Trio and Friends

We have no laws in this valley, no rules, no formal organization of any kind. We come here because we want to rest. But we have certain customs, which we all observe, because they pertain to the things we need to rest from. So I'll warn you now that there is one word which is forbidden in this valley: the word 'give'. (p. 655)

There are no children in Atlas Shrugged. Or more precisely, children are mentioned one or two times, but their status is not discussed or made a part of the plot. It seems to me that a child cannot but violate every principle Ayn Rand is preaching in this book. Their parents give them being, care for them, support them, and provide for them, as a matter of pure gift, before they can know of their child’s virtue or absence of virtue. Every single human being starts their life utterly dependent on others, without the capacity to give anything in return. Should the parents keep a careful log of all they have done for their child, and bill them when they are old enough to pay it back? If not, why not?

What is the financial value of raising children? Ayn Rand might say, “None, but if people want to raise children and can afford it, then let them.” But what if, in the race to acquire wealth, nobody wants to raise children because it costs too much and sets them at a disadvantage financially? Society would end in ca. 40 years. Yet raising children is not treated as a good, does not contribute to the GDP. Anyone who raises children does so at enormous personal expense, even though society desperately needs them to do it for its own survival.

There are no children in Atlas Shrugged. Or more precisely, children are mentioned one or two times, but their status is not discussed or made a part of the plot. It seems to me that a child cannot but violate every principle Ayn Rand is preaching in this book. Their parents give them being, care for them, support them, and provide for them, as a matter of pure gift, before they can know of their child’s virtue or absence of virtue. Every single human being starts their life utterly dependent on others, without the capacity to give anything in return. Should the parents keep a careful log of all they have done for their child, and bill them when they are old enough to pay it back? If not, why not? 

There are no children. I think this is for other reasons which I will try to get to when I finish with this first set. I think Rand has not squared with another set of truths which are inconvenient for her and quite troublesome to fit in the story, especially with Dagny.

Children are a bit of a different case. Suppose a parent decides it is no longer worth it. Should they cease supporting their child? Would that be virtuous compared to begrudgingly continuing on? I am conflicted on this one. On the one hand some parents do leave their children, sometimes we take children away from the parents for their own benefit, and the children seldom die from this. So this scenario is somewhat tempered than at first blush (this does happen often, and the children survive). If the parent begrudgingly caries on and raises the child resenting their existence, it might actually have been better for the child to be raised elsewhere. But in any case, I don’t think it is virtuous to abandon your child even if you resent them. I don’t have clear thoughts on this, though. It’s something like, you have implicitly agreed to take care of them. They didn’t ask to be. You made them. And you knew before-hand that they would depend upon you. In this sense they do have a claim on you.

What is the financial value of raising children? Ayn Rand might say, “None, but if people want to raise children and can afford it, then let them.” But what if, in the race to acquire wealth, nobody wants to raise children because it costs too much and sets them at a disadvantage financially? Society would end in ca. 40 years. Yet raising children is not treated as a good, does not contribute to the GDP. Anyone who raises children does so at enormous personal expense, even though society desperately needs them to do it for its own survival.

In the past it was a financial asset to have children. Their labor on the farm with chores apparently outweighed the financial burden. It is no longer true when we no longer farm and the contribution of a child to the household would now be considered theft (I’m imaging, say, the child working from 15-20 years old at their first job and paying into the household pool before striking off on their own). In any case, we in the West have responded as expected. We have far fewer children. But you boil it all down to finances too quickly, I think. When you judge what is good and right and meaningful, trying to decide what you want from life, you are not so one-dimensional. It is true you want to acquire wealth, but when you have enough you usually decide added work on that front is not what you want. Other things have value too and wealth was never really the goal anyway. Wealth is just the agreement with the wider community of what value you have put in. They will then help you with things you are not willing or able to do. Once you are able to contribute enough value that what you want is satisfied, you can decide what else you want. Most people decide they want a mate, and children. For a man this usually means you had better be putting lots of value in because otherwise you will not have your pick of mates. I could go on but I think the point is made: wealth is very seldom the goal in itself, or if it is the person has not thought things through to the end. So I don’t think there really is a race to acquire wealth. Very wealthy people tend to be those for whom the other things they want in life align directly with what other people want from them. In other words they can continue doing what they want and they just continue getting more wealthy because everyone finds it very valuable. (There are many other factors as well but I think this is a significant one)

Yet raising children is not treated as a good

It is in the more conservative circles. And they also have more children. It is the pop culture that looks down on women for serving in traditional roles. The only time mothers are praised is if they are SINGLE mothers. Then they are so strong and brave.

society desperately needs them to do it for its own survival.

Really, why? I mean I know technically if everyone stops having children then we will all grow old and die. But not everyone is going to stop having children. So, the population contracts a bit because of lower birth rates. What happens then?

Ondrej wrote:But you boil it all down to finances too quickly, I think. When you judge what is good and right and meaningful, trying to decide what you want from life, you are not so one-dimensional. It is true you want to acquire wealth, but when you have enough you usually decide added work on that front is not what you want. Other things have value too and wealth was never really the goal anyway.

I agree very much with this. I don't think that it's all about finances. In fact, I think that capitalist ideology "boils it all down to finances" too quickly as well. At least, it does this when it justifies itself morally on the basis that we now have all this wealth and technology that we didn't have before. To be sure, all else being equal, I'd rather have wealth and advanced technology than be without it. But all else is not equal. We show what we value by what we invest our time and energy in. What if, as a society, we'd devoted our time and energy to wisdom, virtue, beauty, and good relationships instead of to wealth and technology? We may have had a bit less air conditioning, less flashy cars and cellphones. We may have had to live in multi-generational houses instead of having the ideal suburban nuclear family. We may have been able to have fewer vacations abroad. We may have less of the comforts of life. But we may also have had fewer divorces, fewer broken families, fewer alcoholics, abusive husbands, rapists, and have needed fewer prisons.

Anyway that's not the main point here. The reason I brought up children is that it seems to be a weak point in Rand's philosophy. If you give a child only what it has earned or deserved, it will die a few days after birth. Children must have abundant amounts given to them freely before they can deserve it, and certainly before they can earn it. Rand doesn't seem to say anything about this.

And if it's true of children, can it be true of others? What about siblings and parents? Do they have a claim on you, or should you treat them according to their virtue just like you treat everyone else in the world?

I have to admit, the problem of my children and whether they should receive care is so far removed in my mind from whether or not my neighbor has a claim on my property that I'm having trouble seeing the parallel. I mean, I know what you're saying but they are such different things I'm not sure I can compare them. I mean, do I get to set rules down for my neighbor because his behavior is unacceptable to me? I want the best for him so I'm taking his credit card and selling his car because I really don't think he can afford it? I'll tell him, no, you can't go on that vacation, you need to work overtime this week, this is your opportunity to make a nice stack of cash and you know that bill is coming. It's not the same thing at all. His business is his business. And it will be that way with my children eventually too. But for the moment I am caring for them. I don't know many people who say it is not worth it. That they will not happily sacrifice for their children. You also do not just give the child whatever they want. Their demands upon you also have a limit. When you judge that the child is not benefited from having something or that you cannot afford it or whatever (you're grumpy and tired), then you say no. And it's no big deal. You say no all the time. "Here's how it's going to work, kiddo." They don't have a claim. Now that I'm stepping through the logic. You give what you deem to be appropriate and you hold back what you deem to be appropriate. Their wants are relevant but not of primacy. And they certainly cannot CLAIM that you give them whatever. You scold them for such an attitude. Or at least you should.

In fact, I think that capitalist ideology "boils it all down to finances" too quickly as well. At least, it does this when it justifies itself morally on the basis that we now have all this wealth and technology that we didn't have before. To be sure, all else being equal, I'd rather have wealth and advanced technology than be without it. But all else is not equal. We show what we value by what we invest our time and energy in. What if, as a society, we'd devoted our time and energy to wisdom, virtue, beauty, and good relationships instead of to wealth and technology?

I don't know about "capitalist ideology". Here's how I look at it. Finances, money rather, is the unit we use to measure value. It is a tool to compare usefulness and effort and availability etc. All kinds of things can be compared using money. If you are making money (honestly) it means you are providing value to other people and they are paying you for it. You are attending to them and their needs. You are considering them. I also think that "making money" was not the goal of the founding of the US. It was freedom. I think when everyone is free to make their own way in life, and you begin with moral people (most of the first settlers were Christians trying to live somewhere where they could practice their religion without persecution from the state), then everyone tries to find how they can "make money". Which is to say, how can I be of value to everyone else given the constraints of morality. What emerges is a world superpower with so much abundance that the new problems are that everyone is fat and, what is more, can afford to be lazy. This is nothing short of a miracle. Never in history could you afford to be lazy, but lots of us can today. You have to have self control not to eat to much and exercise. We got here not because of capitalist greed but because we were free to cater to even the most trivial wants of others. And because of our abundance there was extra money to pay for even the trivial wants.

The divorces, broken families, alcoholics etc etc. I think is a symptom of us turning away from the morality of our Christian roots; that which brought the prosperity. We are also turning away from freedom. More and more rules, less and less trust. With less freedom and less morality, I don't think capitalism will do much. It doesn't really do much anyway. It just says don't steal, other than that you're on your own. Figure it out. What you quickly figure out is that "on your own" is not great and you'd better think about and consider other people; get along with them if you want to survive. Money is how you trade value, so you'd better be making money.

I think the boiling down to finances is an attempt to put a number on value produced. How do you know you are providing value to someone? They say "thank you"? That's not reliable. People will say "thank you" just to not hurt your feelings. So how can you be sure what you are doing is valuable? Someone is willing to pay for it. This is their honest opinion. They are willing to exchange their work, i.e. their money; their effort, for what you have done or made. Now you know for sure (roughly speaking) that you have provided value to someone else. Money keeps you honest, grounded in the truth (if you are operating "above board"). It makes you have to square with the reality of your situation. That's why most businesses fail and why most of us go to someone else to tell us what is important that we should be doing. Because what is important is not obvious (most businesses fail) and we can do plenty of things but we don't know what to do that will be valuable to people. Then we ask why. And the business owner, not well versed in philosophy nor having a day to reflect and discuss it with you comes up with the best way to describe it in two words, "make money".