The Trader and the Guardian

[Hermes]

Based on Systems of Survival: A Dialogue on the Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politics by Jane Jacobs, New York: Random House, 1992.

(It is possible to array these as contraries, but these two lists are here organized by hierarchy. For the Guardian loyality is prinary.

The Guardian Moral Syndrome

• Be loyal
  
• Be obedient and disciplined
  
• Treasure honor
  
• Adhere to tradition
  
• Respect hierarchy
  
• Show fortitude
  
• Exert prowess
  
• Be exclusive
  
• Take vengeance
  
• Make rich use of leisure
  
• Be ostentatious
  
• Dispense largess
  
• Deceive for the sake of the task
  
• Shun trading
  
• Be fatalistic
  

The Commercial Moral Syndrome

• Collaborate easily with strangers and aliens
  
• Be honest
  
• Shun force
  
• Come to voluntary agreements
  
• Respect contracts
  
• Use initiative and enterprise
  
• Be open to inventiveness and novelty
  
• Be efficient
  
• Invest for productive purposes
  
• Be industrious
  
• Be thrifty
  
• Promote comfort and convenience
  
• Dissent for the sake of the task
  
• Compete
  
• Be optimistic
  

An objective code of values is based on self-interest. Much (if not all) of the Guardian system disregards self-interest. The Guardian code is the political mode of operations. Consider how governments distribute largess and lavish perquisites on themselves. When guardians behave like traders it is corruption, the selling of favors, accepting bribes, etc. When traders behave like guardians the errors show up as legal monopolies, mafia tactics of coercion against competitors, and even the mindset of backstabbing - versus cooperation - at the office to get ahead.

[softwareNerd]

And we can tell a guardian by the slightly broader forehead?

[SapereAude]

And we can tell a guardian by the slightly broader forehead?

I have no doubt this will be the funniest thing I read all day.

Thank you!

[Grames]

An objective code of values is based on self-interest. Much (if not all) of the Guardian system disregards self-interest.

I disagree with that. Even for the trait "Be obedient and disciplined" there is a self-interest element, as an organization which is disobedient and undisciplined is a sure loser. Even those who are not disobedient and undisciplined are tempted to abandon a malfunctioning team because it is in their own interest both in terms of their own personal survival and in terms of what the organization is failing to do to further the particular value it is organized around.

You might try to conceptualize these as the "gainers" vs. the "keepers" of value.

[SapereAude]

You might try to conceptualize these as the "gainers" vs. the "keepers" of value.

I can't help but recoil at either set of labels.

For one it again reduces individuals into collectives. Yes, I know that Rand herself categorized "Producers" vs "Looters" and I will have to think about why I rationalize that as being different and ok.

Secondly it always brings to mind Daniel Quinn's disgusting book Ishmael in which he proposes a philosophy where all animals are completely anthropomorphised and given complete philosophical & moral equivalency with mankind. He categorized all living things as "The Takers" and "The Leavers". Of course the Takers are evil, distorted sick souls who produce buildings! companies! cars! computers! You can read all about how all these people who produce these things are evil on his website.

There was a joke in there... hint hint.

Edited January 13, 2011 by SapereAude

[Grames]

I can't help but recoil at either set of labels.

For one it again reduces individuals into collectives. Yes, I know that Rand herself categorized "Producers" vs "Looters" and I will have to think about why I rationalize that as being different and ok.

You've been reading too much Hume, and so recoil at the very attempt to integrate! Just put down the Hume and back away slowly.

[SapereAude]

You've been reading too much Hume, and so recoil at the very attempt to integrate! Just put down the Hume and back away slowly.

Haha.. nice try but I've always read other philosophers. There's no concern of my slipping into the error of integrating his mixed up bits into my thinking.

Rather, and I hope not too off-topicky, I was pondering why it is we ("we" as in people who follow individualist philosophies) allow for some grouping together in categorizations but not others. If you look over forum posts you'll see the pattern. It's not that we do integrate that I take issue with- it is that I'm trying to suss out the pattern of what Objectivists allow for integration in and when they recoil at it as a matter of course.

[Grames]

I was pondering why it is we ("we" as in people who follow individualist philosophies) allow for some grouping together in categorizations but not others. If you look over forum posts you'll see the pattern. It's not that we do integrate that I take issue with- it is that I'm trying to suss out the pattern of what Objectivists allow for integration in and when they recoil at it as a matter of course.

Uh, have you read the little book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology? That is a pretty complete answer to this question. Then there is standard logic and the recognized fallacies such as "reification".

I think my "keepers vs. gainers" conceptualization is defensible because it is about method, and you can find both methods used in conjunction with a variety of moral codes without dictating what qualifies as a moral code. Nor are the methods contradictory (everyone needs to be both), so there is no dichotomy inherent in the distinction. There is an epistemological parallel in focusing on what you already have versus focusing on the unknown. I think "keepers vs. gainers" could be fruitful as a style distinction.