He thought of all the living species that train their young in the art of survival, the cats who teach their kitten to hunt, the birds who spend such strident effort on teaching their fledglings to fly—yet man, whose tool of survival is the mind, does not merely fail to teach a child to think, but devotes the child’s education to the purpose of destroying his brain, of convincing him that thought is futile and evil, before he has started to think.
From the first catch-phrases flung at a child to the last, it is like a series of shocks to freeze his motor, to undercut the power of his consciousness. “Don’t ask so many questions, children should be seen and not heard!”—”Who are you to think? It’s so, because I say so!”—”Don’t argue, obey!”—”Don’t try to understand, believe!”—”Don’t struggle, compromise!”—”Your heart is more important than your mind!”—”Who are you to know? Your parents know best!”—”Who are you to know? The bureaucrats know best!”—”Who are you to object? All values are relative!”—”Who are you to want to escape a thug’s bullet? That’s only a personal prejudice!”
Men would shudder, he thought, if they saw a mother bird plucking the feathers from the wings of her young, then pushing him out of the nest to struggle for survival—yet that was what they did to their children. [Atlas Shrugged. Part 3. Chapter VI: The Concerto of Deliverance. Ayn Rand. 1957]
Category: Books, essays and others
“Oh, I don’t know, but… but people do things in the world. I saw pictures of New York and I thought”—she pointed at the giant buildings beyond the streaks of rain on the cab window—”I thought, somebody built those buildings—he didn’t just sit and whine that the kitchen was filthy and the roof leaking and the plumbing clogged and it’s a goddamn world and . . . Mr. Taggart”—she jerked her head in a shudder and looked straight at him—”we were stinking poor and not giving a damn about it. That’s what I couldn’t take—that they didn’t really give a damn. Not enough to lift a finger. Not enough to empty the garbage pail. And the woman next door saying it was my duty to help them, saying it made no difference what became of me or of her or of any of us, because what could anybody do anyway!” [Atlas Shrugged. Part 1. Chapter IX: The Sacred and the Profane. Ayn Rand. 1957]
Suppose a fence can be produced by using either one high skilled worker or by using three low skilled workers. If the wage of high skilled workers is $38 per day, and that of a low skilled worker is $13 per day, the firm employs the high skilled worker because costs would be less and profts higher ($38 versus $39). The high skilled worker would soon recognize that one of the ways to increase his wealth would be to advocate a minimum wage of, say, $20 per day in the fencing industry… After the enactment of the minimum wage laws, the high skilled worker can now demand any wage up to $60 per day … and retain employment. Prior to the enactment of the minimum wage of $20 per day, a demand of $60 per day would have cost the high skilled worker his job. Thus the effect of the minimum wage is to price the high skilled worker’s competition out of the market. [Walter Williams. The State Against Blacks. 1982]
Veblen introduced some interesting ideas in The Theory of the Leisure Class. My professor seems to insist that Veblen was an early pioneer in the field of signalling.
Although Veblen drove his ideas to the extreme to bring in absurd implications that I simply will not buy, there are specific arguments that I find attractive and readily agreeable. This is one of them:
The same pervading canon of vicarious leisure is also visibly present in the exterior details of devout observances and need only be pointed out in order to become obvious to all beholders. All ritual has a notable tendency to reduce itself to a rehearsal of formulas. This development of formula is most noticeable in the maturer cults, which have at the same time a more austere, ornate, and severe priestly life and garb; but it is perceptible also in the forms and methods of worships of the newer and fresher sects, whose tastes in respect of priests, vestments, and sanctuaries are less exacting. The rehearsal of the service (the term ”service” carries a suggestion significant for the point in question) grows more perfunctory as the cult gains in age and consistency, and this perfunctoriness of the rehearsal is very pleasing to the correct devout taste. And with a good reason, for the fact of its being perfunctory goes to say pointedly that the master for whom it is performed is exalted above the vulgar need of actually proficuous service on the part of his servants. They are unprofitable servants, and there is an honorific implication for their master in their remaining unprofitable. It is needless to point out the close analogy at this point between the priestly office and the office of the footman. It is pleasing to our sense of what is fitting in these matters, in either case, to recognize in the obvious perfunctoriness of the service that it is a pro forma execution only. There should be no show of agility or of dexterous manipulation in the execution of the priestly office, such as might suggest a capacity for the turning off the work. [The Theory of the Leisure Class. Chapter 6: Pecuniary Canons of Taste. Thorstein Veblen. 1899]
As a side note, I am beginning to understand why a Veblen good is called a Veblen good. It all begins with this book.