The Fountainhead and B Obama

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

After a year and a half of Obama and the philosophy that he embraces, are we ready yet for a REAL American philosophy? And yes I know Ms. Rand was Russian. But she is more the quintessential American than most Americans, especially Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Barney Frank.

“As a matter of fact, the person who loves everybody and feels at home everywhere is the true hater of mankind. He expects nothing of men, so no form of depravity can outrage him.â??
â??You mean the person who says that thereâ??s some good in the worst of us?â??
â??I mean the person who has the filthy insolence to claim that he loves equally the man who made that statue of you and the man who makes a Mickey Mouse balloon to sell on street corners. I mean the person who loves the men who prefer the Mickey Mouse to your statueâ??and there are many of that kind. I mean the person who loves Joan of Arc and the salesgirls in dress shops on Broadwayâ??with equal fervor.”

2

The day such a philosophy is set at the forefront of a small(er) government opposition, will be the day said opposition killed itself.

Altruism isn’t the enemy of small government. Hyperindividualism, is. On the one hand, altruism is the backbone of a stable civil society. On the other hand, atomistic individualism destroys associational life. In this void, human beings (in their self interest), with their present weakness–or through the consideration of possible future weakness–in mind, will look to a distant power to provide the promise of security and stability a more local civil society might have provided in the past. All of this, out of self interest. And politicians, out of self interest, will line up to provide.

3

Truly the classic definition of drivel, this is a borderline of religion, a dedication to a belief in something that never was or never will be. I donâ??t get it.

4

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The day such a philosophy is set at the forefront of a small(er) government opposition, will be the day said opposition killed itself.

Altruism isn’t the enemy of small government. Hyperindividualism, is. On the one hand, altruism is the backbone of a stable civil society. On the other hand, atomistic individualism destroys associational life. In this void, human beings (in their self interest), with their present weakness–or through the consideration of possible future weakness–in mind, will look to a distant power to provide the promise of security and stability a more local civil society might have provided in the past. All of this, out of self interest. And politicians, out of self interest, will line up to provide. [/quote]

Couldn’t agree more.Very well put.

5

I am sure that I will come to regret entering this discussion. It always comes to the same end.

Sloth, to discuss altruism in the context of Ayn Rand, you have to do so using the same definition and concept that she used. Not your definition. Not Obams’s. Not your preacher’s or your congressman’s. You have to use her’s and her’s alone.

In the simplest sense, Ayn defined altruism as the sacrifice of a greater value or good to a lesser value or good.

To sell your prized heirloom in order to raise money to buy food for your child (or any child) is not altruism or sacrifice if you value the child more than the heirloom. It is altruism if you do value the heirloom more than your child (or any child).

The problem always begins when people conflate altruism with charity. They are not the same thing, yet people come to use them interchangeably.

Charity is simply benevolent giving. It does not involve the destruction or degradation of the giver. One simply gives within ones means in order to help some entity that is in distress and unable to help itself at the moment. Charity is not coerced. The moment coercion or force comes into play it ceases to be charity and becomes altruism . There is no longer any benevolent giving, only forced destruction of value.

Therefore, any government (preferably small), should encourage charity and abstain from altruism (forced redistribution of wealth). Altruism is the backbone of only the most depraved of societies.

6

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The day such a philosophy is set at the forefront of a small(er) government opposition, will be the day said opposition killed itself.

Altruism isn’t the enemy of small government. Hyperindividualism, is. On the one hand, altruism is the backbone of a stable civil society. On the other hand, atomistic individualism destroys associational life. In this void, human beings (in their self interest), with their present weakness–or through the consideration of possible future weakness–in mind, will look to a distant power to provide the promise of security and stability a more local civil society might have provided in the past. All of this, out of self interest. And politicians, out of self interest, will line up to provide. [/quote]

You are 100% wrong, altruism always results in the use of force. Where the objectivist will not use force till force is used against him/her.

Altruism is the tool of morons and tyrants.

7

[quote]JEATON wrote:
I am sure that I will come to regret entering this discussion. It always comes to the same end.

Sloth, to discuss altruism in the context of Ayn Rand, you have to do so using the same definition and concept that she used. Not your definition. Not Obams’s. Not your preacher’s or your congressman’s. You have to use her’s and her’s alone.

In the simplest sense, Ayn defined altruism as the sacrifice of a greater value or good to a lesser value or good.

To sell your prized heirloom in order to raise money to buy food for your child (or any child) is not altruism or sacrifice if you value the child more than the heirloom. It is altruism if you do value the heirloom more than your child (or any child).

The problem always begins when people conflate altruism with charity. They are not the same thing, yet people come to use them interchangeably.

Charity is simply benevolent giving. It does not involve the destruction or degradation of the giver. One simply gives within ones means in order to help some entity that is in distress and unable to help itself at the moment. Charity is not coerced. The moment coercion or force comes into play it ceases to be charity and becomes altruism . There is no longer any benevolent giving, only forced destruction of value.

Therefore, any government (preferably small), should encourage charity and abstain from altruism (forced redistribution of wealth). Altruism is the backbone of only the most depraved of societies. [/quote]

x2

8

This is Big-Government philosophy

"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

–Playboyâ??s 1964 interview with Ayn Rand

9

[quote]John S. wrote:

You are 100% wrong, altruism always results in the use of force. [/quote]

No it doesn’t. Self-sacrifice is not the forcing of others to sacrifice. That’s the definition of a paranoid.

10

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

You are 100% wrong, altruism always results in the use of force. [/quote]

No it doesn’t. Self-sacrifice is not the forcing of others to sacrifice. That’s the definition of a paranoid.

[/quote]

The problem is self-sacrifice always turns into people forcing others to sacrifice for them. Watch the democrats force the “rich” into paying for everything.

11

[quote]Sloth wrote:
This is Big-Government philosophy

"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

–Playboyâ??s 1964 interview with Ayn Rand

[/quote]

Charity is not a moral obligation, the second you view it as such you welcome in big government.

12

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
This is Big-Government philosophy

"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

–PlayboyÃ?¢??s 1964 interview with Ayn Rand

[/quote]

Charity is not a moral obligation, the second you view it as such you welcome in big government. [/quote]

I suppose it depends on where you get your morals from.

Charity is a big part of every major religion. And by ‘big’ I mean, ‘basic tenant’. Therefore, making it a moral obligation, if you believe morality comes from God.

That doesn’t necessary imply the government should institutionalize it though, which is what Rand is usually portrayed as arguing against.

13

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
This is Big-Government philosophy

"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

–PlayboyÃ??Ã?¢??s 1964 interview with Ayn Rand

[/quote]

Charity is not a moral obligation, the second you view it as such you welcome in big government. [/quote]

I suppose it depends on where you get your morals from.

Charity is a big part of every major religion. And by ‘big’ I mean, ‘basic tenant’. Therefore, making it a moral obligation, if you believe morality comes from God.

That doesn’t necessary imply the government should institutionalize it though, which is what Rand is usually portrayed as arguing against.[/quote]

If charity is a moral obligation then you are saying others have a moral right to your money. We end up right back with a big controlling government.

14

One of the few books I wish I hadn’t read.

What a waste of time this was.

To others who are unsure: Cliff notes or the wikipedia entry would suffice entirely here.
You can also talk with your hamster instead, watch the Andrew Blake collection twice over, train for a Masturbathon etc -
You won’t miss anything important.

Or better, read a good book instead.
You can’t go wrong with classic western or eastern philosophy. For other recommendations, check various T-Nation book threads, eg:

15

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
This is Big-Government philosophy

"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

–PlayboyÃ??Ã?¢??s 1964 interview with Ayn Rand

[/quote]

Charity is not a moral obligation, the second you view it as such you welcome in big government. [/quote]

Nay. The second a society no longer holds charity as a moral obligation (indifference), is when it becomes a collection of cold, indifferent, strangers. And while times are good an individual might wear his individualism on his sleeve, suddenly finds himself weak and alone in crises, surrounded by neighbors who care for little beyond their own private interests–often not even knowing each other’s names–there is no civic society to catch his fall. However, this isn’t just limited to those currently in crises. Indeed, anyone capable of imagining the possibility of themselves being swept up in some future crises, could see a potential disaster. So, what do they do? Out of self interest they decide they want federal safety nets. How many lower/middle class persons are going to rely solely on his indifferent neighbors to help him pay an unaffordable hospital bill? Or, to keep his cupboards stocked in his old age? To help rebuild his burned down home? To send his impoverished child to college or trade school?

Rand is a villain. She’s the useful idiot of true collectivists. She’s the one they all point to and say, “See? Told you about them free-market types.” I can feel some pity for her, since she experienced communism. But, it doesn’t erase the fact that she was a paranoid who made an enemy out of the good. It’s her followers who should know better.

16

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
This is Big-Government philosophy

"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

–PlayboyÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??s 1964 interview with Ayn Rand

[/quote]

Charity is not a moral obligation, the second you view it as such you welcome in big government. [/quote]

I suppose it depends on where you get your morals from.

Charity is a big part of every major religion. And by ‘big’ I mean, ‘basic tenant’. Therefore, making it a moral obligation, if you believe morality comes from God.

That doesn’t necessary imply the government should institutionalize it though, which is what Rand is usually portrayed as arguing against.[/quote]

If charity is a moral obligation then you are saying others have a moral right to your money. We end up right back with a big controlling government. [/quote]

A moral obligation need not be a legal obligation. Moral obligations can often be enforced by shaming, and even shunning. Moral obligations can be nothing more than widely held customs and norms. Perhaps there’s no law that a husband must risk his life, if even in the slightest way, to save his wife from rape. Yet, I’d hope that our society still sees it as the moral obligation of the husband to risk even his very life to protect his family.

17

No, I give to charity and I do not hold it as a moral obligation.

Once you put charity as a moral obligation you have accepted collectivism. If it is a moral obligation then your society will make it into a law and you go right into communism. Then the “charity” will be robbed by the politicians and your society will eat itself when the money runs out. Don’t believe me, watch what happens when social security runs out.

18

John S., can you tell me please what you do consider a moral obligation, or is it just one of your empty words?

19

[quote]John S. wrote:
No, I give to charity and I do not hold it as a moral obligation.

Once you put charity as a moral obligation you have accepted collectivism. If it is a moral obligation then your society will make it into a law and you go right into communism. Then the “charity” will be robbed by the politicians and your society will eat itself when the money runs out. Don’t believe me, watch what happens when social security runs out.[/quote]

Collectivism - Wikipedia. Do you see your self as totally independent ? Or do you need others ?

20

[quote]Sloth wrote:
This is Big-Government philosophy

"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

–Playboyâ??s 1964 interview with Ayn Rand

[/quote]

Can you imagine how embarrassed I am right now. Having read all of Rand’s works multiple times, literally thousands and thousands of pages, only to discover I could have got it all in edited form from reading Playboy.

Actually, this is an example of the classic “bait and switch.” We were discussing the concept of altruism, and you seamlessly transition to a out of context quote concerning charity.

My whole point was that they are not the same. That they have become conflated. Her battle was not with charitable action. She was neutral on the topic, as it fell into the area of individual self interest and ones value hierarchy.

Again, the issue becomes one of coercion or force. Who’s values are supported? Who gets to decide?

Charity allows me to give as much or as little to any person or entity that I value to the degree that I value it.

Altruism is an aberration of the concept of charity in which others get to chose how and where to give charitably of my money, time, or life.

This is why I said I was hesitant to enter the discussion. It always seems to turn into some tortured version of Abbot and Costello’s “Who’s on First” routine.

As it turns out, I am not a follower of Objectivism. As I have stated elsewhere, I believe Rand to have overestimated man’s ability to consistently act in his rational self interest. I do, however, think she best conceived and expressed a critical stage in mankind’s development.

I have no problem with valid criticism of Rand. Unfortunately, I find most of the criticism of Ayn and Objectivism based on misunderstanding and misinterpretation. Few have actually read her works, yet have come to think of her as the philosophical equivalent of Gordon Gecko (“Greed is Good!”) They pervert her message to one of self gratification at the expense of others. “Do what you want and fuck everyone else!” This is simply wrong.

For those that have an interest in digging deeper, this topic is covered in much depth in this previous thread: