Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ Technocracy 3 years, 9 months ago
    Even if they realize the negative effects of Altruism, they have two big road blocks to tossing it away.

    Road block 1 - People in general prefer being part of a group, the larger the better. Objectivism is based on individual rights and responsibility. A base group of 1 requires more self confidence than many people will ever have.

    Road Block 2 - Just in case mind set. Those that are not enamored of Altruism still like the largesse of others it promotes. Even though nowadays little, if any, is voluntary. After all, that largess comes in handy if you have problems yourself. So they support it weakly, Just in Case.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 years, 9 months ago
      2 is like an insurance policy. It makes me imagine a thought experiment where before birth I knew I would be born into a world that taxes my wealth to help the poor or one that doesn't. In this experiment, though, I would not know whether I would be born to a family that provided for me as a young child or if I would have a body and mind capable of producing things other people want. I would certainly choose the gov't-enforced-alms society (that's god-awful!) for the same reason I buy insurance. I'd rather pay the premiums in exchange for limiting my risk.

      I actually support limited gov't programs to help the poor, but for the same reason I support taxes to fund the police. Let's remove that reason within this thought-experiment. Suppose it's proven that it's impossible for gov't programs for the poor to provide a non-excludable benefit the way policing does. Now I have to answer if I support gov't programs for the poor that really are a form of alms. I do not believe in gov't-enforced charity, but I would choose that world in this thought experiment.

      I imagine someone smarter than I am about all this writing a story where someone chooses the altruistic world in the before-life, lives half a lifetime, and then somehow gets the chance to cross over into the selfish (in the good way) world and shudders to see the real price of altruism.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
        The notion of imagining chances of dependency in advance of being born instead of basing ethics on choices that must be made here in reality in accordance with causality is John Rawl's misnamed Theory of Justice, thoroughly dissected and dispensed with in Ayn Rand's “An Untitled Letter” in Philosophy: Who Needs It. It's one more variant on collectivist premises used to rationalize every variant of collectivist politics from the Welfare State to Communism.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 3 years, 9 months ago
    I don't have any problems with someone being altruistic and giving away their stuff. It's their stuff. Where I object is when they want to be altruistic and give away my stuff. Often they want to give away my stuff instead of their own but take credit for their superior character.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
      Altruism means the notion that the basis of morality is sacrifice to others. "Voluntary" altruism only means voluntarily accepting a false, destructive ethics. As long as that false ethical premise dominates a culture it will cause statism and collectivism in politics.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 3 years, 9 months ago
        Altruism as practiced by government is forcing others to give their money/substance/etc. to others through taxation and social programs. This is government-sponsored theft and promotes the idea of elitism and a class-based power structure.

        This is wholly different than charity, which is a voluntary and individual act. Society would not exist if child-rearing - which is undoubtably an act of personal sacrifice - had the same moral fundamentals as altruism. I would strongly caution against trying to cast too broad a net.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 3 years, 9 months ago
        The typical liberal argues for increasing taxes on the rich in order to benefit the poor and other disadvantaged people. They do not, however, argue for increasing their own taxes. Technically, this isn't altruistic since they have no intention of sacrificing for others.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rbroberg 3 years, 9 months ago
    SHORT ANSWER: Because Objectivism requires individual RESPONSIBILITY.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by wiggys 3 years, 9 months ago
      Objectivists require being educated, and the government schools for the past 100 years have caused the population to be dumbed down. without knowledge of both altruism and Objectivism you will not know the difference. Therefore altruism becomes appealing to the uneducated.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
        There are a lot of educated people who accept and promote altruism. Altruism wasn't ever rejected in education. The individualistic ethics was always implicit in the right to your own life, liberty, property and pursuit of your own happiness in the American sense of life, but altruism was not explicitly challenged. The spread of destructive philosophical ideas in education is more serious than "dumbing down" education. Altruism appeals to both the educated and the less educated because that is what people are taught to believe across the culture.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by wiggys 3 years, 9 months ago
          if altruism appeals as you say to the educated that I believe is a contradiction in terms. yes they were educated to think altruism is good and by believing that it is demonstrates that are not in my opinion very smart.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
            Many of them are very smart and show it in many realms. A proper ethics is not obvious. If it were it would not have taken until the mid 20th century for an Ayn Rand to formulate it.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by wiggys 3 years, 9 months ago
              you obviously do not understand that the proper ethics existed, if it did not how could anyone discover it. altruism was not discovered it was created. capitalism existed and was therefore discovered. socialism, communism, fascism were also created. they too did not exist. all of theose who you think so smart who coddle altruism are in fact not smart. they too just like all politicians are looters. your knowledge of how Ayn Rand thought is very very limited.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
                Ayn Rand did not say that "the proper ethics existed". It did not and neither did capitalism, which resulted from the ideas of the Enlightenment, just like any other social system that comes into existence when certain ideas are practiced.

                No ideas of anything exist before someone formulates them. Correct ideas are based on facts of reality observed by a human consciousness. The ideas themselves are not in reality prior to consciousness formulating valid concepts. Discovering a principle does not mean finding it under a rock. It means using valid conceptual classifications to mentally formulate a general statement and then validating it. Knowledge is objective, not intrinsic or subjective. It is a grasp of the facts of reality in accordance with the conceptual means of human awareness. See Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objective Epistemology.

                No one created and formulated a proper ethics before Ayn Rand did. It did not exist. The facts of human nature that eventually gave rise to the concepts and principles existed. The principles identifying the standards for proper choice of action and their purpose did not. Please read her article "The Objectivist Ethics":

                "No philosopher has given a rational, objectively demonstrable, scientific answer to the question of why man needs a code of values. So long as that question remained unanswered, no rational, scientific, objective code of ethics could be discovered or defined...

                "Most philosophers took the existence of ethics for granted, as the given, as a historical fact, and were not concerned with discovering its metaphysical cause or objective validation. Many of them attempted to break the traditional monopoly of mysticism in the field of ethics and, allegedly, to define a rational, scientific, nonreligious morality. But their attempts consisted of trying to justify them on social grounds, merely substituting society for God."

                Please refrain from telling me that my "knowledge of how Ayn Rand thought is very very limited". You couldn't be more wrong and it is not an argument. Your dismissal of centuries of philosophers prior to Ayn Rand as "not smart" and nothing more than "looters" is profoundly anti-intellectual. It shows no understanding of how ideas and social systems evolved over centuries.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by wiggys 3 years, 9 months ago
                one last though for you to consider. existence exists. when ever someone discovers something it is because what ever it was did exist, and now someone discovers it. A=A!
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
                  Facts in reality exist. Prior to discovering how to classify them and formulate that awareness into concepts and principles, the principles do not exist anywhere. The same is true of any science. Newton's laws were not "discovered" already formulated under a rock.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 3 years, 9 months ago
    Hello richrobinson.
    Busy people without initiative or time to examine philosophic principles... to think... Emotion rules and feel good actions are always "well-intentioned." That is the trap for those that do not bother to think of it any further. It is a catch all mental tool of evasion, useful for avoiding the obvious, or the effort of thinking it through, and recognizing the pattern. Following up and checking one's premises may mean one must reassess much of their belief system. Some can be very set in their ways.
    Regards,
    O.A.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 3 years, 9 months ago
    Because the negative effects of altruism are not so obvious to many non-Objectivists.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
      And what is a "negative effect" is defined by one's philosophical standards. Altruism regards its destruction as an ideal to be strived for, not as a "negative".

      To see what is positive and what is negative requires formulating an objective ethics that begins with identifying the facts that give rise to the field of ethics. What is in your self-interest is a principle to be discovered based on the nature of man. That determines what is virtue and what is good versus bad. That is why the Objectivist ethics is called "objective".

      Altruism in contrast begins with the premise of sacrifice to others as the entire basis of ethics. It regards ethics as entirely social -- relating to other people through sacrifice as the ideal. It excludes from the province of ethics the entire realm of choices in your personal life, their affect on your life, and the idea of the life of the individual as the standard and one's own happiness as the goal. It begins with ethics as entirely social -- social sacrifice -- and does not recognize principles of social aspects of ethics as a consequence of ethical principles for one's own life.

      They see negative affects all right, and often don't personally like it, but don't allow that as a motivating ethical concern for what to do since duty to sacrifice is the entire basis and motive for what they consider to be ethical behavior. At most they scream for others to sacrifice more. For every altruistic act there is a beneficiary, and they want to be included as one in the orgy of increasing demands for sacrifice.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 3 years, 9 months ago
    Compulsory altruism is indistinguishable from theft and theft is a form of slavery.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ProfChuck 3 years, 9 months ago
      There are some causes that I chose to support. These include veterans support organizations, children's hospitals and the SPCA. However, it is my choice to do this not because of a sense of obligation but because they perform functions that I think are important. So in that sense it is not charity but a form of investment.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
        That is not voluntary altruism. You are supporting causes you value and want to help thrive, not sacrificing yourself on the principle that you must live for others.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ProfChuck 3 years, 9 months ago
          Exactly. I benefit in many ways from the success of the organizations I chose to support. However, the operative word here is "choose".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
            More fundamental than the right of political choice is the ethics it depends on. It is not ok to embrace altruism "voluntarily". It is a false and destructive ethics. You choose to support your values; altruists choose to sacrifice their values, and on that basis also choose to sacrifice yours. It's not the "choice" but the standards on which choices are made.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ puzzlelady 3 years, 9 months ago
    The negative effects of Altruism are not obvious to most people. People are steeped in the notion that they should be unselfish. They are taught by their religions and cultural norms that all are created equal, so don't bully, deprive, steal from or mistreat others. Where ordinary manners and respect don't suffice to indoctrinate them from childhood on, laws are put in place to criminalize aggressions and transgressing against others' equal rights.

    The purpose of all such behavior control is to secure freedom, safety, equality, peace, getting along, having basic needs met, and promoting friendships and preventing hostilities. "Love thy neighbor" and all that. Entire codes of morality were developed, with concepts of sins and virtues. Complex systems of laws were constructed to handle conflicts. On the largest scale, treaties were concluded to keep peace among nations.

    The "doing good" to others to keep them from doing ill to you is the basic premise in relationships. The Golden Rule of treating others as you want to be treated, of loving others as yourself has attempted for thousands of years to arrive at a protocol that would assure equal benefits to all parties. Yet the animal nature from which we evolved is underpinned by the choice of "eat or be eaten", when what we need is "neither eat nor be eaten" by our fellow man. So selfishness has a bad name, and altruism (mistaken for benevolence, generosity, charity, kindness, decency, consideration, respect) is seen as the great virtue in human relations.

    Only Ayn Rand saw altruism as what it leads to: total self-sacrifice for the sake of others. Thus the vast majority of people who buy into being good to each other view their being good as the very definition of altruism. And encountering the Objectivist denouncement of altruism and assertion of selfishness as a virtue turns most people against Objectivism, thinking of it as heartless and predatory. That's why.

    There is not enough emphasis on Ayn Rand's reformulation of the Golden Rule as stated in Galt's Oath, especially its second half: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I shall never live for the sake of another man, NOR ASK ANOTHER MAN TO LIVE FOR MINE." Without that reciprocal part, Objectivism gets a bad name. Coupled with Rand's praise of capitalism, which is seen as rapacious and greedy and breeds hatred of the successful and the rich, Objectivism is more readily viewed with disdain by the majority of the public, who operate on emotional conditioning rather than rational thought. That's why.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
      Ayn Rand was not the first to see that altruism leads to self-sacrifice for the sake of others. That is the way it was defined by its originator who coined the term, Auguste Compte.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rbroberg 3 years, 9 months ago
    The effects of altruism are not the concern of altruism. Cause and effect rely on reason, which must be reducible to percepts. Altruism reverses cause and effect. It does not observe the external world and seek verification using the method of logic, rather, it takes a belief and then forces that belief on the external world. Altruism discards the primacy of existence in favor or the primacy of consciousness. Who's consciousness? Does it matter. Thus, force.

    What binds an altruist to obedience to the law? Nothing particular. Looking back to the middle ages, the exemplar of altruism, what modern individual can assert the rights to life, liberty, or property were respected or even practiced casually, like a Christian song at Christmas celebration among self-confessed atheists? No one in particular.

    The confusion lies in the vogue of primacy of consciousness. The vogue, a bewildering irrationalist chic, is as an obvious phantom to the individual engaged in the pursuits of a mystic. Still, the practitioner somehow believes that he benefits from the propagation of the false worldview in a self-induced fog compounded by the laziness inherent in the necessary avoidance of reality. He seeks, like the compulsive gambler, one more roll of the dice at the table of destiny, slowly dissolving into a man who has faith simply because he has no desire to think... and no desire to change his course. And when the creditors come to collect, he devolves (lit.) into an animal that takes by force in order to propagate his habit.

    The altruist of your question is a casual altruist. There is safety in numbers, so to speak. So rather than play dice, he joins causes the gain him favor in the eyes of his god or his peers or or his fuhrer, as the case may be, not realizing that he has been struck by a plague of the spirit from which he and his comrades cannot recover until his entire generation has passed on into their sour graves to be forgotten for their lack of courage. Altruism feels safe to people and it is systematically propagandized by various powerful institutions that believe benefit arises from it's propagation, as if it were some shadowy currency to use when it was most needed. What the world needs to hear is not "Yes, we can [win with altruism]", but "no, I won't [dabble in altruism... ever]".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 3 years, 9 months ago
    Because seeing a person in need and walking by isn't something some can live with. Mandating altruism, via taxation, not no longer charity its theft.

    Technocracy Road Block 1 - I am not prone to be part of a group. I do however have empathy when I see someone in need. I have no objection to giving a few dollars, getting a meal for someone, or putting a few dollars of gas in someones gas can if its my choice.

    Technocracy Road Block 2 - I gave up on hedging my bets with a Creator some time ago - to many Christians its more about faith than works. I give when I choose because its something I want to do be that money, food or time.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 3 years, 9 months ago
    People see the negative effects of altruism (hand outs) when it affects their finances. However, understanding how it hurts not ony the recipient but also the society,takes more understanding than many possess. Going Objectivist also calls for them to confront the herd and stop acting as sheeple, a bit harder. They have to grap the whole conept befoe they are ready for Rand. Governemtn schools have made that very difficult.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 3 years, 9 months ago
      Yes. I have noticed if you complain about high taxes politicians usually threaten to cut social programs first. Guilt shames people into silence. Great point that it hurts the recipient as well.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ameyer1970 3 years, 9 months ago
    Because now days altruism is a stolen concept. People have no understanding of what it actually means. They think it simply means benevolence. They don't understand that as a moral code altruism actually means that you have no right to live for yourself and that you have a moral duty to live for the benefit of others. They believe that they can simply change the meaning of the concept to suit their opinion.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
      Altruism is often framed that way to sell it, but everyone who makes moral judgments based on sacrifice, including going along with political collectivism out of moral intimidation, is endorsing what it really means and is motivated by it. The tying of altruism to benevolence to help put if over is another fallacious package deal, not a stolen concept.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by philosophercat 3 years, 9 months ago
    Objectivism does not offer a moral code of behaviors that are good. It offers instead a set of moral principles as part of an integrated philosophical system which if you know it allows you to select the moral action in any situation. It is intellectual work to learn the philosophy and validate the moral principles. Tara Smith has translated the principles into a set of virtues following Rand. Accepting and integrating the virtues gets you pretty good moral standards but leaves you short on prescriptions. Just getting something vaguely moral out of the culture and feeling good about it is the easy course and Objectivist morality is hard work but very rewarding for getting clear about living among altruists.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by EdGoldstein 3 years, 9 months ago
    Ayn Rand wrote Fountainhead to answer that question. Her answer was that most people are not willing to think for themselves and if you are going to turn your thinking over someone else, you want to believe they are controlling you for altruistic reasons. Those who put their "faith" in others to command them, must believe those people mean good for them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Dobrien 3 years, 9 months ago
      Well said EdGoldstein,They have to believe that controllers have good intentions. They also must make excuses in their minds for the lies that are revealed as the end justifies the means. They likely could not explain what the end is.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 3 years, 9 months ago
    I remember seeing a documentary program on India in a segment regarding an Indian Banker going into rural villages to set up cottage industries. He taught the rural folk to dig wells, set up solar panels to power their cottage industries. He would be paid back from the percentage of the sales of their products. I thought this was a marvelous way of getting people to be industrious and out of poverty.
    I don't know if this same scenario could be used in the USA. It's better than robbing Peter to pay Paul, to use a colloquial phrase.In other words, taking tax payer dollars and paying the poor.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by helidrvr 3 years, 9 months ago
    Because Objectivism is far too complicated for most. I get much better results with the NAP - it's simple to explain and also touches people on an emotional level.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
      It is not too complicated. Everyone has a philosophy held in some form. Their emotional reactions depend on their premises. Appealing to emotions is not a substitute for understanding.

      On specific issues there are people with common sense who can be appealed to without their understanding Ayn Rand, but that isn't enough. Asking people to refrain from coercion will not touch anyone with a thorough altruist mindset.

      To correct the course of the country on a long term cultural scale against the trend of statism-collectivism requires a broad philosophical understanding, and that means reason and individualism displacing irrationalism and altruism. There are no shortcuts, least of all emotions.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 3 years, 9 months ago
    The negative effects may be obvious in early
    childhood: e.g., when someone grabs something
    of yours, you resist, and are called "selfish!" But over the years, with the belief in altruism pervading the whole society, the people all around you, the constant, and nearly earthwide,
    equation of selfishness with evil, it becomes
    far from obvious. I knew I was selfish when a
    teenager, and thought that I was therefore in-
    capable of love, and could never be happy. I
    saw the title The Virtue of Selfishness in a
    local library, and though I knew I was selfish,
    didn't think it could be a virtue. I nevertheless
    got the book (it was on a trading shelf), and ex-
    pected to find cynical arguments. But I was
    very intrigued. Particularly by the politics, which
    were largely my own.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 3 years, 9 months ago
    Perhaps it is the strict exclusive "either or" stance which neglects a possible middle ground where one can be selfish and also have empathy for the plights of others and thus be selfishly helpful without giving up one's individuality. Not every action needs be chosen by whether it is good or evil. I grew up in a family of 9 where we were not taught helpfulness but all learned it by example from our selfish atheist father who never would back away from someone who needed emergency help. He did not dedicate his life to helping others in some selfless manner but because he felt a selfish empathy for those in distress he would help. He could not pass by an injured person, even some lost drunk who by his own fault was losing his fight for life, without giving aid if need be. Money was not involved because we were never rich. I suspect there are many who have strong selves, who thus are able to have empathy, who can get past that exclusive "either or" when applied to choosing to act.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by brkssb 3 years, 9 months ago
    Altruism requires the absence of discrimination. Selfishness (self-interest) promotes support of others -- such as a scholarship for a budding scientist or payment of medical bills for a deserving friend or family.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 3 years, 9 months ago
    Because many people like getting stuff for free. They don't value a value-for-value proposition nor do they see the predatory nature of a government system that takes from some to give to others because they only imagine themselves on the receiving end.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 3 years, 9 months ago
      They don't just like it they become addicted to it. Ultimately, I guess, they think they are only hurting the wealthy and don't realize how bad we are all getting squeezed.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 3 years, 9 months ago
        Agreed. This also leads to an adversarial attitude towards producers (the wealthy) as well. We've seen those feelings stoked by many a politician and ne'erdowell, proclaiming that somehow those who worked owe something to those who do not work, or that those who do not work are somehow victims of someone other than themselves.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 3 years, 9 months ago
          Trumps election is fanning the flames of this. If Trump does half of what he wants we will probably see mass rioting.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Technocracy 3 years, 9 months ago
            We have already been seeing mass rioting prior to his election. Ferguson and Baltimore for instance.

            Things have gotten so skewed at this point a violence free correction is unlikely in the extreme.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 3 years, 9 months ago
              The Progressives are pushing for anarchy. Punishment for not voting the way we were told.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ Technocracy 3 years, 9 months ago
                With the real motive of anarchy and rioting providing an excuse to control the populace. Either through Martial Law (unlikely) or using DHS (more likely). Using DHS allows the fig leaf of it being a police type function. No matter what government control expands.

                DHS is its own agency, so political approval is not initially required. Easier far to ask for forgiveness after rather than permission before.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Yttrium39 3 years, 9 months ago
    Frankly, IMHO, it is because altruism is "easy" and objectivism is "hard" and when your end goal is feeling successful, easy beats hard for many people. Objectivism requires you to think rationally and strive hard to be successful. Altruism, all too often, is as easy as throwing some money at a charity and feeling good about yourself and that you have done something to fix a problem. You can pat yourself on the back after donating cans to the local food pantry and have a clear conscience that you have made the world a better place- and that is enough for many people. If you watch someone who is truly dedicated to making the world a better place, objectivist or altruist, you will see that both require hard work and rational thought. It is just that there is an easy way out on the altruist side of the equation. You cannot be a casual objectivist.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
      Sacrificing your values and wrecking your life by following destructive principles does not result in an easy life. Of course human life takes mental effort, but there are no shortcuts.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Yttrium39 3 years, 9 months ago
        But this has always been the challenge of converting folks to objectivism- using reason to convince the irrational of the rational. In the description of the Starnes' plan in AS, I think Rand got it right that besides short term thinking that pervades our culture, there is also kind of a unidirectional aspect of that thinking- which is everyone looks at what they can get from those richer than themselves, but forgets the masses worse off than they who are looking to do the same to them. To think that throwing the occasional alms to those below will satisfy them is a delusional yet common conclusion. Partially because many people are focused selfishly on altruism- I do this to make me feel good, not to solve the problem. And the types of problems altruism attempts to solve tend to be the most intractable in which solving them is impossible, and that gives cover to those who donate to feel good. They did something to help a problem, but then they are not expected to close the loop and come back to see if the problem is solved as that cannot be the expectation- see War on Poverty, etc.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
          The challenge has never been to convince the irrational. Ayn Rand said that she was out to persuade the rational; the irrational were not her concern.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 3 years, 9 months ago
      Good points. I would say most people "feel good" when they get the Government to take over a perceived problem. They feel good as if they "fixed it". In the end we pay higher taxes and the problem persists.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by coaldigger 3 years, 9 months ago
    Altruism is a means by which one man can make demands on the life of another by appealing to emotion, fear of the unknown, guilt, loneliness, pity, insecurity, greed, lust and any other emotional appeal that can be used by one individual or group to gain control over another. Unfortunately, mystics have institutionalized the method and have preached it for so long that it seems to be a basic truth. It is just so easy to accept the prepackaged tenets of slavery than to think for oneself. Without altruism the churches and states, as we know them, would be unable to exist.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 3 years, 9 months ago
      Truth. The educational system is being used for this type of indoctrination. If we are going to change anything I think it needs to start there. Hard to do because you are right about the Church and State. They would lose a significant amount of influence.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by coaldigger 3 years, 9 months ago
        Conveniently, an effect of blowing up government agencies frees up the educational process to become private, local and directed by the communities. I don't fear what is being taught locally because if you do not agree with their teachings, move to a different school. Collective, national systems are inescapable political propaganda machines.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
          Most people can't move to a different school. The public schools are monopolies. You're forced to pay for them through taxes and don't have anything left for a different school.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 3 years, 9 months ago
          The real goal of Common Core was to give the Feds and ultimately the UN total control over education/indoctrination. Trump has promised to end it. Let's hope he follows thru.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo