In defense of a second hander

General Discussion

In defense of a second hander

rca411 07-27-2009, 11:40 AM
So my question is this:

If a person is a gifted social engineer, would it not be a violation of his integrity to follow the philosophy of Ayn Rand and subdue that part of his personality?

Roark uses building materials arranged in such a way that only his individual mind could to affect his ends and realize his creation. Toohey, likewise, uses the masses' willingness to submit to collectivist ideals in the same way. They are both using tools and resources to build structures.

I think this is a valid question concerning Rand's work.

Re: In defense of a second hander

AndrosBlaze 07-28-2009, 7:40 PM
I would say it is not. If anything, it is a boon to his character. Of course, there are caveats.
I've found, given a cursory glance, two definitions of social engineering that affect the answer I can give: one, the definition as social engineering as it applies to political science, simply deals with affecting societies on large scales (as Toohey did), and the other, the definition as it applies to security, involves techniques used to extract information. I'm going to go ahead and assume you don't mean the second kind.

There are, I think, three factors, in order of importance, to be considered before judging whether or not a social engineer compromises himself by following Ayn Rand's philosophy: the intent of the social engineer in his work, the methods he used to achieve success, and the cause or agency for which he worked.
If the intent of the social engineer is to construct a society based on reason or individualism (or both), then a change to Objectivism would not compromise him.
If the social engineer campaigned through the spread of information, such as through a news publication, which requires readers' cooperation to read, then a change would not compromise.
If the social engineer worked on the behalf of a private firm, or on his own, a change would not compromise, because in the case of the former he would be performing the task he was hired to do, and in the case of the latter he would be acting for his own satisfaction.
Of course, the primary factor to consider is the intent: the cause, the message, the result he is aiming for. A communist lecturer, a kind of social engineer, would be betraying himself if he were to abandon communism for Ayn Rand. A politician trying to push for a bill increasing property taxes would be betraying himself.
Secondary to the intent are the methods: social engineers who use force obviously cannot be Objectivist without abandoning their work.
Finally, consider the source: is the social engineer, like prior examples, working privately or for a government? After all, if a government's role is only to secure rights, what business does it have in engaging in social engineering (the answer: to create in its nation social movements that hold equal regard, thus making its job easier)?

Let me ask you this: are you not, by posting this question on a publicly-accessible forum on the internet, engaging in a form of social engineering yourself? What medium could be more influential on society, and more beneficial to the Objectivist movement, than the internet?
For your consideration.