We have the right to spend our money as we wish. But at the center of our philosophy must be the understanding that some forms of help may be toxic, IE, they build dependency where the alternative is the goal. Some people are beyond providing for themselves. And there we may have to donate to dependency, but only where we will do no harm.

Having managed group homes for people with severe autism and profound mental retardation, $5Au can say that none of these folks will ever acquire enough skills to live independently. For many, basic self-care skills are an immense challenge. At some point, parents get old and can't care for them. Without societal help, they die. A strict Objectivist who holds to a purely Darwinian perspective might find this unfortunate but acceptable. Your thoughts?

Another idea to consider is to actually deduct the contribution, and contribute more equal to the tax savings - thereby redirecting the states' cut to the charities of your choice. Your net contribution would be the same, and you would redirect what would otherwise be government spent funds.

You are allowed to care for whomever you want, but we are forced to by the parasites, they claim that it is our civil duty to provide money for their homes, meals, and the clothes on their back. I truly say that a person always has something that another person wants, you can always sell your time, labor, or an idea. People have lost the ability to help themselves. I do not give any charity money, I give rewards to teach them what it means to produce something. This world needs more producers and less parasites.

Yes, I agree. Reading more of A.R. is always a good thing.

I may be wrong, but I think that this person simply needs to read more of Rand to begin to understand objectivism.

Let's also remember that "help" doesn't necessarily mean money.

It might seem to be a question that doesn't need to be asked, but lazaruslong seems to be rather new to the Gulch and may simply be puzzled. Or perhaps he wants some good answers to refute what his liberal acquaintances have to say about conservatives being mean-spirited and selfish. If that is his reason for posting his question, then the Gulchers have given him some good ammunition today.

I have read the comments and think that the real corner case here is whether or not a person who cannot support themselves (ie in a coma) and who has no friends and relatives who can support them should be cared for by taxes if voluntary donations do not suffice.

Employable Down's Syndrome cases and loving families miss the point of the question.

Jan

perfect logic! -- j
.

I am with you, WS! -- j
.

private means of support are good;;; government is not.
govt uses force to take value from some and give it
to others. -- j
.

A person can choose to be charitable, to help others, and that, the choice is an honorable and sincere thing. It is when a person is mandated to help others, taxed or coerced, that charity is no longer charity; nor is it sincere. This has nothing to do with Objectivism and everything to do with freedom. If anything is taken from you without your consent, and you are given no choice in the matter, it's stolen.

My uncle was severely handicapped, both physically and mentally. My grandparents cared for him, although he was difficult to care for and in the end, had to be sent to a center for handicapped adults. The key to my grandparents "selflessness" was that they valued my uncle.
Objectivism is unique in that you are allowed to donate to whatever cause you find valuable, and to help whatever person you choose to. It isn't regarded as a duty to care for the handicapped, poor, or ill. It is a choice like any other, and Objectivism recognizes your right to make that choice.

Why am I not surprised. Your liberal friend expects us to listen to all kinds of liberal trash but condemns a short grace before a meal. What is she afraid of!

If I remember right, it was while in high school in the 1960s that I heard that a Catholic Cardinal(?) said the church was getting out of the charity business, and that such was the role of the government. Maybe someone else here remembers. My thought at the time was, this is the beginning of the end of the USA.

It allows for private charity, since charity is a function of an individual, or a voluntary association, not a government.

But perhaps you ask: can one behave consistently with Objectivism by caring for another who cannot support himself? Well, hasn't it occurred to anyone that a mutual trade might obtain here? And that trade need not be intimate. It can just be a matter of "I like having this person around."

The answer depends on your reason for caring. From an Obj.ists point of view:
1. If you care for someone because you truly value him, then you are not sacrificing yourself and you are acting morally.
2. If you value him but provide "support" to the point of sacrificing yourself (e.g. it gets well beyond your original intent to help but you can't turn back), then you may end up sacrificing.
2. If you care out of a sense of duty, then you are sacrificing.

"Allow" is not the appropriate word; but I assume you meant "does Obj. say that it is proper to".

Your comment that you don't deduct charitable contributions attracted my attention. I would suggest that charity would still have meaning if you did because the tax rate is far from 100% and since taxation is extortion, giving the minimum that you can seems a good idea.

I heard Rand speak exactly the same words. All of Rand's friends heard that same question all the time, of course, and had a standard answer ready.

Meanwhile, I once suggested to a politically liberal friend that churches should handle charity, and she said it is immoral to require that someone have to hear a prayer when he is given a bowl of soup.

Right you are! The politicians should not be in the enforcement business of handing out money...mainly to appear like Santa Claus to get votes. Instead, charity should come from churches and individuals. If I didn't have to give so much of my tax money to the moochers, I would have more to give to the charities that I support.

Splendid response! I provide assistance to those I choose to. I don't deduct charitable contributions from my income when I file taxes (inherent extortion) because I feel charity should have meaning.

As many Objectivists will tell you, if you want to help them no one will obstruct your desire to do so. Further, if you are particularly interested in a specific charitable cause, you will also be free to organize an institution for helping that cause. And by the way, there's nothing wrong for you to get paid for your efforts.

The problem is not whether or not to care for someone. The problem is whether one has a duty to do so. Objectivism logically shows why no such duty exists. That means that programs that use the forced confiscation of wealth for such activities are immoral and should be illegal in an ethical society. However, no one has the right to stop anyone from using their legally acquired wealth for any moral purpose, and that includes giving it away.

lazaruslong has not responded to any of the answers. maybe he feels foolish for even posting the question.