Success in a vacuum

You hold that high achievers owe society for their success. This viewpoint seems reasonable enough. Society decided to educate every child, providing the high-achiever with an education and a pool of educated employees. Society decided to respect property rights, etc. Society did everything right to ensure that its best and brightest could rise…and now society wants a little recognition, a taste of the fruit.

The opposite is true.

Society owes the high-achievers. Society—could we dispense with “society”? We’re really talking about “the little guy.”

The assumption that what I mean by “society” is the “little guy” is a convenient mechanism I’ve seen repeatedly here. An argument is nudged toward a more extreme proposition—words are nudged toward more simplistic definitions—for the purpose of creating straw men. I fear you may be reducing my position down to that of a caricature political leftist. I’ve apparently become the “hippie” of the board, or, as another person put it, a “socialist.”

No, we cannot dispense with the term. Changing the vernacular would be to agree that “society,” for the purposes of the discussion, is just an illusion. Like saying there’s no “forest” because a forest is made up only of individual trees. But obviously, at least to most people, the forest constitutes a whole that is more than the sum of its trees—the soil, etc. “Society” is a part of our vocabulary for a reason, and I’m not going to agree to abandon it for no good reason. In fact, this may be a good way of focusing our argument, which I think would make it more interesting. That is, perhaps it would get to the heart of why we see things so differently.

The Little Guy [foul! : )] owes the high-achievers, big time. Let’s consider a little guy [foul!] working a line at a Ford Motors plant. What is one year of his labor “really” worth? If he lived in Egypt thousands of years ago, it would be worth about one one-hundred-thousandth of a pile of rock and he would die at twenty-eight. Yet our little guy [foul!] at Ford has a modern home with appliances and conveniences and he lives to seventy. Is the difference that our modern little guy [foul!] works harder? No. Then he must owe it all to the little guys [foul!] at the Corning, GE and General Foods plants? No . . . .

 

Henry Ford got rich, but he enriched millions of lives far, far beyond his compensation. Society owes Henry.

There's actually a lot in here I agree with, especially this last sentence. But that does not preclude the notion that Ford also owes society. How this is so is illustrated by transcending the artificial limitation in your argument of the debtee being only “the little guy” (the factory employee). To continue with the Ford example . . .

Let’s take the “scientists and engineers” who you claim (correctly) Ford owes. What would have inspired a predecessor scientist to believe his efforts would pay off if, for example, another could copy his creation and equal his profits with lower costs?  The primary answer is the patent system. In fact, the patent system is so important to a productive society that it was provided for in the Constitution. The Constitution, in turn, is an agreement by the masses—they ratified it. These ideas are the product of individuals who decided that certain mechanisms would manifest better results for society by manifesting better results for the individual. Now, the response might be that these mechanisms are the product of brilliant individuals, the Founders, and, thus, if Ford owes anyone, he owes only those individuals, not some collective abstraction I insist on terming “society.” But the founders were acting as representatives of society (delegation). Without the power conferred by society, the brilliance of the Founders would not have become operative. Therefore, society provided the basis for Ford’s success.

“Society” is not just a collection of individuals. It is the background fabric that governs relationships between those individuals. Constructs such as law comprise that fabric. Society, not individuals, create laws. Law protects the scientists’ (and, thus, Ford’s self-interests.) Therefore, society’s constructs protect Ford’s interests. So, Ford owes society, society owes Ford, the scientists owe society, Ford owes the scientists, and society owes the scientists. This is the interconnectedness I think your reasoning overlooks.

Or, we could . . . play honest going forward. 

You had to top off with this, eh?

(Edited by Edward Cantu on 6/03, 3:27pm)

Here I think you are confusing "society" with "a social system." It is a social system, not society, that is the background fabric governing relationships between individuals, with constructs such as law comprising that fabric.

 [S]ociety is not a super-organism transcending the interests and rights of the individuals that compose it, which I gather is how you understand the concept. [Society] refers to these individuals as members of a community or social system.

An agreement by "the masses"? Which masses are those? I certainly didn't participate in its ratification. Did you? Then on what grounds can it be considered a contract binding those of us who didn't sign it?

 First, whether the Constitution is "binding" on subsequent generations or not does not really go to my point. But, going down that road, if we assume it's not—a premise I don't accept at all— my point is reinforced. That is, you concede that the ideas and principles embodied in a nonbinding document still control today (whether they should or not.) If the Constitution is not binding on the current generation, and yet the current generation agrees to nevertheless observe it as mandate, my argument is made stronger because society’s protection of the engineer’s interests is more proactive and affirmative than merely refraining from violating his interests.

The many individuals who deem themselves bound by the Constitution understand that their commitment means nothing if others don't think alike. You might agree, but nevertheless argue that these individuals' resulting commitments arise only from the advancement of rational self-interests, not from a synthesis of some transcendental collective. But what role do you think people with faith in certain transcendental ambitions had in setting the stage for, say, Ford's success as a manufacturer? They obviously played a huge role; whether we're talking about the notion of natural rights inherent in the Bill of Rights, or the more practical concern for innovation embodied in the provision for a patent system, the focus was on creating a framework that would foster individual achievement. And that focus was a transcendental one, as the Founders understood that, if accepted, their ideas would "transcend" their own direct interests and, indeed, their own lives.

Further, it was "society" that ensured the authority of their ideas then via delegation, ratification, and respect, and society that continues to ensure such by way of their willingness to consider themselves continually bound by aspirational law. That we’re ultimately talking about individuals as components of a larger "thing" is of no moment, and I think the emphasis on this is a bit of a red herring.

Those who have been responsible for pursuing the aforementioned ambition have not had the luxury of contemplating individualism as the be all and end all of human existence—i.e., in a vacuum. This is so because they've suffered the more practical inconvenience of appreciating that individualism without a supporting framework cannot manifest its best results for the given individual. In this regard, I am reminded of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: absolute individualism sounds so conceptually seductive—like such a clean and crisp paradigm—when we have the luxury that allows us to place individualism on such a high plane in the first place.

What you appear to be saying is that the legal framework provided by the Constitution allowed Ford to become successful, because it protected his property rights and contracts. But the legal framework and the Constitutional principles underlying that framework are not what is normally meant by "society."

Right, but I didn't say Ford owes "society" for "being society." I said that Ford owes society for what society has done—society's "product," which is the "framework" you recognize. Calling it a "social system" is fine with me. But it's not just an inevitable phenomenon. It's a deliberate and extremely sophisticated construct.

Moreover, if Ford "owes" something to "society" for being able to carry out his economic activities free of interference, to whom does he owe it?

 Ok, here goes. Are you ready? Get your vomit bags ready: The social system. And the social system is repaid through either charity or government programs. I will be the first to agree that certain specific government programs are stupid or wasteful but too often that reality get's confused with the propriety of having such programs in the first place.

The only obligations that one has to others are those to which one voluntarily consents. If I voluntarily agree to pay you for protecting my rights, then I owe you for the protection. If you choose to protect me without securing such an agreement, then I owe you nothing.

 I see now why you asked in a later post what exactly I meant by "owe." I believe "owe" has a moral competent to it, and my impression is that objectivists agree (when indeed such "oweing" exists in the first place.) The swaggering manner in which objectivists view selfishness as a virtue, and reject the notion of "social welfare" as an appropriate concern of the moral and rational individual, is made easier if one can view individual achievement as occurring only as a result of the individual's effort. At the very least, what Ford owes society is a recognition that society has played a crucial role in his success—how, or if, this "debt" translates into a material payment, as I asserted above it does, is another matter altogether. But, if it does not, the argument is not moot, because if objectivists nevertheless accept the premise that Ford owes society in just a moral, rather than a material, sense—something I know they won’t—it would weaken the moral basis for their absolutist free market fervor. After all, objectivists are not hedonists, right? They believe in morality, but just disagree with others about what morality means.

"Individualism answers: The power of society is limited by the inalienable, individual rights of man. Society may make only such laws as do not violate these rights.

"Collectivism answers: The power of society is unlimited. Society may make any laws it wishes, and force them upon anyone in any manner it wishes." (Rand, Textbook of Americanism)

False dichotomy.  

If by "society" you simply mean the individual legislators posing as representatives of society or of the individual members of that social system, then, yes, "society" creates laws, but that does not mean that individuals don't create them, for it is individual legislators who make the laws.

Ok, individuals acting on behalf of society create laws. Therefore, society creates laws.  

What you mean is that Ford (and others) owe the agents of their legal system (i.e., the government) compensation for protecting their rights, but this is not the same thing as owing "society" compensation, because it is not society that supposedly protects their rights; it is the government . . . .

But this is just bootstrapped by the supposition that the government does not equal "society," a proposition I don't see any basis for, especially in light of the generally accepted notion that the government's conduct is that of "we the people." To the extent you disagree, this can become quite a long thread indeed and I'd prefer to keep it focused; perhaps focusing on this point is a good way to do it (if you'd prefer). I accept the notion of agency: What the agents do, the principals “do.”

Your last paragraph doesn't really call for a response, at least not yet. It's a series of conclusions and judgments that are way too far down the deduction/corollary stream to be of focus, at least at the moment. I'm trying to keep it more local; my point attempts to address a predicate to these conclusions, so arguing about the conclusions just leads us back to the predicates.

(Edited by Edward Cantu on 6/04, 5:12pm)

(Edited by Edward Cantu on 6/05, 6:19am)

I am enjoying this (more so now than at first) and I wish I had more time to address everything in every post, but I cannot. That which is most challenging is of most value to me, so what in your mind is the biggest weakness in my Rand posts? I ask because I'm realizing how important it is to stay focused on a narrow point—that, I think, is when the real learning takes place, at least for me. I'm eager to go back to the Rand hypo, actually.

Ed

At the very least, what Ford owes society is a recognition that society has played a crucial role in his success—how, or if, this "debt" translates into a material payment, as I asserted above it does, is another matter altogether. But, if it does not, the argument is not moot, because if objectivists nevertheless accept the premise that Ford owes society in just a moral, rather than a material, sense—something I know they won’t—it would weaken the moral basis for their absolutist free market fervor. After all, objectivists are not hedonists, right? They believe in morality, but just disagree with others about what morality means.

False dichotomy.

Ok, individuals acting on behalf of society create laws. Therefore, society creates laws.

But this is just bootstrapped by the supposition that the government does not equal "society," a proposition I don't see any basis for, especially in light of the generally accepted notion that the government's conduct is that of "we the people."

To the extent you disagree, this can become quite a long thread indeed and I'd prefer to keep it focused. Perhaps focusing on this point is a good way to do it (if you'd prefer). I accept the notion of agency: What the agents do, the principles “do.”