjoy life and may you be blessed with the intelligence and wisdom to respect great achievements.

Guy

Guy-
Maybe you're capable of writing something substantive and civil, but at this point your writing just screams 'troll'.

Damian-
"As for me, on a personal level, the idea of holding a personal philosophy that does not transend "the typical - the average" - I can think of nothing more depraved."

Why? I'm not talking about not striving for success and excellence. I mean that I think the personal philosophy can be understood and lived by people in general, not just an elite few.

The most interesting question here is whether to view Objectivism as primarily the philosophy to live life rationally and happily and that others should also be able to also embrace, or primarily as an exclusive club to feel superior to others. Perhaps we are all more intelligent and rational than hoi polloi, and could deserve self-congratulatory pats on the back all around. So what? Sitting in our treehouse feeling superior is not as relevant as (primarily) living happily or (secondarily) trying to improve our surrounding society by introducing more people to the ideas.

"But please excuse me if I make a small objection to elevating the status of their acheivements, to that of a Mozart, Hugo, Bill Gates or Van Gogh."

Not that anyone did such elevation. However, it's interesting that even your list of examples includes non-entrepreneurs, and appears instead to be driven by excellence in a given field.

Mitch-
"But what you're doing isn't the be all and end all."

What is the 'be all and end all'? Does it have to be the same for everyone?

Suma,

I wondered why you brought Humpty Dumpty into this. “Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.” It makes for an interesting psychological angle–you could have used it to imply that I am clumsy, but I think it is how employees feel at the thought of breaking free and doing their own thing–it may lead to a great fall. Yes/no?

“So how many of these people continued to do the same job while working at the large organization and at their own private company. This is at the heart of Kelly's question that you ignored. It seems like your appraisal of the cog Jim Gray(**), would rise if he ran his own hot-dog stand instead.”

I doubt that Jim Gray would be happy running a hot-dog stand, don’t you agree? Speaking of sailing deaths, I had an acquaintance, a multi-millionaire, ruthless negotiator for his father’s company–but the man was only happy at sea, he had a huge yacht, 100 foot catch, he could sail it alone–he couldn’t stand the sight of humanity. It was as if he were broken in two–his relationships were adversarial–oddly so was his relationship with nature, but for him, it was an honest challenge. I couldn’t understand why the man could not harness both is love for freedom and nature and combine it with is clever mind. He never allowed himself the idea that he could be a creator.

For Kelly, I am glad she has a job she loves. There is nothing immoral in being an employee–that was something Scott smeared me with. But being an employee is exactly that. The employer has the rights to your labor among other things, that has to rub one raw–I would imagine.

Mitch: “By and large I agree with Damian and Guy on this issue, however I don't see the need for the unprovoked insults and put-downs:
"So be clear dear."”

Mitch, that wasn’t a put-down, I was completely serious in my queries to Kelly.

“...you do yourself no favours in terms of credibility by being an ass.” Ah, I wasn’t being an ass I was being polemical. But, I am “sounding” out a few people here, knocking here and there to see if they are hollow, full of “crap”, or sound.

“You can be good at your job, but you're not one of those who had the vision, courage, and self belief to make it from scratch.”

You got it all in a nutshell.

Guy

By and large I agree with Damian and Guy on this issue, however I don't see the need for the unprovoked insults and put-downs:
"So be clear dear."
This was never going to provoke anything but an angry response. Let's not forget Rand was a girl. Also Guy, you do yourself no favours in terms of credibility by being an ass. As Phil suggests, people will stop giving you the time of day. It's a matter of tempering the arrogance I think. You'll get there though.

But anyway...

Sebastian d'Anconia, Nat Taggart, Hank Rearden, Dagny Taggart, Ellis Wyatt, Ken Danagger, Lawrence Hammond, the list goes on. These self made individuals - the producers, entrepreneurs and inventors - are the acme. You can be good at your job, but you're not one of those who had the vision, courage, and self belief to make it from scratch.

Having said this, I believe the task of being a producer, entrepreneur or inventor is getting more difficult by the day. Whether it be increasing governmental barriers, being the product of the education system, or overwhelming public opposition (otherwise known as tall-poppy syndrome), any rational person would be thinking twice before embarking on a often costly and risky project that has an ever increasing chance of being killed by something out of their control (i.e. a bureaucrat).

Achievement of happiness obviously has to be a major factor in life decisions, and as such I can completely understand your choice Kelly. But what you're doing isn't the be all and end all. Surely you'd agree?

Guy,

Your objectivism, "self-employed/entrepreneur = hero, employee = cog" is based on:

In my experience of seeing the same people move from a large organization to their private company, was like seeing night and day. They really cared what was happening with their companies-their investment of time, money, knowledge was on the line. They simply did not feel that way when they worked for a corporation.

So how many of these people continued to do the same job while working at the large organization and at their own private company. This is at the heart of Kelly's question that you ignored. It seems like your appraisal of the cog Jim Gray(**), would rise if he ran his own hot-dog stand instead.

Suma
(*) "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less" - Humpty Dumpty (from Alice in wonderland)
(**) The implementation of Jim Gray's research on transaction processing is what makes possible ATMs and online banking that hero enterpreneurs rely on. 

Jim, Kelly, and others,

It took me a long time to learn not to debate with Fred Weiss: I wouldn't debate with this guy.

He uses insults and put-downs as his primary debating tool. Sometimes it is understandable when provoked, but he does this sort of thing unprovoked AND AS A PRIMARY APPROACH to other human beings.

See the following...unprovoked... by GTS in this thread alone:

"Maybe you are slow on the draw."
"Figured that out on your own did ya?"
"Be careful, or I will wrap you around my little finger."

The unprovoked aspect is what is key.

It's sort of a contemptuous and put-down oriented discussion approach, which is more subtle than a straight out Fred Weiss type of outright ad hominem/angry insult/questioning of motives. But Guy Stanton is no less malevolent, no less hostile, no less troll-like.

Notice his denunciation of anyone who gets a paycheck as "cogs" and on what little basis he uses to leap to denunciation. This is exactly analogous to the Marxists who denounce worker bees as tools of capitalist exploitation.

They just want to feel superior.

.....

[The response may be "Et Tu, Brute!" I.e., that I (or one of you) is arrogant or condescending on occasion. But I'll leave to people to figure out for themselves where the difference lies.]

Kelly: “I was asking you to prove what you say. You call me a cog. I give you my sitaution and say prove it.”

“Damn, you are a prick!”

Why don’t you put that all in one description: a damned, elitist prick who is full of crap. There I think that sounds better. But, maybe, you are hoarding your profanities and doling them out with each response?

What I don’t get is why you, Jim, and Aaron don’t wear your coggness proudly. You and Jim have enumerated the things you’re glad not to take on: overhead, monetary layout, other activities–and you both are happy with that. Good for you. I sincerely mean that. Happiness is one of the standards that I whole-heartedly agree with. There, we have one point of common ground.

Guy

Aaron,

Are you saying that there is a new type of Objectivism, in which the “heroic” is out and the “average” is in? Comjectivism, the community of objectivist workers. Or, how is Projectvisim, with the theme of “wherever you are is where it’s at?”

Guy

Damian,

There is no moral equivalence. There is a difference between comparing achievements and attaining happiness. I have worked in environments where great things were achieved, but few were happy. It's a virtue to stretch yourself to the limit and you won't always feel that moment as bliss, but you should feel enormous joy when you reach the mountaintops in life. If not, you should take stock.

By all means stretch for the transcendent. Just make sure you don't cut your ear off or spend your life in the metaphorical salt mines getting there.

Jim

Aaron says: I want Objectivism to become the typical, ...

Aaron, I believe you're absolutely sincere, when you express a desire for this. And I believe that there are great deal of "Objectivists" that agree with you; especially within the on-line community.

As for me, on a personal level, the idea of holding a personal philosophy that does not transend "the typical - the average" - I can think of nothing more depraved.

BTW, in no way or form do I object to lifelong Objectivists garbagemen, book-store shelf stockers, or truck drivers; and to the degree that they perform these functions with competence and dilgence, I honor their work. But please excuse me if I make a small objection to elevating the status of their acheivements, to that of a Mozart, Hugo, Bill Gates or Van Gogh.

Sorry, but my brand of Objectivism isn’t ecumenical enough for a pretense of that scale.

Damian Krieger

Guy-
At a fundamental level, all of us trade our labor for income. As long as the work is productive and honest, I don't buy saying that someone is qualitatively better for trading more directly to end consumers (e.g. entrepeneurs) rather than to a larger company (e.g. many W2 employees), an intermediate company (e.g. contractors/consultants) or some other combination or variant.

Damian-
"it’s merely the holding up of an ideal, an ideal that to Objectivists - should transcend the average or typical."

That is what I object to as elitist and counterproductive. I don't want Objectivists to feel transcendent above irrational masses; I want Objectivism to become the typical, the philosophy of the (rational) masses. Holding up a silly notion that all Objectivists must be entrepeneurs rather than other types of workers sets up a self-defeating elitist ideal, one that runs counter to ever having mainstream acceptance of what should be largely easily accessible philosophical ideas. We don't need only Objectivist entrepeneurs and computer geeks, but Objectivist pencil pushers, managers, truck drivers and garbagemen.

Damian,

Why don't cha get out the pliers, lock onto your object, squeeze tightly, then slowly rock and pull, until your object gives way at the roots.

Guy

Damian,

You suggest that everyone who works for someone else has compromised. I haven't. It's a compromise for me to have to own my own gym some day. It compromises my incredible enjoyment of my current job.

Kelly

I was asking you to prove what you say. You call me a cog. I give you my sitaution and say prove it.

Damn, you are a prick!

Kelly

“Elitist crap. That's what this is, Guy. I'd like you to address my particular situation and tell me exactly what it is about my job that makes it less moral and less admirable.”

Kelly,

You say “elitist crap” in reference to me and then, before you take a breath, ask me to review your situation!

I could take this a couple of ways: one is that “elitist crap” is your strange way of expressing praise, in which the following request makes sense. Another is that you think I am a high-handed brute and you are challenging me to slap you down. Or perhaps it is the opposite? You slap me and then I tickle you?

But, since I don’t know exactly what you’re criticizing–I don’t feel comfortable accepting an unearned guilt–you know, that thing Lillian hosted on Rearden? So be clear dear.

Guy

Kelly’s summary of Stanton’s position, is one that I agree with, but only in part: for I agree that it is elitist, but I disagree that its "crap". By definition, elite means the select few, or the privileged; and it’s in this vein that I read Stanton’s argument. From my reading, Stanton’s argument is not an attack against those that have made compromises in their personal choices; it’s merely the holding up of an ideal, an ideal that to Objectivists - should transcend the average or typical.

Of course I can understand why Objectivists would have a visceral reaction to Stanton’s statements. Given the importance that Rand placed on work, as *the* most significant and defining of all human endeavors, its not surprising that Objectivists would recoil from the idea that they have not realized the Randian level of that ideal. Also, given Rand’s ruthless judgments on the nature of compromises and their repercussions, this too would make an Objectivists recoil as if his personal integrity were being called into question.

Perhaps my own lack of anger is because I have personally never viewed Objectivism as an ideal to be lived up to, but rather, as a tool by which to better strive towards my own ideals. Nothing in what Stanton has written is an indictment against being an employee; his argument is against the elevation of the employee, to the same status as the creator. I believe that his indictment, if one should even call it that, is against those that take a position of moral equivalence in regards to a person’s work.

Truth be told, I believe it would be hard to argue against the reality that a large majority of human beings have, at best, chosen a profession as a result of an ethical compromise produced by their governing premises and psychology. These people have chosen to make some personal trade-offs in exchange for a sense of structure, solidarity and financial security. Typically, these people are highly competent within their craft, and given the right circumstances, they often rise to a heroic level.

But there are also great numbers of people that have not even done that, but rather, spend years performing meaningless work at low wages and with little to no competence; and despite their years doing this work, they rarely advance very far. These are your semi-productive - losers. Of course besides the creator, the trade-offs taker and the loser, there is a fourth category: the pure parasite - but this is another topic unto itself.

The creator stands apart in that his success is usually not determined by how he reacts to the circumstances that have been thrust upon him, but by the degree of success he has had in shaping the circumstances themselves. He also stands apart from all others in that his work, in a philosophical sense, is neither a career nor profession, but a sacrosanct approach to every aspect of his life.

Perhaps I’m reading Stanton wrong, but I see nothing more than emphasis on a hierarchy of values.

Damian Krieger

Guy has a limited idea of what success means. It is true that many people spend years in a cubicle simply doing what they are "supposed" to do. However, plenty of people are able to innovate within the jobs they have and are able to carve out roles for themselves and make their own meaning at work.

Thomas Malone has written a terrific book on this called The Future of Work.

Jim

That's what this is, Guy. I'd like you to address my particular situation and tell me exactly what it is about my job that makes it less moral and less admirable. Just to clarify, I am not a person who longs for his own company and is too scared or too lazy to go after that dream. That person certainly is immoral for working for someone else instead of doing what would truly make him happy. But how am I immoral for not wanting that?

A recap: I love what I do. I work almost exclusively with other people - teaching classes to children and teenagers, managing coaches, and dealing with parents and other companies. I don't have to do the taxes, the bookkeeping, or the building maintenance. I have a boss who trusts me, knows I am the one in the trenches, and most of the time does what I recommend. That boss is my friend, so we are able to share the tribulations and the joys of the work. I didn't have to have large amounts of money saved up to start doing what I love, and he doesn't have to work the kind of hours I do (I don't mind it, though.) I don't have to live with large amounts of risk (I'm not terribly risky.) Every day I do creative work that I enjoy; I innovate. I am paid on a percentage as a contractor, so I see direct results of my hard work in my paycheck. I negotiate with my boss constantly about new ideas, and how I should be paid for putting them into effect. Tell me why you think all of that is less moral, less creative, less happiness building than me being an entrepreneur.

Kelly

There is an example in my own industry of an Objectivist who created his own company: T.J. Rodgers of Cypress Semiconductor. Someone who is objective reads accounts like these and determines within the context of his own life whether that is right for him.

Rodgers literally worked 18 hours a day for several years in a more forgiving economic climate. Also, this followed years and years of working for another company. Was Rodgers a cog when he worked for someone else?

Jim

Jim,

“I look at the company as my customer.”

Nice way to look at it. But I prefer reality.

“Were I running my own business in my chosen field, I would have prohibitively large overhead and my corporate clients would be no less demanding.”

Figured that out on your own did ya?

“The way to avoid becoming a cog is to choose which projects you work on, where you work and how you work. It is an open question whether you can get more flexibility in these areas running your own business or working for a company.”

You remind my of the psychologist that thinks everyone is mentally ill. You’re an employee that thinks that creating a business is similar to your job, which someone else created for you.

You know, it’s ok that you are pragmatic about your employment and it is really nice that you like Objectivism and all that stuff–but I don’t think you see the difference.

Do you guys remember some months ago a bright young woman posted here about creating her ice skating show? Here was a sharp, talented, beautiful young woman all excited about the future, Rand, and Objectivism–she got smacked in the face by a bunch of wet noodles. Then, I wondered if any of you had the kind of history to match this 20 year old.–I am still wondering about that.

Guy

Guy,

I enjoy working as an engineer within a company. When or if I become tired of working in a job, I look for another one. I look at the company as my customer. Were I running my own business in my chosen field, I would have prohibitively large overhead and my corporate clients would be no less demanding. The way to avoid becoming a cog is to choose which projects you work on, where you work and how you work. It is an open question whether you can get more flexibility in these areas running your own business or working for a company.

Jim

“Aren't you the same guy who called employees "cogs" (i.e., inanimate objects)?”

Yep, that was a metaphor. But or and, I thought I was calling many of the soloists cogs. Of course, I could have used bees, ants, or sheep–but I wanted to convey the spiritual coldness of working as an employee.

“And said that they are floating on momentum of 2 generations past?”

Yes, we are talking about culture–like comprehending metaphors...style, joie de vivre, wit–making your vision come true.

“And did you not insinuate that employees do not care about their jobs or their companies when you wrote "In my experience of seeing the same people move from a large organization to their private company, was like seeing night and day. They really cared what was happening with their companies..."?”

Maybe you are slow on the draw. What didn’t you understand about levels of caring?

“Sounds like more than lack of approbation. Some might say it is even damning.”

Man, the sooner people deal with the truth the quicker they can heal, move forward, and flourish. If you’re working as an employee 5 days a week, 8 hours a day, 50 weeks a year–that is a hell of lot of your life to let be directed.

“And if you think real hard, you ~might~ be able to recall some employee characters who were not utter filth in Rand's novels.”

Tsk, tsk. You don’t play by the rules. I corrected your generalization of Rand by reference to her novels, and this is what you come back with?

“Some have an entrepreneurial personality and other don't, even if they DO have a primary, driving creative force. Being your own employer is scary and risky, too much so for many, even if they are brilliant.”

What exactly makes them brilliant? Obviously they are not brilliant enough to be in charge and direct their own productive activities. You write as if being an entrepreneur is somehow in one’s genes.

Guy

I actually work at a children's gymnastics center, but I feel your pain on the fitness gym thing as well!!

Kelly

"Most gyms are run horribly badly by idiots."

You can say that again.  My current gym, that I never go to because I hate it, is one of those.  They:

Dont fix broken equipment (including treadmills with slipping treads which can cause serious knee injuries)
Hire cleaners to clean the machine during the morning rush
Require that an employee scans your card at the front, but their reception person is rarely there and is usualy in the gym chatting with her friends near the back of the club--so I gotta go find her, or stand at the front, or start my workout and then have her interrupt me as if she doesnt fucking recognize me.
Have arranged their equipment poorly
Have their squat rack placed dangerously (with 400# on my back, I do not want the end of the barbell literally 3 inches from the wall.  What if I sway a bit on some of the last reps?  Dangerous)
Do not address these issues and requests for changes
and
constantly run specials that offer new members great rates while freezing current member's rates, or force renewing members into higher fees.  Not a good way to keep me.

The better gyms around here want a $275 initiation fee and $100/month.  That's alot of money.

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Aren't you the same guy who called employees "cogs" (i.e., inanimate objects)?

And said that they are floating on momentum of 2 generations past?

And did you not insinuate that employees do not care about their jobs or their companies when you wrote "In my experience of seeing the same people move from a large organization to their private company, was like seeing night and day. They really cared what was happening with their companies..."?

Sounds like more than lack of approbation. Some might say it is even damning.

And if you think real hard, you ~might~ be able to recall some employee characters who were not utter filth in Rand's novels.

I don't want to beat you, my man.  Some have an entrepreneurial personality and other don't, even if they DO have a primary, driving creative force.  Being your own employer is scary and risky, too much so for many, even if they are brilliant.

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

> My forte is teaching, managing people, doing good customer service.

Kelly, those are among the rarest skills of all.

Scott,

It is great that you enjoy going your own way in your work.

“But you take it too far when you damn anyone who is not self-employed or an entrpreneur.”

It is impressive that you took my lack of approbation for damnation; wow, that is a lot of bang for the buck! All I have to do is withdraw my awe from people and you will take it as a destructive lightening bolt. I have got an insecure mother who is like that. But, I won’t take any credit for damning people who are employees; some of my best friends are.

Kelly: “I wish I could keep doing only those things, and there is nothing wrong with that.”

Scott, you see what you started.

You wrote this: “But there are a lot of super employees out there who Ayn would be thrilled with.” Considering that she left Eddie, the poor lady in the polka-dotted dress, and Rearden’s secretary destitute, and then offed Cheryl, the Wet Nurse, and the slow to come to a decision (the soldier)–at least in the novels, straight employees were not very welcomed unless they had a hidden primary, creative, driving force. So how did you come to your version of what would thrill Rand?

Did I mention to be careful? Gotta hone those argumentative skills man. I promise I will take my beating well, if you can catch me off-guard or in the wrong.

Guy

Some of us are reluctant entrepreneurs. I am perfectly happy with my current job of gym manager for a great owner of a gym I love. It is the circumstances that force me to get my own gym some day. Most gyms are run horribly badly by idiots. The one I am the manager of is not one of these, but it will close eventually cause the owner doesn't want to do it anymore. But I love my job; I love my boss; I love doing what I do. I am very very productive, and if I had it my way, I wouldn't take on the accounting, the tax stuff, or the building maintenance. My forte is teaching, managing people, doing good customer service. I wish I could keep doing only those things, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Kelly

You happen to be engaging one of the few Objectivists who can even bring himself to acknowledge corporate wrongdoing.  There were alot of twats, especially back when this was just plain old SOLO, who would absolutely throw hissy fits if you even suggested that there were rat bastard businessmen out there doing illegal and immoral things.  As if their status as "businessman" somehow excused any behavior at all.

But you take it too far when you damn anyone who is not self-employed or an entrpreneur.  There are many energetic, engaged, high-acheiving people in great big companies, and those people are why those companies stay together and turn a profit.  Sure, you'll find you usual cast of useles characters as you will in any big organization.  No doubt, there. 

Alot of it has to do with personality, I think.  I am not a fan of groups when a job needs to get done.  Groups do nothing.  Individuals do things, other individuals aggregate them to make other things.  I am not a team player, I do not believe in kissing ass to make my boos feel good so he promotes me, I do not believe in time wasting meetings, etc, etc. 

But there are alot of super employees out there who Ayn would be thrilled with.

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

"David Kelley, as script consultant, has a huge responsibility to ensure that the script does justice to the novel."

You can say this with a straight face? The movie will likely have all the appeal of an Ed Hudgins op-ed. I for one hope it doesn't get made. I'd rather it get made in two or three decades when Rand's influence will be greater. I will bet everything that the Hollywood Left will do a hatchet job on it and David Kelley will sign off on it. The bullshit artist that he is.

Proud Member Of The "Nuke-Them-Till-They-Glow" School Of Foreign Policy

“I'm an entrepreneur, totally self employed. For one.”

Yeah. Congratulations. You have just risen in my appraisal of you.

“What's wrong with being a productive acheiver in a large organization? Nothing.”

Thanks for the question and answer. In my experience of seeing the same people move from a large organization to their private company, was like seeing night and day. They really cared what was happening with their companies–their investment of time, money, knowledge was on the line. They simply did not feel that way when they worked for a corporation. You might be able to confirm that for me as well. I am sure Prima Donna can confirm that too.

“You'd best chickity-chiz-ek yo premises, homeboy.”

Oh, I am quite happy with my premises, they have served and continue to serve me very well.

“Ayn Rand had nothing to do with my grandparents or anyone's grnadparents. She was some kid in Russia at the time.”

I didn’t imply anything of the kind. She was one of many gung-ho, new Americans–this is why, I believe, she had respect for the Americans in the trenches. I am sure they are not the same types today, as witnessed, as I mentioned before, in the films of 30's and 40's. Compare the “Gold Diggers of...” films to the intelligent, but bleak perspective of the “West Wing.”

“You're fucked up. But I like you.”

Be careful, or I will wrap you around my little finger. Which serves equally well for either of your last two statements.

Guy

I'm an entrepreneur, totally self employed.  For one.

What's wrong with being a productive acheiver in a large organization?  Nothing. 

You'd best chickity-chiz-ek yo premises, homeboy.

Ayn Rand had nothing to do with my grandparents or anyone's grnadparents.  She was some kid in Russia at the time.

You're fucked up.  But I like you. 

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Scott wrote: “I love how you agree with the worst things said about Americans in a blanket fashion without even recourse to comedy or any explanation!”

Today’s Americans are floating on the momentum of their grandparents’ generation (time of Rand) created by the focus on independence, personal career dreams, hard work, and the best they can be. You do not see that type of person today. For example, how many entrepreneurs are here on solo? Most of you are cogs, oh proud Objectivists.

Guy

There are inaccuracies in Braveheart from the beginning to the end - too many to list here and I don't have the time to write a critique.

Thanks to Bill for reminding me of the Atlas Shrugged connection. The big difference is that Gibson is not involved in the Atlas Shrugged movie. I doubt that Angelina Jolie, or Brad Pitt, will have any say in the drafting of the script. David Kelley, as script consultant, has a huge responsibility to ensure that the script does justice to the novel.

The "ARIans" may not approve of Kelley's role but the movie should lead to a substantial increase in the sale of Rand books, videos, DVDs and other merchandise. That should lead to more sales and donation income for ARI, Ayn Rand's estate (Peikoff) and Atlas/TOC.

> there's a literary device called hyperbole.
> New Zealanders by contrast can be a little dull and purse-lipped when it comes to "getting it". Decades of socialism and political correctness
> American comedy...yet another area where I am again 'proud to be an American.'
> people should remember to include Johnny Carson into the mix of fabulous American comics. Robin Williams & Bill Cosby are also hysterical

Sometimes some of New Zealand's and America's best comics post on Solo. Sometimes it's even intentional.

I said liked the film, I didn't say I was a historian. Maybe you can set me straight .

Jim

to some degree.  But that still doesnt' justify damning "anyone educated for more than a couple of years at a University."

I cannot believe we are quibbling over whether it is cool to piss on every college educated American.  It's patently ridiculous.

The idea that many American professors are intellectual culprits is something Rand discusses at some length. 

I like your revision better: "a larger than average number of people with an over-developed umbridge gland, an extremely thin-skin, and an 'unique' view of reality." 

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

"You can't be serious! Braveheart was typical Gibson nonsense - inaccurate, sentimental and anti-English (and I am a Scot). And it was filmed in Ireland to qualify for subsidies!"

I don't know if you know this but the screenwriter of Braveheart is the same one that is going to try to adapt Atlas Shrugged to the big screen.

Between the influence of Jolie and the rest of Hollywood, I cringe when I think of what that movie may turn into.

Proud Member Of The "Nuke-Them-Till-They-Glow" School Of Foreign Policy

"Speaking of neurophysiology, if you are interested, I have a book recommendation for you. Jeff Hawkins' On Intelligence is a terrific book with a dynamic new hypothesis about how the neocortex works."

Thanks! I appreciate it. I am a total amateur when it comes to anything related to brain functions or how it affects philosophical issues. But I do try to keep myself somewhere in the vacinity of informed. I will look into the book.

As for a mass Objectivist movement, if I were to look at the world as it is now, I would agree with you. How on earth can Objectivism possibly penetrate the 1001 different flavors of irrationality that are available and win over a sizable portion of the population? And then do it before either the West implodes or it succumbs to any of the various foreign threats that endanger it (Islam, China, etc).

But if ARI's concept of the "funnel" is right then we might reach a tipping point in terms of intellectuals within 3 or 4 generations (Isn't that how the socialists did it?). How reason's dominion over the culture will play out after that is anybody's guess. Will there be statues of Ayn Rand all over the world? Will there be more cities named after her than were named after Alexander? As I say, who knows? And the sad thing is, I wont be around to see it anyway unless there is some breakthrough in cryogenics or some such.

Proud Member Of The "Nuke-Them-Till-They-Glow" School Of Foreign Policy

James Heaps-Nelson wrote "America went through a brief movie Renaissance in the 1990's with movies like Braveheart".

You can't be serious! Braveheart was typical Gibson nonsense - inaccurate, sentimental and anti-English (and I am a Scot). And it was filmed in Ireland to qualify for subsidies!

"damning ... all college educated Americans"

The statement was:

"& anyone educated for more than a couple of years at a University."

Does that include all college educated Americans? No, actually it doesn't. It was meant to reflect the fact that I've noticed that amongst my peers -- people who've stuck around and got multiple degrees -- a larger than average number of people with an over-developed umbridge gland, an extremely thin-skin, and an 'unique' view of reality.

My working theory is that the University life-style, in particular the American University system with it tenured-positions, access to large troughs of tax-payers money, numerous awards and fancy hats either attracts such people or breeds them or both. That may be a reflection of the fact taht American Universities are bigger, more numerous and better funded then the ones I've been to, but the trend exists.

I'm surprised this thread got to neurophysiology, but I second the recommendation for On Intelligence.

Bill,

That was a terrific post. I think there will be a broad culture of reason and Rand will be a big part of it, but I don't think everybody has to be convinced. You are right that philosophy of mind is an absolutely critical area. I also should avoid statements like that about the future, but it seems so unlikely that we would be able to disseminate Objectivism to the masses. It almost seems more like Howard Roark's underground river which springs up in unexpected places.

Speaking of neurophysiology, if you are interested, I have a book recommendation for you. Jeff Hawkins' On Intelligence is a terrific book with a dynamic new hypothesis about how the neocortex works.

Jim

"When all is said and done Objectivism will never be a mass movement."

I've read different views on this. Some say it will be a mass movement. Others think that reason will end up taking the culture and that Ayn Rand will be a big part of it but that there will be no intellectual revolution in her name. Its difficult to forecast the future, especially the philosophical direction of the future, but if reason does come to dominate the culture how could Ayn Rand not be a leading figure? What other intellectual figure [that we have up to this point in history] could change the philosphical direction of the culture? Maybe a great Objectivist philosopher will come along in the next century or so and take Ayn Rand's ideas and integrate them with say neuro-physiology and develop an Objectivist philosophy of mind and answer some other of the missing parts of Oism and reformulate what needs reformulating, etc, etc,. Maybe that may help, but it still is building on Rand.

I believe Ayn Rand said that if mankind is to have a future her philosophy would have to be dominant (I'm paraphrasing, and perhaps badly). I agree.

Proud Member Of The "Nuke-Them-Till-They-Glow" School Of Foreign Policy