Hacker News Reader

Comment by bjhoops1 | Hacker News Reader

Nonsense. Just because "is" will never fully attain to "ought" does not make vain the pursuit of a better, more just world.

> Attempts to browbeat the world out of "is" and into "ought" have been universal failures

There are so many examples (a single one of which disproves your "universal" claim) of idealists bring "is" more into alignment with "ought" that it would be almost impertinent to even begin enumerating them. Here's a small handful: Civil Rights movement, Women's Suffrage, and (from an economic perspective, since that what you seem to insist can never be touched by notions of "ought") the rise of Organized Labor, which made it possible for former wage slaves to earn a decent living wage.

If Hayek and Rand make you feel better about the fact that most of us over-earn relative to the "virtue" of our labors, fine. But IMHO it is best to be honest about the inequities and fortuitous circumstances which make our success possible.

View on HN

I wasn't speaking of all cases of is/ought. I was referring to the idea that virtuous jobs should be valuable jobs and vice versa -- that the system of production can be turned to produce according to a ranking function of virtue. Civil rights and suffrage aren't jobs or economic production; they're matters of custom and law, which Hayek also discusses as similar but distinct forms of spontaneous order.

You correctly pointed out that the value of labour has been affected by simple economic considerations more completely than any theory of the native goodness of honest toil.

Rand's cardboard aliens all seem very smug and self-assured and basically I think her books have done more harm than good.

Hayek's tone is an exasperated old school master. He just wants people to understand that you can't create -- as in design or ordain ab initio -- a working economic system that aligns to virtuous ends. It will break.

I would certainly agree that the methods for bringing virtuous and valuable jobs more into alignment are quite limited, and it is a vain pursuit to hope to bring them into perfect harmony. However, I would disagree with my libertarian friends and say that such limited methods as we have are worth employing, and new ones are worth seeking out, as the endeavor has merit. The difficult part is finding a balance between seeking to control and throwing our hands up and saying "nothing can be done."

As an aside, I agree that this is a very difficult proposition for incomes, but gains are to be made with a strong public sector which provides numerous basic services such as healthcare, education, and affordable subsidized housing, so that the unfortunate man with a virtuous job of little economic value is not left out in the cold. Or dying of long-undiagnosed cancer due to lack of access to prohibitively expensive preventive care, like my wife's cousin is currently.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com