Hear, hear, for the disabled veteran! I didn't serve and my recent family and friends thankfully came home safely. The bargain of enlistment should guarantee that catastrophic care. It is certainly "sold" that way. Those backing away from it usually didn't spend any time in the military.

It allows for it, yes. It just doesn't mandate it.
Except in certain defined situations. (I'm not Ayn
Rand, and don't want to presume to speak for her,
but this is how I understand it). If parents bring a
child into the world, and the innocent child is mentally retarded or disabled so that he never
can grow up to full mature competence, they
have the obligation to care for him as long as
they live, and to make provision for his care af-
ter their deaths, should he survive them. Also
if there is some sort of contract or prior obliga-
tion, such as a disabled veteran's getting care
as compensation for his service.
---It is certainly allowable in the case of a loved
one, or friend, provided no one else's rights are
violated thereby (minor children must come be-
fore a friend, naturally). After all, personal
value counts for something.

I typed a response but didn't see it come on the
screen after I sent it. I signed out of the yahoo
network and signed back in , and came back to
the Gulch to start over but I'm not getting referred
to the sign-in place.

What? It allows you to care for anyone you care to in any way you wish. That is the point. Actual caring versus introducing coercion of others and daring to call that "caring". Everyone can practice as much charity and other types of caring that they wish to.

You mention that "Downies" can hold a job and I fully agree. However, the Liberal Left would rather hold them down as the "Victims".

Don't even get me started on Special Olympics.

Great question.

I have a disabled son. I don't see anything in Objectivism that would indicate we shouldn't care for those with disabilities.

Just this morning, driving in to work, I was struck by something. As my pickup rolled up to some railroad tracks I saw a homeless person with a blanket over their head, wondering around by the tracks. It's very cold out this morning. I looked back at them and thought...What in the hell is wrong with my country? Why do we allow this? All this damn rhetoric about helping the needy...all this damned B.S. altruism is shoved down our throats, starting in early elementary school. Yet, honestly, we crap on those who really have needs. My own son doesn't go to our school district. They, flat-out, refused to take him (a public school that we all pay for). When we started to fight them, they had CPS take three of the children of a woman I was working with to fight the district. They were willing to destroy a family, rather than just obey the altruistic laws that they had set up to HELP DISABLED CHILDREN! That was a major turning point in my life - a major wakeup call.

As an Objectivist, I have really come to realize just how precious the mind of man is, and how we should guard it from birth. We don't, as a society. In fact, we're doing the opposite. Look at what's happening to the neurological health of our children. There is no way America can afford to care for the coming wave of people with mental disabilities. The railroad tracks are going to get crowded...

Well said. Thank you!

I think there are exceptions to every rule and that too much of one thing (objectivism) is not good accept love❤️ That's the only thing you can't have enough of

So if your dog gets sick and provides no finc benefit to you your just saying let it die right in front of you😁?

Entirely not sure what you mean no your paragraph please rephrase😊

Strongly DISAGREE people's that can't take care of themselves need help even if their red Chinese!!!

That's the impression I got from the book before I got sick now I will have a totally diff view when I read it again soon

Tough tough one I only agreed with about 60-70% of the book due to her fridgedness

I am happy to see the answers to my question. I was curious how people took objectivist ideas in regards to those less capable. The whole concept is the right to choose your own path not a path chosen for you by others.

I guess that I should have said that I'm GOING to have tea... I live on the east coast. I looked up the two books that you recommended. They sound like good reads, so I'll put them on my ever expanding list to download to my KIndle. Thanks for the tip.

Many here have laid out the "choice" vs. "duty" in charitable care. I've just started David Kelley's book Unrugged Individualism, which presents it as benevolence vs. altruism. Beyond those who are not authors of their own problems, I believe there are some who may just need a reminder, as much as the food I delivered. A look and a handshake with no pity or condescension might make the difference.

My father was once Mobil's first environmental engineer. He took care of me quite well when I was a kid. Now he has a very bad case of Alzheimer's disease, and I am taking care of him. I am not living my life for his sake, nor did he live for mine, but as family does, we take care of each other because it is in our own long-term self interest.

you must be on the west coast. I am reading "an edible history of humanity by Tom Standage. I read his "a history of the world in 6 glasses" For history buffs they are quite informative.

Thanks, I will. You, too. I'm having tea while watching Downton Abbey; then reading Brian Kilmead's book on Thomas Jefferson and Barbary pirates at bedtime.

have a good rest of the day.

An Objectivist who is concerned about this situation might step in to help. They might set up a charity, solicit donations, and manage the group home. But if it isn't important to you, then it isn't your duty. If this isn't important to anyone in an entire society, then in that society, they will die. But of course in that society, no one would be upset about those deaths.

absolutely. Deducting from your taxes does not discredit your charitable act. It just means that the government gets to steal less money from you.