1049: "Bookshelf"

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

buddy431: fair enough. Personally, I don't care how much you smile or how well spoken you are if you're just going to fuck me in the ass with no lube.

In this post, anal lube stands for a social safety net.

[RoberII]

Not everyone makes judgements quite the way I do, but I think there is sort of a general principle here: ideas are a lot more palatable coming from people who are polite and well spoken. Just some food for though.

Some ideas aren't palatable no matter how polite their proponents are, though. And 90% of the time, when people say "let's have a polite discussion on this topic," what they mean is "Don't call me out on the horrible things I am about to say, that would be impolite."

[Steroid]

And regardless of what you think of her philosophy, I'm sorry but if you like her actually writing you do have terrible taste. The woman was a horrible writer - cardboard cut out characters that exist only to exemplify her philosophy, ridiculous dialogue, completely ridiculous plots. I saw the old joke about Rand and Tolkien earlier in the thread ("One has orcs") and if you go back and read the parts of Lord of the Rings where the orcs are talking amongst themselves, they have far more character and depth than Rand's mouthpieces.

Sorry, but I have to go deeper into this point. Why are characters who act inconsistently better than those who act consistently? Verisimilitude? Perhaps, but you can take the parts of a person's life that are consistent and make a good story out of them. If John Galt did everything he did in Atlas Shrugged but happened to visit a church every Sunday and pray to God, would that make him a more interesting and well-rounded character?

Personally I think that the popular opinion of what's good in literature is the bad taste, if for no other reason than that it's inversely proportional to how easy it is to read and enjoy. I call this the three D's of Proper Good Literature.

Your work should be difficult. Load your story with symbolism, allegory, and metaphor. Never make a loaf of bread a loaf of bread; make it a person's soul. Use sentences of exceeding length and words that nobody has heard of. Best example: Oscar Wilde

Your work should be dull. If you're writing about a war, don't tell us about the generals and the movement of troops, write from the perspective of two grunts who aren't even sure what side they're on. If it's a love story, don't write about the great love of the protagonist's life; write about the person they met before that and weren't really interested in. Best example: Ernest Hemmingway.

Your work should be depressing. Everyone we care about, kill. Or leave them alive but without hope. Make sure that the two people who love each other wind up with other people who make them miserable. Best examples: Jane Austen, F. Scott Fitzgerald, William Faulkner, Emily Bronte. . . pretty much everyone.

So clearly Rand's works fail to be Proper Good Literature. Atlas Shrugged should have been about how John Galt, sitting in a factory meeting, hears about a plan based in altruism, but when a butterfly lands on his arm, he understands that the plan will ruin the life of his love Dagny, so he commits suicide. Then it would be good taste to like it.

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

Internal conflict is dramatic. Without drama, your story is pointless bullshit; why the fuck should I spend my time reading pointless bullshit?

[Puppyclaws]

Internal conflict is dramatic. Without drama, your story is pointless bullshit; why the fuck should I spend my time reading pointless bullshit?

I'm also not too keen on reading about loaves of bread that are just loaves of bread. The reason for cramming things full of meaning is, if you're not doing that, why write it at all?

Also, anybody who holds up Oscar Wilde's writing as something to complain about has lost all merit in the discussion.

[molochmachine]

You know, objectivism isn't even a real political philosophy, it's just neoconservatism packaged with a new hat. I get that it's abhorrent, but I don't really lose sleep over it, because no one who calls themselves an objectivist will ever be in any significant position of ideological influence - not anymore, given the wide-spread ideological backswing against neoliberalism, anyway. It's college Anarchism for ultra-capitalists. I dare say most outgrow it.

[buddy431]

Not everyone makes judgements quite the way I do, but I think there is sort of a general principle here: ideas are a lot more palatable coming from people who are polite and well spoken. Just some food for though.

Some ideas aren't palatable no matter how polite their proponents are, though. And 90% of the time, when people say "let's have a polite discussion on this topic," what they mean is "Don't call me out on the horrible things I am about to say, that would be impolite."

Perhaps some ideas are never palatable, but I think that yours could be, if you were a little more eloquent and a little less angry with them. If you said: "look Sanjavalen, I don't hold your beliefs, and here's why:", and managed to remain polite during your post, I might give some thought to what you have to say. But you don't, so I don't. If you were to say "here's why I believe that a strong social safety net is a good thing", and didn't attack the people who don't believe that a strong social safety net is a good thing, I might give some thought to what you have to say. But you don't, so I don't.

Ultimately you need to decide who you're trying to convince, and decide what tactics are going to work best to convince them. I think you're unlikely to convince Sanjavalen that the philosophy that has served him well and made him happy is wrong, so you should probably cast your gaze further. In my opinion, your rhetoric would probably be most effective on the ears of someone like Kaylakaze or Puppyclaws. The trouble is, they already agree with you, so there's no need to convince them. Who are you left with? People like me, who haven't formed a strong opinion on the topic. I can't claim to speak for all people in my position, but personally, I find Sanjavalen's posts compelling and enjoyable to read, while yours not at all.

[Steroid]

Internal conflict is dramatic. Without drama, your story is pointless bullshit; why the fuck should I spend my time reading pointless bullshit?

External conflict is also dramatic. The central question of a story, rather than being "Will the protagonist learn?" can be "Will he win?" "Knowing he will win, how much will it cost him?" or "In what particular way will he win?"

I'm also not too keen on reading about loaves of bread that are just loaves of bread. The reason for cramming things full of meaning is, if you're not doing that, why write it at all?

OK, you're not. I am. Does that mean I have bad taste? Should I consider it that you have bad taste because we like different things? Or are you right because what I like is easier for me to enjoy than it is for you, and suffering is virtue? If that's the case, then I think I do have some Objectivist arguments to make.

[Puppyclaws]

OK, you're not. I am. Does that mean I have bad taste? Should I consider it that you have bad taste because we like different things? Or are you right because what I like is easier for me to enjoy than it is for you, and suffering is virtue? If that's the case, then I think I do have some Objectivist arguments to make.

It doesn't mean you have bad taste. It does mean you don't understand literature.

[Steroid]

OK, you're not. I am. Does that mean I have bad taste? Should I consider it that you have bad taste because we like different things? Or are you right because what I like is easier for me to enjoy than it is for you, and suffering is virtue? If that's the case, then I think I do have some Objectivist arguments to make.

It doesn't mean you have bad taste. It does mean you don't understand literature.

OK. Atlas Shrugged, and the works of Heinlein, and a few other works in the same vein are words on paper. So are the works of Wilde, Fitzgerald, Bronte, and the folks I mentioned. I've read both, and prefer the former group. What don't I understand?

[whateveries]

... personally, I find Sanjavalen's posts compelling and enjoyable to read, while yours not at all.

*ahem* you seem compelled to respond to RoberII's post , and well, you know, irony, and stuff.

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

Steroid: you wanted to know why a "consistent" character was worse than an inconsistent character. I would prefer the debate be couched in terms of conflict, but I'm happy to go along with any nomenclature you choose. The reason is simple: every major aspect of your story should be interesting in its own right. If your plot is just 600 odd pages of everything just being super, it would be dull and thus bad writing. Similarly, if your character spends 600 odd pages of being just super, they would be dull, regardless of whatever shenanigans they got up to in those 600 pages. If your character has no arc, why did you put them in your story in the first place?

[RoberII]

Steroid, you need to read more literature if Oscar Wilde is the most difficult writer you could think of... And actually, also if you think Hemmingway is dull. And you do not understand literature if you can characterize Hemmingway as dull - to do so means that you are, quite literally, unable to read the subtler aspects of Hemmingway. "Old Man and the Sea? Eh, dude goes fishing, comes back home without a fish. Booooriiing."

(For a comparison, it's like saying that Bollywood movies don't make any sense, when in reality, you just don't know the genre well enough to 'read' it - or saying that music videos are bad videos because they do not have a plot. Or like saying that abstract art is bad art because it doesn't have any nude chicks in it.)

And buddy431, I think you misunderstand - I am not saying that the merits of my personal philosophical and political views would be more palatable if I was more polite, I am saying that Objectivism isn't palatable no matter how polite its proponents is, and that actions should be more important than politeness. I think Tim Minchin said it best, honestly.

[Ghostbear]

Personally I think that the popular opinion of what's good in literature is the bad taste, if for no other reason than that it's inversely proportional to how easy it is to read and enjoy. I call this the three D's of Proper Good Literature.

Your work should be difficult. Load your story with symbolism, allegory, and metaphor. Never make a loaf of bread a loaf of bread; make it a person's soul. Use sentences of exceeding length and words that nobody has heard of. Best example: Oscar Wilde

Your work should be dull. If you're writing about a war, don't tell us about the generals and the movement of troops, write from the perspective of two grunts who aren't even sure what side they're on. If it's a love story, don't write about the great love of the protagonist's life; write about the person they met before that and weren't really interested in. Best example: Ernest Hemmingway.

Your work should be depressing. Everyone we care about, kill. Or leave them alive but without hope. Make sure that the two people who love each other wind up with other people who make them miserable. Best examples: Jane Austen, F. Scott Fitzgerald, William Faulkner, Emily Bronte. . . pretty much everyone.

So clearly Rand's works fail to be Proper Good Literature. Atlas Shrugged should have been about how John Galt, sitting in a factory meeting, hears about a plan based in altruism, but when a butterfly lands on his arm, he understands that the plan will ruin the life of his love Dagny, so he commits suicide. Then it would be good taste to like it.

This seems like the most condescending way to say "I don't like works of literature that are commonly accepted as 'great' literature, nor works that are written in a similar style.". I mean, if that's your cup of tea that's your cup of tea, but you're painting yourself as some enlightened book reader, able to recognize what makes a "good story"(tm) better than all of the ignorant sheep, blindly enjoying their difficult, dull, and depressing works. Have you considered that perhaps those people don't find those stories difficult (maybe their grasp of the language is just better than yours?), dull (they have different tastes than you?), or depressing (a story can be sad without being depressing)? Your taste in literature is not universal.

And maybe, just maybe, people are criticizing Atlas Shrugged as a work of writing not because they thought it lacked appropriate difficulty, dullness, or depression, and they just found it to be a horribly unenjoyable work of fiction? Saying you think their taste in literature is bad does nothing to disprove their point.

[Steroid]

Steroid, you need to read more literature if Oscar Wilde is the most difficult writer you could think of... And actually, also if you think Hemmingway is dull. And you do not understand literature if you can characterize Hemmingway as dull - to do so means that you are, quite literally, unable to read the subtler aspects of Hemmingway. "Old Man and the Sea? Eh, dude goes fishing, comes back home without a fish. Booooriiing."

(For a comparison, it's like saying that Bollywood movies don't make any sense, when in reality, you just don't know the genre well enough to 'read' it - or saying that music videos are bad videos because they do not have a plot. Or like saying that abstract art is bad art because it doesn't have any nude chicks in it.)

How about James Joyce for difficulty? He's praised plenty. And again, I'm not saying that such works have no value, I am saying that their value is subjective when compared to the more easily accessible works. I'm sorry, but a Rodin nude does more to stir my soul than the giant needle and button in the fashion district of Manhattan.

Steroid: you wanted to know why a "consistent" character was worse than an inconsistent character. I would prefer the debate be couched in terms of conflict, but I'm happy to go along with any nomenclature you choose. The reason is simple: every major aspect of your story should be interesting in its own right. If your plot is just 600 odd pages of everything just being super, it would be dull and thus bad writing. Similarly, if your character spends 600 odd pages of being just super, they would be dull, regardless of whatever shenanigans they got up to in those 600 pages. If your character has no arc, why did you put them in your story in the first place?

Because he's not me, and so by reading about someone who, while not having an arc, is different from me, I can enjoy vicarious adventure. I haven't done what John Galt did, but I might like to. Instead I can read about it. The arc is, in that sense, provided by me.

This seems like the most condescending way to say "I don't like works of literature that are commonly accepted as 'great' literature, nor works that are written in a similar style.". I mean, if that's your cup of tea that's your cup of tea, but you're painting yourself as some enlightened book reader, able to recognize what makes a "good story"(tm) better than all of the ignorant sheep, blindly enjoying their difficult, dull, and depressing works. Have you considered that perhaps those people don't find those stories difficult (maybe their grasp of the language is just better than yours?), dull (they have different tastes than you?), or depressing (a story can be sad without being depressing)? Your taste in literature is not universal.

I think the qualities I mentioned are objective ones. One book can be clearly said to have more or less symbolism than another, or its theme more or less important, or its ending happier or sadder. Which of each you prefer is subjective, but what I don't agree with is that the counterintuitive choices in each case (more symbolism, less important theme, sadder ending) is preferable as an objective measure of taste precisely because they're counterintuitive.

And maybe, just maybe, people are criticizing Atlas Shrugged as a work of writing not because they thought it lacked appropriate difficulty, dullness, or depression, and they just found it to be a horribly unenjoyable work of fiction? Saying you think their taste in literature is bad does nothing to disprove their point.

Except I never said that. People on this forum, and a fictional comic person who owns a library and has too much time on his hand, have said that I have bad taste in literature. Maybe, just maybe, I'm lauding Atlas Shrugged as a work of literature because I found it to be a thoroughly enjoyable work of fiction?

[Ghostbear]

I think the qualities I mentioned are objective ones. One book can be clearly said to have more or less symbolism than another, or its theme more or less important, or its ending happier or sadder. Which of each you prefer is subjective, but what I don't agree with is that the counterintuitive choices in each case (more symbolism, less important theme, sadder ending) is preferable as an objective measure of taste precisely because they're counterintuitive.

Except what I'm highlighting is that you're just tossing all of those works you don't enjoy as "difficult, dull, and depressing". Saying "I like works with simpler language usage, more exciting themes, and happier endings" is very different from saying "The works you enjoy use unncessarily difficult language, boring themes, and are depressing" especially when there is an implied "and that is why you like them" at the end. That is why I called it unncesarily condescending; you're critiquing the works that other people like (which is fine) but then you imply that the reason people like those works are because of those very disingenuous deconstructions of those works.

Except I never said that. People on this forum, and a fictional comic person who owns a library and has too much time on his hand, have said that I have bad taste in literature. Maybe, just maybe, I'm lauding Atlas Shrugged as a work of literature because I found it to be a thoroughly enjoyable work of fiction?

You very much did say it, because you went ahead and deconstructed traditionally accepted "good literature" as all being difficult, dull, and depressing.

It's like if I criticized Skyrim (a game I didn't enjoy) as being a game for people that like "shallow, unfocused gameplay tacked onto a cliche narrative" -- I might think that of the game, and maybe even the people that enjoy the game might accept less inflammatory criticisms of it, but what they actually enjoy is the open ended gameplay, the fact that they aren't glued to the developer's whim's, and so on -- a good way for me to criticize it would have been to say "Open ended games just aren't for me, and I also don't like [x], [y], and [z]." instead of the "You guys only like this game because of [terrible x], [terrible y], [terrible z]". By painting people as only seeing works of literature as "great" only because they like their stories to be "difficult, dull, and depressing", you're outright saying that you think their taste in literature is shit.

Or as I already said -- you're making yourself out to be especially enlightened as to what makes a good book, while everyone who disagrees with you is part of the ignorant masses, blind sheep following the guidance of others. In reality, you just have different tastes than them, but it sure isn't how you phrased it. It's the words you have chosen to use; can you imagine someone saying "I love this book, it's so difficult, dull, and depressing!" ? I can't.

[IcedT]

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged, but I've read the Fountainhead and a fair amount of Rand's objectivist essays, and I would say the problem with Rand isn't that her characters are assholes, it's that all the other characters in her work are caricatures. Her characters aren't assholes because they live in a binary world where the good guys are always grateful and the bad guys are always irredeemably and obviously awful. There's never a chance to do anything bad because there's no conflict with good people and all the bad people deserve it. Everyone who opposes the hero is doing it for transparently awful and usually insane reasons.

So there's a couple ethical problems that tend to come out of objectivist writing:
1) The hero is always courageous, brilliant, and above-average in almost every regard. There's never a question of whether they're doing the right thing or not- it's right because they want to do it and they want to do it because it's right.
2) Anyone who says what the hero is doing ISN'T right is doing it specifically to punish him or her, or high achievers/the rich as a class. All alternative political or social beliefs are boiled down to either irrational mysticism, or simple resentment/envy.
3) Because most characters are so flat and most conflicts are so abstract, people are generally defined only in how they relate to the hero. And since we've established that the hero is awesome (see #1), if somebody supports the hero they're good and if someone opposes the hero they're bad.

These three things all provide a pretty strong foundation for narcissism and reckless sociopathy. People who already have a solid ethical system before they read Rand tend to just see them as books about some really motivated, talented people who are dedicated to their purpose, but people who don't have one tend to get a message more along the lines of "I'm amazing and anyone who puts an obstacle in front of me is human garbage and I need to just do what I want regardless of any social consequences."

[RoberII]

There is no such thing as an objective reading of a text. No text is objectively sad, and symbolism is something that readers bestow upon the work, not the other way around. As for excitement, hell, I've found previously dull books to be exciting on the second read, and vice-versa. So let me just disabuse you of that notion, Steroid.

[Steroid]

Except what I'm highlighting is that you're just tossing all of those works you don't enjoy as "difficult, dull, and depressing". Saying "I like works with simpler language usage, more exciting themes, and happier endings" is very different from saying "The works you enjoy use unncessarily difficult language, boring themes, and are depressing" especially when there is an implied "and that is why you like them" at the end. That is why I called it unncesarily condescending; you're critiquing the works that other people like (which is fine) but then you imply that the reason people like those works are because of those very disingenuous deconstructions of those works.

I'm not implying that it's the reason. I'm saying that it's a reason. There are people who enjoy something specifically because others don't get it, or because others reject it. Literary hipster-ism, if you will. There is plenty of room for different taste in literature. There is no room for, "If you think Atlas Shrugged with its flat-arc characters is good, you have no taste." Or rather, if we make room for that, then we must also make room for, "If you think (insert other work here) is good because the characters arc downward, you have no taste."

Except I never said that. People on this forum, and a fictional comic person who owns a library and has too much time on his hand, have said that I have bad taste in literature. Maybe, just maybe, I'm lauding Atlas Shrugged as a work of literature because I found it to be a thoroughly enjoyable work of fiction?

You very much did say it, because you went ahead and deconstructed traditionally accepted "good literature" as all being difficult, dull, and depressing.

It's like if I criticized Skyrim (a game I didn't enjoy) as being a game for people that like "shallow, unfocused gameplay tacked onto a cliche narrative" -- I might think that of the game, and maybe even the people that enjoy the game might accept less inflammatory criticisms of it, but what they actually enjoy is the open ended gameplay, the fact that they aren't glued to the developer's whim's, and so on -- a good way for me to criticize it would have been to say "Open ended games just aren't for me, and I also don't like [x], [y], and [z]." instead of the "You guys only like this game because of [terrible x], [terrible y], [terrible z]". By painting people as only seeing works of literature as "great" only because they like their stories to be "difficult, dull, and depressing", you're outright saying that you think their taste in literature is shit.

So, if I replaced "difficult, dull, and depressing" with "complex, accessible, and non-optimistic," I could make the same point without incurring the foul your giving me? If you like that sort of literature, you should own the opinion, regardless of how it's phrased. If you want to call Atlas "simplistic, redundant, and disconnected from reality" versus "easy-to-read, sweepingly epic, and idealistic," the terminology bothers me less than the opinion that preferring those qualities is the essence of bad taste.

There is no such thing as an objective reading of a text. No text is objectively sad, and symbolism is something that readers bestow upon the work, not the other way around. As for excitement, hell, I've found previously dull books to be exciting on the second read, and vice-versa. So let me just disabuse you of that notion, Steroid.

I used comparatives to make the point. There's no reasonable way to say that The Wizard of Oz is sadder than 1984. Alice in Wonderland objectively has more symbolism than Twilight. As for the last, maybe dull isn't the right word, but "provincial" doesn't start with a d. And Moby Dick (one boat looking for one whale) is more provincial than The Lord of the Rings (epic war to determine the fate of the world).

[chenille]

Wow. With all this anger over a jab at Atlas Shrugged, I can't imagine how upset people must have been after Nighttime Stories!

[RoberII]

LoTR is plenty provincial.

And I don't think Alice in Wonderland has 'more' symbolism than Twilight.

[Ghostbear]

I'm not implying that it's the reason. I'm saying that it's a reason. There are people who enjoy something specifically because others don't get it, or because others reject it. Literary hipster-ism, if you will. There is plenty of room for different taste in literature. There is no room for, "If you think Atlas Shrugged with its flat-arc characters is good, you have no taste." Or rather, if we make room for that, then we must also make room for, "If you think (insert other work here) is good because the characters arc downward, you have no taste."

Implying that it is a reason is not significantly less insulting -- you're still making your disingenuous deconstructions of those works, and implying that those people like those works because of their preference for those negative traits is just being condescending. Comparing them to hipsters doesn't help your case at all, in fact it makes you seem more condescending.

Also, I didn't realize that "these other people are critiquing things I like unfairly" is sufficient justification for "I will now critique everything they like unfairly too". Something about two wrongs not making a right.

So, if I replaced "difficult, dull, and depressing" with "complex, accessible, and non-optimistic," I could make the same point without incurring the foul your giving me? If you like that sort of literature, you should own the opinion, regardless of how it's phrased. If you want to call Atlas "simplistic, redundant, and disconnected from reality" versus "easy-to-read, sweepingly epic, and idealistic," the terminology bothers me less than the opinion that preferring those qualities is the essence of bad taste.

No, the words are a symptom and a wonderful example of your generally condescending attitude towards people who enjoy those works of literature. Choosing less inflammatory terms wouldn't change the attitude of your comment at all, it just would have forced me to use even more words to point out why it's so condescending. In the end, you're still characterizing all of those works of literature that those people enjoy with loaded and overwhelmingly negative terms. I mean, fuck, just swap those words into my earlier question: can you imagine anyone saying "I love this book, it's so complex, accessible, and non-optimistic!" ? I still can't see that.

[Princess Marzipan]

Spoiler:

I think you're a parasite. If nothing else you're making money off the lives of the people who work for you. But I don't think that's the sole point. I don't believe for 1 second you were poor. You don't get to fail over and over again at running a business if you're poor in this country. Also, even if everything you're saying is true, you're STILL a parasite because it's the work of others that provide you the security you need to be so condescending, others that you think are beneath you. People like you make me sick. You think because you're good at something an idiot market values means you're worth more as a person than someone who's just as good, if not better, at something the market doesn't value. As for your friends, it's been my observation that assholes enjoy the company of other assholes.

(Edited to make it not so harsh)

(spoiler added)
If that's the LESS harsh version, what was it like before?

I've seen nothing from sanjavalen that gives me enough information to claim he's an asshole, and way too many people here are shoving words so far down his throat that I think his esophagus has probably ruptured by now.

If one want to complain about how he pays his employees, I guess that's doable. But maybe it'd be useful to actual make an argument as opposed to yelling fuckwords? There're definitely arguments to be made that incentive-based pay structures often have the nasty side effect of incentivizing incorrectly, but I'm not seeing anyone make any.

I, as a Christian, found Atlas Shrugged particularly enjoyable. I should not help people because they need help, letting their needs determine my actions. I should not consider someone who needs help to deserve my help, as if "need" in some way earned the help that is given. I should help others because God told me to care about others as much as I care about myself.

Honestly, the fact that you only think people are worth helping because an omnipotent being told you to (and therefore, if it were up to you, you wouldn't even bother) makes me think quite little of you.

[Steroid]

Implying that it is a reason is not significantly less insulting -- you're still making your disingenuous deconstructions of those works, and implying that those people like those works because of their preference for those negative traits is just being condescending. Comparing them to hipsters doesn't help your case at all, in fact it makes you seem more condescending.

Again, there are perfectly legitimate ways to enjoy the works I don't. But doing so precisely and solely because it makes you feel superior to people like me is not one of them. Yes, I believe there are people like that. And yes, I want to be condescending to them.

Also, I didn't realize that "these other people are critiquing things I like unfairly" is sufficient justification for "I will now critique everything they like unfairly too". Something about two wrongs not making a right.

The problem with that aphorism is that one wrong doesn't make a right either. Do you agree that the comic, and some in this thread, are critiquing my liking of Atlas Shrugged unfairly? If so, how do you suggest that I do right that wrong? If not, then how is it wrong for me to critique others for their taste in exactly the same way?

No, the words are a symptom and a wonderful example of your generally condescending attitude towards people who enjoy those works of literature. Choosing less inflammatory terms wouldn't change the attitude of your comment at all, it just would have forced me to use even more words to point out why it's so condescending. In the end, you're still characterizing all of those works of literature that those people enjoy with loaded and overwhelmingly negative terms. I mean, fuck, just swap those words into my earlier question: can you imagine anyone saying "I love this book, it's so complex, accessible, and non-optimistic!" ? I still can't see that.

Except that people have said, in this very thread, that complex characters with arcs are objectively superior to flat characters, or at least that I lack understanding for having the opposite premise. So my answer to your question is yes, if they're being honest.

[sanjavalen]

Well, I had a business meeting and then a great birthing class with the wife. I come back and I am, to be honest, a little amused.

Since I was gone, I have been called:

1. Asshole
2. Liar
3. Parasite
(Did I miss anything?

With scant evidence to back up these assertions. Then there was the literary discussion which, I'm sorry to say, I skimmed over. Not my cup of tea.

I hope that everyone not slinging names gets the irony of all this, and maybe gives Objectivism a little bit of a deeper look. I'm personally always interested in ethical conversations, and there are some community groups in Atlanta, Dallas and the Front Range that are full of very nice people to talk to, and do fun activities on a weekly basis. If anyone's interested in my personal story in an honest way, I'm also happy to chat about that; business is very fun, and it doesn't take a lot of money to start many businesses (I think I've started 4 separate business ideas with $100 or less.)

nccn, I'll respond to your question in the AM, or later this night if I can't sleep. Just not enough time at the moment.

[sanjavalen]

I've seen nothing from sanjavalen that gives me enough information to claim he's an asshole, and way too many people here are shoving words so far down his throat that I think his esophagus has probably ruptured by now.

I'm fine; you get used to it, being an Objectivist. Every community has at least one or two people who will hate you without reason and interpret everything you say in the worst way possible.

If one want to complain about how he pays his employees, I guess that's doable. But maybe it'd be useful to actual make an argument as opposed to yelling fuckwords? There're definitely arguments to be made that incentive-based pay structures often have the nasty side effect of incentivizing incorrectly, but I'm not seeing anyone make any.

Incentive structures are a special interest of mine. I understand the pitfalls. Its very interesting, and its actually closely related to the problem of metrics; your task as a competent manager is to ensure that the incentive structure (which can be either flat-out financial or simply what you measure - because what you measure is what you end up judging your direct reports on) is fair and also leads to desired outcomes - the best pay for the best work, and work that is profitable to the company. Its not something you can sit still on; you have to be constantly thinking of ways people could game the system, ways in which the structure would incentivize bad behavior, etc. So far this seems to be the way to go, but hey, we'll see. If someone has an actual better way that they have used or seen used in a labor-intensive job, I'd be interested in discussing tat with them.

I mean, my employees are certainly free to go work for someone else if they want, but the plain fact is that I pay better than anyone else I know of for equivalent work. You can see how I would have to smile at being called a parasite and exploiter for that.

And - thanks for being kind.

[J Thomas]

*I should engage in rational self-interest.
*Accidents happen, and I may become one of the non-producers at any moment.
*Therefore, I should hedge my bets by saving for the future, or joining an independent organization that provides insurance/protection."

*I should engage in rational self-interest.
*People with no money and little hope of getting money tend to commit crimes, even violent crimes.
*While a police force can protect me, they tend to be most effective only after-the-fact.
*A perhaps more effective method of curbing crime, and a better use of my money, is to simply purchase a security system / buy a gun and shoot the criminals / learn self-defense / etc.."

(Seriously, you think because people commit crimes, we should capitulate to them and make concessions to them for free? Terrorists would love having people like you in charge.)

*I should engage in rational self-interest.
*Capitalism is the best method for self-interest to find expression.
*Capitalism only functions when there is a small but substantial pool of unemployed to provide mobility in the workforce, so that jobs can shift as needed"

(Admittedly, this isn't happening, but that is because we have a system that allows government regulation to be drawn up by corporations, which is NOT capitalism and is in fact EXACTLY what Ayn Rand was warning people about!)

For the most part I approve of you hanging yourself this way. Everybody who hasn't already converted to your views will think you are a nutcase. You will be happy believing that you know the truth denied to all these fools. They will be happy knowing they are not you. Everybody is happy, nobody has learned anything. In some senses an ideal outcome.

But you have touched on a couple of my pet peeves and I want to talk about them.

First, the idea that capitalism needs a pool of unemployed so jobs can be shifted. This is nonsense, though it gets taught in mainstream undergraduate economics classes. The argument is that if there isn't enough unemployment, employers will find their employees by raiding other businesses. You hire away their best employees by offering them better jobs. (More money, better working conditions, dancing girls, whatever will persuade them to switch.) Meanwhile they try to hire way your best employees. So when employees get better jobs, the result is inflation. Employees get paid more money, so prices must rise. What's good for employees must be bad for employers. So the government must manipulate the economy to keep a core of unemployed people who will be desperate enough to work for low pay, to keep wages down.

But what's so bad about full employment? If employers pay their employees more, or provide better working conditions because the economy is doing so well there is a labor shortage, who is hurt? The least productive businesses, that can't afford to hire people, that's who. Everybody else is doing fine. The businesses that are doing so well they want to expand as fast as they find employees, check. The employees who are better off, check. Why should somebody slow down the economy to create a pool of miserable unemployed people who will work for low pay, so that the least productive businesses can do better at everybody else's expense?

But that's a minor thing. More important is the idea that disorganized capitalism is somehow particularly workable. This should be laughable to people trained in computer science.

"I have a method that is guaranteed to find ideal solutions to any problem. Things you couldn't compute any other way, will be quickly solved by my algorithm."

"You can solve NP-complete problems quickly? Show me how."

"I use evolutionary algorithms. Each individual part of the problem gets an evolutionary algorithm so its performance is optimised for collecting resources from the rest of the solution. No part of the algorithm needs any global view; they will all automatically create the best solution because all the inferior solutions they try will be discarded."

"Oh. How do you choose the evolutionary algorithms?"

"I don't have to choose them, they choose themselves. Inferior evolutionary algorithms can't compete with better ones."

"How do you decide how to break the big system into smaller subsystems that can be optimised?"

"I don't have to do that, the algorithms choose for themselves how to create subsystems."

"Why do you think that a bunch of evolutionary algorithms finding local optima for their own subsystems will produce a global optimum?"

"They just have to. Like, if two people bargain and each get the best deal they can, and two other people bargain and each get the best deal they can, and so on like that, then the result has to come out the best for everybody. There's a theorem that proves it."

Free enterprise can work like a fun game and be very productive. But you don't let the players of the game change the rules to help themselves win. Somebody has to set the rules, and somebody has to enforce the rules. Governments have not done very well at setting and enforcing the rules for economies, so far. But that is not an argument for playing with no rules, or for letting cabals of businessmen create and enforce the rules. We need something new and better.

[Ghostbear]

Again, there are perfectly legitimate ways to enjoy the works I don't. But doing so precisely and solely because it makes you feel superior to people like me is not one of them. Yes, I believe there are people like that. And yes, I want to be condescending to them.

Except you're being condescending to everyone who likes those works in order to be condescending to those specific people you want to be condescending to. You're casting far to wide of a net, and I'm not sure you really have much grounds to be condescending to them. Call them out for wanting to be smugly superior, sure, but in this case it'd be the pot calling the kettle black.

The problem with that aphorism is that one wrong doesn't make a right either. Do you agree that the comic, and some in this thread, are critiquing my liking of Atlas Shrugged unfairly? If so, how do you suggest that I do right that wrong? If not, then how is it wrong for me to critique others for their taste in exactly the same way?

That doesn't expose any problem with that phrase at all. I haven't read everyone here, but I'm sure that yeah, some people are critiquing the book unfairly. I do think the comic is being fair -- it's a relatively soft joke, and the alt-text succinctly summarizes why he feels that way without being a jackass about it. You aren't supposed to be able to "right" their wrongs -- you just have to make your own case as best you can. If you sink their level, you don't help your argument at all. Think of the posters who you most respect on these forums, would you say they're often unnecessarily condescending? Or just notice the fact that you're willing to respond to me -- I think we're having a fairly civil discussion on this, and if I had gone ahead and attacked you aggressively, I don't think we'd be having a discussion worth having at all right now. And it's wrong for you to critique them in that matter for the same reason it's wrong for them to critique in that manner themselves.

The goal in not being wrong isn't to right someone else's wrong -- it's to not be wrong yourself.

Except that people have said, in this very thread, that complex characters with arcs are objectively superior to flat characters, or at least that I lack understanding for having the opposite premise. So my answer to your question is yes, if they're being honest.

No, that is a very different statement. Liking complex characters over flat characters is not at all the same as liking "complex, accessible, and non-optimistic" stories -- it's liking a different kind of character. Character's are often a significant part of a work of literature, but they aren't all of it. Your original argument is still putting yourself up as some specially enlightened reader compared to them, using overly condescending deconstructions of those books, and applying it to everyone who likes those books.

[CorruptUser]

Ayn Randall, yes. GOOMHR, not yet. Go ahead.


Anyway, the biggest thing I took away from AS was that I should never hear or say the word "need" in a sales situation.

[Kaylakaze]

I mean, my employees are certainly free to go work for someone else if they want, but the plain fact is that I pay better than anyone else I know of for equivalent work. You can see how I would have to smile at being called a parasite and exploiter for that.

You think because you pay better than the other parasites, that makes you not one? You're middleman, making money off the labor of others. You exploit a corrupt system that from, the perspective of labor, is nothing but a race to the bottom. If all employers refuse to pay a living wage, labor doesn't make a living wage. If one employer pays a decent wage while all others do not, it benefits his small group of employees while society as a whole still suffers under the corruption, while his employs live in terror of losing their jobs, willing to do anything to keep what they have.

And you demonstrated yourself to be an asshole when you took pleasure in being called mercenary. It means you'd sell out anyone and anything for a buck. That's something you should only take pleasure in if you're an asshole.

As for liar, I don't have any evidence of that, but a "business idea" and "starting a business" aren't quite the same thing. And it's funny. When I argue with a libertarian whackjob friend of mine, he's always talking about how horrible government regulation is that it makes starting a business SOOOO expensive and SOOOO hard.

So you want to talk about ethics? Where are your objectivists ethics on the scenario of someone with no money getting sick and needing medical treatment? I know what the vast majority of Randian's I've heard from have said. Where are your objectivist ethics on everyone, regardless of the circumstances they're born into, should have the opportunity of a good education so that they can one day be productive members of society? I know what the vast majority of Randians I've heard from have said. Where are your objectivist ethics on holding those responsible that destroy the land and oceans, crippling the way of life of others who depend on a clean environment for their own livelihood? I know what the vast majority of Randians I've heard from have said.

[JustDoug]

This should be a fun bookstore. I wonder what happens if someone picks up Twilight...

That's when the trapdoors and pits of boiling oil come into play.

However, as bad as that might be, you simply don't want to know what the shop reserves for those that attempt to buy anything by Coulter. It's too horrifying, as is what happens to the potential customer.

[Karilyn]

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

Strictly speaking, people who are fans of Atlas Shrugged tend to do extremely well financially, and function very well in the real world. Of course, this is likely correlation, not causation, but the point still remains.

Actually, the point you're trying to make DOESN'T remain without proof of causation. The correlation can just as easily be explained by how palatable a philosophy Objectivism tends to be for people who do extremely well financially. It allows them to believe they are solely responsible for their success and that people worse off ("parasites" and "looters") aren't discarded or forgotten parts of a system without which the Objectivist would be just as poorly off.

My point was that the quoted statement "[Atlas Shrugged] is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world," is largely false. Whether the issue is a matter of correlation or causation, does not invalidate the truth that most fans of Ayn Rand tend to be reasonably successfully financially, in no small part due to if you're poor, you'll generally be ticked off at the idea that you're a parasite because you're needy, whereas if you're wealthy, you'll be happy by the idea that you're a hero in the world. Which would be predominately correlation. I doubt there are many people who read Ayn Rand, and decide to change the way they live their life to match her philosophies, which would be causation. Ayn Rands writing is so hostile, that it would be more like to cause a person to go on the defense, as opposed to seriously have the possibility of changing someone's mind.

Saying that fans of Ayn Rand are incapable of dealing with the real world, is as silly and backwards as saying that fans of Obama are racists who cling to their guns and religion, and favor seeing the poor and disabled starve to death without assistance. It's the wrong insult applied to the wrong group. The correct cliche insult would be that Ayn Rand fans are sociopathic assholes who shit on everybody they perceive as weaker than them. The cliche insult "incapable of dealing with the real world" is one which should be applied to Ayn Rand detractors; regardless of the truth of the statement. Unless we decide to start calling Conservatives wishy-washy bleeding hearts who want to steal from the rich and give to the poor. But that'd just be silly.

EDIT: I'm not going to lie, I find the Ayn Rand detractors in this thread to be extremely unpleasant, and most of her supporters to be fairly nice individuals. If I was going by nothing other than the personality of the people defending/attacking her, I imagine it would generate an opinion which is very different than what you want to give across. You might want to tone back the level of hostility and insults in your criticism of objectivism if you don't want to make your own argument look bad. Cause in terms of "people being assholes," which seems to be the main criticism of objectivism, every objectivist in this thread has been polite and friendly, while the majority of the detractors have been total assholes. Which makes you look like hypocrites, and makes your claim that objectivists are assholes look like strawmanning at best, and ad hominem at worst.

Sanjavalen's continued polite and rational explanations in the face of constant attacks and insults alone would make me strongly consider his side (and it's starting to make me favor it the more I review the thread. Holy crap Ayn Rand's detracters are TOTAL ASSHOLES repeatedly in this thread. It's really making the argument against objectivism look REALLY BAD if that's all the anti-objectivism people can come up with. Kaylakaze in particular is showing a rather strong streak of lack of education about the subject, and really should bow out of the conversation, and he is severely incapable of defending his point. Unless he's deliberately reverse-strawmanning in an effort to make objectivism look better by comparison to him.)

[CorruptUser]

[vitriol]

1) Labor prices are not a race to the bottom. Anything that takes more than a day to learn has semi-decent value in the market place. It's only things that require little to no skills, especially people skills, e.g. line cook, warehouse worker, that are shit jobs with shit pay. Because any ex-con could do those jobs. But even a shit job doing data entry requires some minimal technical skills, which is why it pays $10/hr vs minimum wage. Also, fuck data entry.
2) If all labor prices drop, so does the sales price. You need people to buy the goods that are being made. Cutting everyone's wages 50% does jack shit because then prices have to fall 50%, and doubling everyone's pay does jack shit when prices double.
3) The middlemen do have a huge amount of value in society. You think 50 workers just arrive someplace and start making furniture?
4) All costs of business are labor costs, somewhere down the line.
5) It's not too hard to start a business, but expanding is where government regulations, and more importantly the legal system, start to become a choke. I think around 15 employees, EEOC kicks in, and more regulations kick in at 100 employees. If a business is beyond that hurdle, it's already beyond that hurdle. Almost all regulations favor the big businesses by limiting competition.

[Stealth Tomato]

I wonder to what extent Randall posted this hoping, or at least knowing, that the forum thread would blow up due to the polarized opinions on Rand.

Say what you will for or against Rand, but a lot of the arguments here are trying to define Randall's position for him. Especially with the part about agreeing with the first 90% of every sentence. Dude's being figurative, quit trying to make crazy contextual guesses at what he actually meant by it and what level of agreement "first 90%" constitutes.

For what it's worth, my interpretation is that he agrees almost entirely with her philosophy on the state of the world, but finds her recommended reaction to be truly awful. It's an argument I'd certainly buy, as I'm in full agreement with it, but I won't pretend to be 100% sure that's what Randall was saying.

We can accomplish a lot by being collaborative. We have accomplished a lot by being cooperative. Everyone who plays "every man for himself" endangers that accomplishment. That's what worries me about Randian theory and behavior--it threatens to undermine collective accomplishment.

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

LoTR is plenty provincial.

And I don't think Alice in Wonderland has 'more' symbolism than Twilight.

Everything in it is symbolic.

[CorruptUser]

For reference, here is John Galt's speech if you have 3 hours to kill. It actually make sense, until you get to Rand's conclusions. I think that's what Randall is getting at.

Also, here is all you need to know about The Fountainhead.

[whateveries]

2) If all labor prices drop, so does the sales price.

no, the sales price remains rock steady and the profit margin goes up Ker-ching!

I said KER-CHING!

In my native Australia, here we have regulations for buisness up the kazoo. we also have a happy little economy (thanks china you resource hungry monster) so I don't really understand why you people seem so afraid of a government, you know, governing. We have these things called elections, every few years, and even though big buisness is still throwing cashola at the political parties to get a leg in (a disturbing upward trend) the little fuckers who get into parliment know that at every election pretty much every bastard who has to vote will be voting (it's a compulsory thing here) and well, we like regulations on things, like big buisness and banks, and we have seen that in countries without these kinds of things, it goes to crap. (so much so 'what's a grecian urn' is now a joke without a home)

The nonsense about 'government red tape' disabling the best of us from being the best of us is pure fantasy, look at china, they have more red tape than you can point a communist flag at, and yet how many millionaires have they made in the last 10 years, lots? lots of lots? so the argument seems that a lot of regulation is bad, but no regulation is worse. surely those with a rooted economy need to look elsewhere for a regulaton model other than what they have previously tried.

and from what I understand you US guys and girls might want to try a little more regulation and whilst you are at it get some healthcare. just some friendly neighbourly advice.

[CorruptUser]

2) If all labor prices drop, so does the sales price.

no, the sales price remains rock steady and the profit margin goes up Ker-ching!

I said KER-CHING!

Errm, no, because few can afford the products you are selling. If a single store can hire cheap labor, it does well. If every store and business paid jack shit, people would only be able to buy the products for jack shit.

Basically, trying to tweak labor prices up or down across the entire economy does jack shit, because unless tweaking the price of labor manages to increase the actual production in the economy, nothing is really done. Though of course if a person's wages went up as a percentage of the economy, then they would end up with more. But by mathematical rules, in order for someone's percentage to go up, someone else's has to go down.

Assuming your policies don't actually change the level of production.

[J Thomas]

Incentive structures are a special interest of mine. I understand the pitfalls. Its very interesting, and its actually closely related to the problem of metrics; your task as a competent manager is to ensure that the incentive structure (which can be either flat-out financial or simply what you measure - because what you measure is what you end up judging your direct reports on) is fair and also leads to desired outcomes - the best pay for the best work, and work that is profitable to the company. Its not something you can sit still on; you have to be constantly thinking of ways people could game the system, ways in which the structure would incentivize bad behavior, etc. So far this seems to be the way to go, but hey, we'll see. If someone has an actual better way that they have used or seen used in a labor-intensive job, I'd be interested in discussing tat with them.

Very nice. It's a hard problem.

A metaphor -- A man wanted to improve his wheat production. So for some years he carefully sifted his harvest for the biggest kernels to plant as his next year's seed.

And after some years he found he had wheat that produced four giant kernels per spike instead of 38 small ones. He could get around that by weighing the kernels from each plant and choosing kernels from the plants that produced the most. But if he didn't thresh them first, he'd get wheat with heavy glumes because it was easier for a plant to make more of that. So then the next problem is wheat plants that are good at killing off the other wheat plants closest to them, so they get more sun and water. More product per plant, not more product per acre....

As an employee, I found that it took significant effort to game the system, often more than it was worth. But my fellow employees tended to put far more of their time into that than it could possibly be worth -- maybe because it was a competitive thing, and they didn't want to fall behind.

The smartest system I saw, everybody was on some flat rate and weren't supposed to discuss it. We all recorded what our time was used for in 15 minute increments, and we got billed to the customers. Time spent beyond the original estimate was not billed. Every week a xerox was "accidentally" left by the copier showing how much money each employee had brought in the previous week. Occasionally there would be some sort of monitoring. A "customer" who watched carefully what was being done. Etc. Sometimes there would be some test that was completely outside the job description. A random caller on the phone, switched to me. "Who are you? Why aren't I talking to Eddie? Eddie isn't there any more? Where's Eddie? You can't be a replacement for Eddie, nobody can replace Eddie. Where did he go and why is he gone? What about the new project, is it on schedule? When's the rollout? You don't know? Eddie always told me everything! I don't believe it's coming out at all, it's just vaporware." I was supposed to convince him the company was great and everything was great without telling him anything that shouldn't get out. There was never any review about how well I did, they never admitted it was a test and didn't tell me what I did wrong. At the end of each year they would have a good idea how well each employee was doing, while officially providing hardly any supervision. Employees who had done well in the tests and also done well at great innovations which they announced effectively, got small raises. Employees who did well and also could show legitimate job offers at higher pay, got larger raises. Assuming the personnel director's files were real and not dummies.

I mean, my employees are certainly free to go work for someone else if they want, but the plain fact is that I pay better than anyone else I know of for equivalent work. You can see how I would have to smile at being called a parasite and exploiter for that.

People who get into steady jobs get used to those particular jobs. It's kind of wrenching to switch to a different boss with different habits, different co-workers, etc. A different commute. Often they feel they have some seniority where they are, which they would lose at a new place. People who do temp work have a whole different attitude. "Permanent" employees start to develop rationalizations for why they stay in a horrible situation. The worse it is, the more entrenched the rationalizations. I once knew a marketing director who worked a 9 hour day with a 3.5 hour commute each way. He thought it was worth it because his family got to live in a nice house in a nice neighborhood. I'm sure he could have done better, but he was used to the life he had.

I feel hesitant to call anybody a parasite in a real situation. It's like, human beings have a bunch of intestinal flora that by some accounts eat our food and parasitize us that way. But it turns out that some of them make some of the vitamins we need. Are they really parasites? It turns into a case by case thing, you'd have to look at each bacterium for itself. And then it turns out that some of them, if they do nothing better, at least make it harder for worse bacteria to colonize you. They serve as part of your defense, and it's hard to measure that unless you get rid of them and then suffer the consequences.

One of my teachers had worked for a large oil company before he left to be an academic, and he claimed that companies need to have some people who usually aren't working. If something comes up that needs immediate attention and everybody's already busy, something has to give. Better to have somebody competent who's available to handle such things. And yet the guy who sits around getting paid for usually not working is my natural first candidate for a parasite.

If your business is small enough that you personally schmooze with clients, that would say you probably are not a parasite. In many industries clients insist on that and a company that doesn't do it, doesn't get the business. If what you do is necessary to corporate survival, you are not a parasite on the company no matter how stupid your role looks to an outside observer.

Does your company parasitize your employees? I don't know how to measure that. It could be argued that if they had a better choice they would take it, and therefore you are providing them with a choice that's better than any alternative. But they're employees. If they had a lot of initiative toward getting a better life for themselves they wouldn't be employees in the first place. It doesn't mean a whole lot that they haven't gone out and found jobs they'd like better. If they did they'd still be employees, and nothing important would have changed.

[kenright]

Hehe, it didn't even get one page without devolving into philosophical discussion.

Also, throwing this out there: if you say that Objectivism is a responsible, moral code of ethics, I can pretty much say you're wrong.
For instance, with regards to Mr. I have a successful business and am a nice, moral person: Your wife is preggers, right? You have a newborn on the way? I pose this simple moral dilemma: your wife has stumbled on something, a rock near a train crossing, and has found herself in the path of a rapidly approaching train. The only possible way to save her would be to push her out of the way of the train, replacing her with yourself as the object in the train's path. Sure, unlikely scenario, but A) it can happen and B) if Objectivism is a complete, moral, responsible code of ethics then it can provide you with a satisfactory action in this scenario.
The problem is, that Objectivism dictates, by the very foundation of its code, that you watch your wife and future child die. This is because (according to the very words of Rand herself) the highest, and sole moral good is self-interest, which naturally arises out of the rational nature of the concept of human life. Life, your own, not your wife's, not your children's, not your neighbor's or your workers, is the sole source of right and wrong, and to act in self-interest is the only way to go. To sacrifice your life, for any reason whatsoever, is to violate the most basic precept of your ethical code. Valuing the life of another human being, any human being, above your own, is against the nature of your belief system. Do you agree with this?

That is your objectivism, reduced to a simple scenario. Either you are an objectivist, and sacrifice those whom you love for your own personal interest, or you sacrifice objectivism on the altar of the basic biological precepts of empathy and altruism.


In the philosophical world not inhabited by people who are willing to sacrifice the description of the real world and higher-level reasoning on the altar of ethical theories, Rand's Objectivism is a joke, an elementary exercise in figuring out why cold-hard logic does not provide satisfactory ethical theories. The next step is looking at absolutist Utilitarian ideals, as they are logically sound, but suffer from rather unpleasant complications (for instance, a living person can provide quite a few life-saving organ donations to people, thus, the logical utilitarian action would be to remove the organs from a living donor forcefully, transferring them to those who need them; never mind the scientific complications regarding success rates and all that, just the basic ethical question).

Other arguments, it is a simple exercise in googling to find out that in direct comparison between the modern nations of France and the USA, people in France are happier. It is also a simple exercise to prove that France is decidedly more mixed-market economics than the more laissez-faire America. Also a simple exercise: more money does not correlate to higher happiness beyond the point of financial security (which is defined at ~80k a year in the US).