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.

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.

Damn logic.

I never said altruism achieves any lasting good. I only said people think it does. Furthermore, what most people think of as selfishness, is actually spite.

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.

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.

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.

Estienne de la Boetie explained this very well in a short book written almost 500 years ago. People prefer slavery and will enlist in it every opportunity they get. They prefer to lose everything, have others dominate them and plunder them as long as they are promised that they can participate in the plunder and be protected from having to produce effort or threat of others. You can give people freedom and they will quickly sell it for a mess of porridge, i.e. the USA.

The Indian banker was probably denounced and vilified as establishing a 'company town'.

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.

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.

Exactly. I benefit in many ways from the success of the organizations I chose to support. However, the operative word here is "choose".

If it were covered the treatment costs would tank every economy in the world.

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.

In practice, altruism requires discrimination against the best.

Unfortunately, I believe this is true. Obama started it and Trump is capitalizing on it for his ends.

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.

Yes, and that is why they are manipulated by appeals to collectivism like "pay your fair share" redistributionism.

Trumps election is fanning the flames of this. If Trump does half of what he wants we will probably see mass rioting.

Progressivism in presidents started long before Coolidge.

A proper ethics is practical. Pragmatism does not work. Neither does altruism. There are no (living) consistent altruists. To advocate altruism as something that "works" (for oneself?) while rejecting self interest is a contradiction.

Those who accept altruism have rejected their own interests as moral. Altruism leaves its adherents in a state of duty to sacrifice to others while leaving as a matter of principle no guidance in the entire realm of personal choices in one's own life, rejected as irrelevant to the field of ethics.

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.

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.

Hi Carl. Agreed.

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.