Malcolm Gladwell Syndrome

Value-less value proxy? Theft? Looked a peer in the eye?

Fred, I'm sorry, this is all very confusing to me. It's clearly above my head. You should invest your critical skills in someone of a higher intellectual caliber who can follow your Superman-like rhetorical leaps and bounds.

Post 21

Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 1:56pm

If that $20 bill's owner, the person who didn't realize they'd lost it, can't be found, then it will have to go to a new owner. There are only three canidates that would make any sense. Me, as the one who found it in this imaginary scenario, the workers (via the tip jar), and the owner of that Starbucks franchise - the property owner.

My only claim is that I found it, but at the same time I know it wasn't intended for me. It was on the property of the franchise owner, but he wasn't the intended recipient either. It may not have been destined for the tip jar... only a small likelyhood of that, given where it was found.

I decide to take on the responsibility for this $20 bill by virtue of having found it and having no interest in passing that responsibility to anyone else. If I give it to the property owner, he will be happy and it will stay with him, but it is small potatoes in his world (there is a nearly full time line to order his over-priced coffee). If I put it in my pocket it won't be theft, but it will be unearned and my financial wellbeing won't be effected by such a small amount.

It does run the risk of making me feel a bit like I'm taking on the unearned when it isn't needed, and there might be a better alternative. I drop it in the tip jar when the cute young barista is watching and in exchange for not taking on any negative feelings about keeping it, I enjoy the joy of that minimum wage worker whose life can move up and down over amounts as small as $20 and I get to bask in her big smile for a moment. So, emotionally I walk out with a smile on my face and no emotional baggage from grasping after unearned money. (True, I used unearned money get that smile, but I'm not going to try to follow up on it as if it would have bought me favor.)

If it had been $100k and there was no way at all to determine the proper owner, I'd keep it and work with the dissonance of acquiring and spending unearned money. (Legally, I believe that following a reasonable effort to find the previous owner, that it becomes abandoned property and the finder can acquire legal ownership). I think that is the proper answer for self-interest, but maybe not, maybe that runs counter to Objectivism or to the practices of good self-esteem - comments invited.

Post 22

Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 4:10pm

Steve - Be warned that by joining this discussion you are now a KNOWN CORRUPTOR AND SUBVERTER OF OBJECTIVIST PHILOSOPHY, aider and abettor of the thought-criminal Robert Baratheon, and enemy to all for which OL and RoR righteously stand. But in seriousness, thank you for your contribution. A sober analysis and addition of value in my book.

The proper procedure, legally (and perhaps ethically) speaking, is to take the money to the nearest police station and leave it for a period of time so that the owner has a chance to reclaim it. An extra-legal shortcut might be to allow the owner of the establishment to do the same privately, seeing if anyone shows up looking for his $20, without telling the claimant the amount in advance, of course. My point with the hypothetical - and you seem to agree based on your own analysis - is that doing the 100% Objectivist-pure thing in this case would be so time-intensive, so convoluted, and so unlikely to result in the optimal ending, that claiming the money for yourself - either permanently or temporarily- and reappropriating it is the most rational course of action for you to take.

I will, however, quibble on one point. As Clint Eastwood famously said, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it." The reason I support a free market isn't because it leads to just outcomes - it's plain to anyone with eyes that just as often as wealth rewards the productive, it rewards the unproductive alike. I can provide as many examples as you have time for: the lottery winner, the secretary who sleeps with her boss to get the promotion, Randi Zuckerberg - sister to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, Khloe and Kourtney Kardashian - sisters to Kim Kardashian, who gained fame and fortune being born to a rich family and caught in a sex tape; Paris Hilton, Kevin Federline, et cetera. There's Sofia Vergara, whose sole contribution to the cliched, formulaic, one-joke show Modern Family is being a loud Hispanic stereotype with the most absurdly large breasts on television. Presumably in a Rand novel all these individuals would drown themselves in a fit of moral anguish, or lose all their money through some foolish altruist's investment scheme. But that's not reality - that's fantasy - and we know it.

No, "deserve's" got nothing to do with it, but free markets do produce the most overall most efficient outcome while allowing for individuals to pursue their own goals. Liberty and economic efficiency are more than enough reasons as far as I'm concerned, without having to go down that endless rabbit hole of who deserves what. Though markets will reward mediocrity some of the time, central planners will reward it ALL of the time. I trust bottom-up control far more than I trust top-down, regardless of who's at the top of that heap.

(Edited by Robert Baratheon on 3/11, 4:22pm)

Post 23

Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 4:56pm

Robert,

I have no idea what you are talking about in mentioning subversion or corruption of Objectivist philosopy.

You said to me, "...you seem to agree based on your own analysis - is that doing the 100% Objectivist-pure thing in this case would be so time-intensive, so convoluted, and so unlikely..." No, I don't agree that my remarks took that example away from the Objectivist position, nor do I think that an intelligent Objectivist position would be so time-intensive or convoluted as to be practical.

You'll have to describe to me what you think the proper Objectivist position should be.

Post 24

Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 5:30pm

Steve - The $20 hypothetical featured in this thread that lead to my banning from OL. MSK viewed it as an attempt to undermine Objectivist morality by "preaching" corruption, or some such thing. He was still on his "covert persuasion techniques" kick at the time - now he's strictly Kahneman rubbish. Apparently Fred viewed the hypothetical - and my taking of the $20 - as an assault on Rand's philosophy as well, based on his comments here and on the other forum.

As for the Objectivist prescription, the money belongs, legally and ethically, to whoever dropped it in the store. By not following in-place procedures for attempting to return the money to its owner, many would say you violated that owner's property rights in the money. As you said, you didn't "deserve" the money, nor did the barista to whom you gave it, since neither of you produced anything of value in exchange for it. Nevertheless, I don't see anything irrational about what you claim you would do. In fact, I think it's the most reasonable course of action, despite not being a 100% pure representation of the Objectivist ideal.

Post 25

Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 6:05pm

Robert,

I'm not interested in being suckered into this discussion about MSK. If I'd know where this was going, I wouldn't have responded. Nor am I going do that triangulation with you and Fred.
---------------

As for the Objectivist prescription, the money belongs, legally and ethically, to whoever dropped it in the store.

I know of no such Objectivist prescription. Please point out something in the Objectivist canon that would indicate that.

----------------

We assume that the person who dropped it owned it, but that was at the time they were still holding it. How long does that ownership last after it was dropped? If it becomes impossible to determine who that person is, then that person's owership rights had to cease when they dropped it.

Ownership is often temporary - things get sold or or gifted or inherited or abandoned (like when you empty your trash). There comes a time when the money is seen as abandoned when the former owner can't be found. The law deals with that for all kinds of property and allows for a new owner.

Post 26

Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 6:26pm

Steve - Not trying to sucker you into anything, just informing you of the history and context of the example you are discussing.

Of course lost items eventually find new owners, but I seriously doubt Rand believed property rights terminate the moment one misplaces an item, and I doubt you or anyone else here believes that either. It logically follows that owners should be provided with a reasonable opportunity to reclaim lost property. Having no further knowledge about the origin of the money, and not deserving the money yourself, I think it's safe to say Objectivist philosophy would oppose keeping it for yourself or giving it to a third party. However, that is idealistic, and as I said in the OL thread, I do think it's rational for pragmatism to trump idealism some of the time.

Post 27

Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 6:50pm

Robert,

Of course lost items eventually find new owners, but I seriously doubt...

You admit that ownership changes, but when you go to give me information about where Rand, or Peikoff make a statement that would apply to this, you veer off into your beliefs and your doubts. Not what I asked for.
-----------------

I doubt you or anyone else here believes that...

Again, you are just talking about your doubts and your opinions about what others do or don't believe. That doesn't get the job done. What did Rand or Peikoff say?
------------------

It logically follows that owners should be provided with a reasonable opportunity to reclaim lost property.

Two things to point out here:
1.) You logic is based upon your doubts, opinions, and assumptions. You haven't grounded any of your assertions at all.
2.) I stated in my example, "If it becomes impossible to determine who that person is..." and "when the former owner can't be found" - that was me making sure that the idea of the former owner was no longer an issue.
-------------------

I think it's safe to say Objectivist philosophy would oppose keeping it for yourself or giving it to a third party.

But that's just your opinion. Again you haven't quoted anything - just used a lot of words to say that YOU think it isn't in accord with Objectivist principles. It ISN"T safe to say.

Post 28

Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 7:26pm

Of course it's still possible that the owner might be determined, and of course it's still an issue since the money has just been found. That's the entire point of the example.

Do you believe ownership transfers the moment an item is misplaced? The law doesn't, and I don't. If you don't either, then why should I spend hours scouring the internet to find you support for what you already believe?

Post 29

Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 7:34pm

If the owner can still be determined, that's a different story. It seems like you just make whatever argument you think might be a winner. If the owner can be determined then it is a different story. But since you can't point to single reference from Rand or Peikoff on this issue, or in some way other than just blurting out unfounded opinions, I don't see any reason to keep discussing this with you - you haven't been able to back up the bald assertions you made about what is or is not governed by Objectivist principles.

Post 30

Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 5:11am

Steve - We *don't know* if the owner can be determined. It's possible but not likely that he will be. That's the whole point of the mandatory waiting period. And the moral of the example - which you implicitly acknowledged by stating that you'd give the money to the barista - is that sometimes practical considerations win out over doing what is technically correct according to a moral code.

I fully admit I don't know if Rand or Peikoff have ever specifically written about lost property and what an Objectivist should do. Maybe, but I doubt it, and I don't have the time or energy to search. However, if you believe the property hasn't transferred yet, as the law holds and I believe, then it is no longer relevant what Rand or Peikoff wrote because you acknowledge the property still belongs to another and we know what Objectivism says about taking things that don't belong to you (I think that much is uncontroversial).

Post 31

Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 10:44am

Robert,

First you talked about subversion or corruption of Objectivist philosophy; and your talked about doing the 100% Objectivist thing; and you talked about the Objectivist prescription; and you talked about what you believed Rand believed regarding lost property.

Then you said this:

I fully admit I don't know if Rand or Peikoff have ever specifically written about lost property and what an Objectivist should do.

Good, that's all I wanted to hear regarding that part of this argument.
----------------

There was never a mention of a time period when this example was first raised, or anything about the person who lost the money reclaiming it, and it was explicitly stated that there was no way to identify the person who lost the money. And I explicitly made these statements: "If it becomes impossible to determine who that person is..." and "when the former owner can't be found." But then you changed things mid-stream - raised the bar after the high-jumper left the ground. Not considered fair.
----------------

Here's the deal. I have no interest in arguments that, for you, are tied to MSK. And I doubt that anyone else is more than a very tiny bit interested in the ethical status of the $20, especially since the assumptions that make up the context keep changing. I keep arguing because... well, because that's the way I'm made, AND because I like to look at the structure of arguments - finding the flaws, guessing at the motivations, and seeing where I can improve my ability to see the heart of an argument. On this argument, I think it died a while back of a natural death.

Post 32

Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 10:59am