|I sanctioned Ryan, because I too don't like the self-regarding or other-regarding terms - what does "regarding" even mean in this context? It is clearly one of those fuzzy terms intended to be loaded with moral meaning, while posturing as value neutral and scientific. |
Robert, we still have our on-going disagreement over Jane Jacobs' moral precepts ("Trader" and "Guardian") and my conclusion that your version of them is only valid from an anarchy framework. I use Jacobs' term "Guardian" because it relates to a guardian doing a proper job of policing, guarding, legislating, etc. Or, it could refer to a guardian that is violating rights instead of protecting them. Under Jacobs and Objectivism both kinds of guardians are possible, and her precepts work in both, and we can see that both have evolved from a common root. Your version does not allow for that distinction. So, our disagreement is that your use of "Taking syndrome" is the one that is obfuscating... by hiding the anarchy it requires.
Merlin, I had a different take on this statement of yours, "Howard Roark says he doesn't intend to build in order to have clients, but intends to have clients in order to build. This is non-other-regarding and fodder for Rand critics." Roark is putting his purpose of doing architecture his way above his financial bottom-line. He still cared a great deal about what would be the best building for his customers, but he wasn't interested in those customers that wanted him to violate his sense of how buildings should be built. That is integrity and commitment and selfishness as Rand defined it. Someone in business has to pay attention to what the customer wants and they have to decide who to cater to and what 'compromises' to make in winning customers. Rand painted a picture of man who put his principles and his passions first.