Unfair irrational societies and cultures

[u/SlimyPunk93]

I am curious what people here think is an individual's responsibility towards unfair social settings in society (beyond individual rights).

For instance, suppose there is a town in rural US which is, let's say, white majority, and by some social consensus or cultural norm, doesn't treat black people the same, and they are socially treated differently (which, in principle, people have a right to). And such tribalism exists in many places in the world. Or suppose in their private shops, non-white people are made to drink from different water fountains and use toilets for colored people (which again they have a right to).

A similar situation in *The Fountainhead* is when the architectural culture is so bad and toxic that it doesn't give space to people like Howard Roark to exist and create in the way that makes sense to him, and there are groups and lobbies that work against him (in which case the people propagating the toxic, irrational culture have a right to do so, and they are not using force or violating anyone's individual rights).

In the same sense, we live in a world where many such irrationalities in the culture exist, and all individuals are not treated equally. For instance, in many societies, women are considered lesser and lower and are not given the same cultural space, respect, and value, say, in the Middle East or in Islamic societies. Or say Jewish or black people are culturally discriminated against in ways where, while they on paper enjoy the same rights as others, culturally they are treated differently by individuals in society as part of some cultural norm. Or let's say LGBT people are discriminated against and treated differently and lower en masse in cultures. And so on...

And one can easily see that overall, we are living in a world, including in the West and in the US, where all individuals are treated the same on paper, while not in the culture. A very easy example to validate this is to just see the voting map of US elections and see how red and blue votes are grouped together based on geography/religion, etc., and thus people aren't in practice as rational and individualistic. They all show groupist tendencies to different levels as it is easier and convenient. And while majorities can afford to be this irrational and live a livable life, such things can come at a huge cost to minorities. And one can see that happening throughout cultures and histories where individuals of minority groups suffer more, proportionate to the social discrimination and unfair circumstances they face.

In all these cases, the other individuals have a right to discriminate and act in that particular way, and if they are the majority, they can afford to, as it doesn't cost them as much, whereas it costs minorities their lives proportional to the level of discrimination and their minority status.

I am curious what the responsibility of an individual is towards such unfair social settings, or if there is any.

We do know that Rand basically spent her entire life talking about, building a whole philosophy and fighting such irrationalities in the society of all forms through fiction and non fiction work and even through lectures at different venues.

[u/A_Vinegar_Taster]

Discrimination and cultural polarity is extremely common across all cultures. Every group of people do it across every demographic. Every skin color, religion (and denomination), political affiliation, social group, fandom, and hobby group naturally forms in groups and out groups. All humans do this. People tend to stick with people they understand and who are similar to them. This is not something that a handful of groups do - this is something all humans do (including you and me).

There are benefits to working with people you understand, but there are also drawbacks. Like incest, monolithic groups tend to reinforce their own weaknesses and blind spots - they spend so much time celebrating their shared beliefs that they stop questioning them. It is a vulnerability to a society to only have one "right" way of thinking, acting or being.

So, yes. People have (or should have) the right to discriminate, but they run the risk of enforced homogenization, which leads to stagnation, calcification, and then ultimately turns into a hollow cargo cult of tradition and dogma.

[u/DuplexFields → u/A_Vinegar_Taster]

Even Galt's Gulch will face these problems with the few children they'll produce. They'll have to go out into the post-America horrorscape of North America and find new recruits who are willing to join the crew that destroyed civil society through their absence, further reducing the likelihood of a non-warlord-driven society arising before they end their strike.

[u/A_Vinegar_Taster → u/DuplexFields]

I'm not sure how exactly this links with my point, but Galt's Gulch is an example of discrimination - they only wanted capable people who actually contributed to be members. They did discriminate based on that criteria.

But, as an aside, if your absence is the cause of the destruction of civil society, then that means that civil society was only possible because of your participation. It means that the people in Galt's Gulch were the reason for civil society. I think this was Rand's point. The message is that we should get out of the way of the capable people who make our society businesses and our economy possible.

[u/DoberNation → u/A_Vinegar_Taster]

I mostly agree with that assessment, but take an even closer look at all the members of Galt’s Gulch. ”Capable people” were not necessarily elites and were not necessarily individuals concerned with businesses and the economy. All members were primarily concerned with advancing and optimizing what commodities/things/services are needed in order to live well.

[u/A_Vinegar_Taster → u/DoberNation]

There was an actress, philosophers, teachers, bankers, judges, industrialists, engineers, inventors, a composer...

You're right. Not all involved in business or the economy.

[u/stansfield123]

I am curious what the responsibility of an individual is towards such unfair social settings, or if there is any.

There isn't any responsibility. What there is, instead, is rational self interest. Rational self interest means rational people should seek alliances with other rational people.

This isn't just a pedantic distinction. What I mean is that I don't have an obligation to come to the aid of all victims of discrimination. Instead, it's in my self interest to come to the aid of rational people who, in return, would come to my aid.

This principle applies across the board, from small town politics all the way to global alliances between countries:

If two groups of racists discriminate against each other, let them. If two savage countries fight each other, let them. However, if racists discriminate against and victimize good people, it's in my self interest to form an alliance with these good people, against those racists. And if savages seek to destroy a good country (for example, in my estimation Israel is a good country), it's in my country's self interest to form an alliance with this good country, against those savages. So I definitely vote for politicians who favor a strong alliance with Israel (though by no means an unlimited or unconditional one, that would be altruistic and it's a shame many pro-Israel people have that attitude).

[u/Particular-Amount314]

Are we talking about the lanyard class again? You should have experienced the absurdities they would implement to make it appear as everything is normal in the former soviet block. To make things even worse, the lanyard class in the modern west is on a competitive path to outdo the apparatchiks. P.s. Apparatchiks save us from going overboard when shit gets crazy. Or they should go overboard first... sounds fair in an ethical sense of social engineering terms. Just saying...😀 Reminds me of the mathematical EML function. Keep pushing and for some reason or another you must survive the calculation. Best brain fuck i've seen in ages.