Charity is personal and voluntary and can have objective value in personal gratification. Altruism is a duty. A duty, by implication, is enforceable. Words have meaning and confusing the meaning of those words makes consistent communication difficult, to say the least. It is also done intentionally to confuse issues and make manipulation easier.

I copied this from a comment to a post several months ago;
I have mentioned the destruction of language in a few other conversations and, to me, it is a very important topic. I don't know if there is any way to stop it but it is important to understand it, recognize it and call it out whenever we see it happening.

From the Ayn Rand Lexicon; "The “stolen concept” fallacy, first identified by Ayn Rand, is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends"

The most well known word (to Objectivists anyway) is selfish which is regularly utilized to lump the Bernie Madoffs and the Bill Gates' into one basket.
The most contested seems to be altruism which is equated with charity (to say otherwise gets people fired up) and is used to impose a duty upon people. (It takes a village)
I'm sure most of us on here have had the "two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner" discussion whenever someone blurts out "we live in a democracy, after all".

Don't forget that we don't know what the meaning "of the word is is."

Sounds like an interesting book.
I will say, from what I have learned; those that blame money as the root of evil are the very same one's that blame the gun, the drink, the corporations and at the very same time it is they that have usurped, stolen and used it for demented purpose while the rest of us simply use it as a medium of trade, (anything we might agree has intrinsic value for all). We use it for survival, food, health, retirement and to help others as well. Those [that are normal] that have in abundance, use it to capitalize others so that they'll hopefully do the same; this exchange is what makes the world go round...not the medium itself.
Ayan was correct in pointing out that our wealth, our property and our ideas are ours to do as we please.
I say, Humans will naturally, without cause nor pointed fingers will always share what ever abundance they have with those they have determined worthy.

Thanks very much! A big part of my professional career has been translating within the same language - inventors, patent examiners, investors, entrepreneurs, adults, kids all have different meanings for the same words, and so you have to figure out how to explain the same principles in very different ways, often by building up from very simple, agreed concepts, That's what I'm trying to do with the book. Thanks again for the good idea on terminology.

Aargh (because I agree with you, but haven’t successfully communicated it). In most of the people I encounter, the word “altruism” just means “being generally nice to people” or “doing good things for other people.” They do not have a precise definition of the word or sophisticated understanding of the philosophy at the inception of that word. But, because of their understanding of the word, I say “objectivism is incompatible with altruism” and they hear “objectivism is incompatible with being friendly or nice,” and thus they see meanness instead of freedom. I am not trying to obscure the vital differences, but rather trying to reclaim the high ground. The real meanness is when someone enslaves another (takes the result of their labor without free and voluntary trade). Objectivism results in more wealth, more goods, more politeness, more of pretty much everything desirable.
E.g., when I coached a youth soccer team for no pay, many people would call that altruistic (in the colloquial sense). But I did it not for self-immolation, but because I liked seeing the kids learn, and I liked watching the games played, and knowing that I helped create that. I received value directly in trade for my services, though it did not first get translated into money. I apologize for starting the discussion with a term with such critical, but double, meaning. Perhaps the first statement of the idea should have been something like “doing good things for others, without getting paid directly in money, is compatible with objectivism.” The book has an illustration why buying a stale fundraising candy bar can be an objectively motivated, wealth-maximizing transaction, and not a self-sacrificing one. What do you think?

Rather than using "altruism," which has already been defined by Compte, I'd suggest using "enlightened self interest," which is a much more accurate term for what you're arguing.

You just don't get it; ojectivism and altruism are NOT compatible! If you look around the world you will see very clearly that ALL altruistic actions lead directly to poverty and all things associated with it. Objectivism promotes capitalism, which means freedom and that is what caused the world for the most part to leave poverty but because altruism has reared its ugly head the world is going back into the state of poverty.

One important clarification - I am NOT arguing in favor of Comte's teaching, or trying to square it with objectivisim. Rather, "altruism" is also associated generally with concern for the welfare of others, or doing things that benefit others (without any more rigorous thought about why). I think that is compatible with objectivism, since you must do something that benefits another if you want value in return from them. I am trying to strategically recharacterize what the world (and objectivism) agree on about "doing for others", without accepting the obligation/no self aspects of Comte.

Agreed, and I think your view of altruism is how you reconcile objectivism with what are usually called altruistic acts. The book suggests a definition of wealth that lets you explain what is usually called altruism as part of selfish (with no moral judgment attached), wealth- maximizing trades. Since even so-called altruistic acts are part of individual trading decisions, the key boundary is whether you can force someone to be altruistic (the justification for so many government program). I think that’s much easier to argue as wrong – there are many programs someone can support on a voluntary basis (food banks for the hungry, your local sports team) that would be wrong to make mandatory, subject to threat of government punishment.

Thanks for the feedback. This is exactly the kind of discussion I think we need to have. My words about altruism and objectivism are shaped by the current political arguments and definitions, and intended to help strategically as we participate in those debates. E.g., one common argument is “ we should be altruistic”, and the counter (philosophically) is “we shouldn’t.” But the important debate, I think, is not over whether a person can believe that altruism is good, but whether it is right for them to force others to act on that belief. They can argue for individual altruism all day, as long as they don’t use force. But their argument for altruism is usually only the cover for an argument for forced participation. So we are tricked into arguing against altruism, an argument that we don’t need to win, instead of arguing against forced altruism, an argument that we win by definition. If I choose to give $5 to a hungry man, I am altruistic (although the book puts forth a more comprehensive view of wealth that makes my $5 gift potentially still value for value). I can even convince others to donate, and they might then be acting altruistically. But what happens when we encounter someone who won’t donate? If we force him, then he is not being altruistic; he is being robbed. And we are not altruists, we are thieves. We are not against feeding the hungry, we are against using government force to compel someone to feed the hungry in some mandated way. The argument is not that the government shouldn’t be altruistic; it is that the government by definition cannot be altruistic. Our line of defense (and argument) should be against government force to compel participation in someone else’s view of “helping.” Everyone who ever disagrees with something the government does is potentially an ally in that argument.

I purchased my current car by putting 100s clipped together in stacks of $1000 on the table. It's amazing how that works, even at decent-sized company that owns three lots.

I do believe you have nailed it. If Mother Teresa can be used as an example, she thought she was buying herself a greater place in heaven by her 'good works'.

hear hear

Yes! . the knowledge and service given to us as new humans
are given voluntarily, thus engendering no obligation.
this is a fundamental misunderstanding, Mr. Comte!!! -- j
.

For this fellow; Altruism; theory:
what is the moral code of altruism?The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self sacrifice is his highest moral, duty, virtue and value.
Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which , in fact altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute , is self-sacrifice--which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction--which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.
source THE AYN RAND LEXICON

I don't believe that real altruism exists (except maybe within a very close family). When people give to non-profits or other worthy causes, they are trying to achieve goals important to them for selfish reasons, whether they've thought those reasons out very well or not.

I buy cars on the phone. I know what I want and give the dealers a chance to quote. Only when deal is made do I actually go to the dealer. They have 60 min to complete the paperwork. Still works this way

The book sounds interesting, but either you do not understand what "altruism" means philosophically. I wish you would have consulted us before you started down this line that somehow altruism can ever be squared with objectivism.

Auguste Comte was the person who created altruism and this is what he had to say.
Auguste Comte's version of altruism calls for living for the sake of others. One who holds to either of these ethics is known as an "altruist."

The word "altruism" (French, altruisme, from autrui: "other people", derived from Latin alter: "other") was coined by Auguste Comte, the French founder of positivism, in order to describe the ethical doctrine he supported. He believed that individuals had a moral obligation to renounce self-interest and live for others. Comte says, in his Catéchisme Positiviste,[2] that:

[The] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service.... This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely."

Hopefully you can see that this is completely incompatible with objectivism.

Now, how to apply that effectively as a voter.
Oh, you bought a boat and sailed away.
Not scalable though. Not enough boats.
And when the market responded to supply boats, then there would be a big federal sales and departure tax invoked, with a kickback to large boat builders who contributed to campaigns.

altruism is immoral to begin with. the world is being destroyed at this very moment because governments to include the that of the usa are altruistic and the people (I think the missing links) from the arab world are pushing their way into countries so they can be taken care of. of course the governments who are allowing or encouraging this activity do not care who has to support them; tax payers of each country. If you as an individual happen to want to help someone or 100 that is your business and should never be discussed otherwise.
I also think you want to promote your book.

The actual quote from the Latin (radix malorum est cupiditas) is literally translated is "greed is the root of all evil". This is more universal in that people lust for all kinds of things...power, sex, love, etc. I chose the quote I did because it was tongue in cheek and lent itself more to the 'root/route' thing.