Treize_Dreizehn:
The whole objectivity philosophy is seriously flawed. It's just a complicated way of saying "I'm selfish and you should be too". "John Galt" is the antithesis of altruism and an entirely two dimensional character in book that is otherwise quite boring if not for the central conceit that only through self-interest can the world function properly.
That particular conceit lets the whole thing graduate from "boring but readable" to doorstop.
And if you're interested in the concepts of Ayn Rand, just skip towards the end. There is a 70 page long speech(literally 70 pages in the original version) in which a character explains in detail why government interference is bad and pure capitalism is good. If you can stomach it, that is.
You miss the entire point of Objectivism and you miss the whole point of the rejection of 'altruism' as personified by the character John Galt.
First, Objectivism recognizes the right of the individual to the right to live life unmolested. That means that in a just and objective system, the rights of the individual can never be infringed for the purpose of 'the common good'. Under that premise, if you are to subjugate your rights as a free agent to the 'common good' (collectivism) you are reducing yourself to the role of a sacrificial animal. If you live your life for others you accept by logic that others live their lives for you. We then become each other's slaves because if you are living your life for the benefit of others, you are making yourself a slave. Also, if you accept 'altruism' in that form you are asking others to be your slaves by living their lives for you.
What you feel is irrelevant. What you have objectively concluded as a result of your own experience and knowledge and decided upon under that basis is what is important.
"Altruism", and in fact the entire ethos of Western Civilization is flawed. Under that ethos, you are asked to sacrifice your own well being for the sake of others and they for you. This is the root of all of the problems of the world. Just ask the person being sent off to the concentration camp. The guard says, "we are sending you to your death, but we are no murdering you.
You should be happy to die for benefit of the common good." This is what happens when the state is allowed to determine your individual rights in the context of the 'common good'.
Altruism is to be rejected because it is subjective, not objective.
You donate to charity not because it is rational but because it makes you feel good. By being altruistic, you are being selfish in a hedonistic fashion.
You say: "We must feed the poor and less fortunate."
I say, "Why?"
You say, "Because it is immoral not to do so."
I say, "how do you pay for this?"
You say, "By taxing people."
I say, "You know what is immoral? Taking what is produced from one person by force and giving it to another who did not work for it is immoral. If you think by your own standards that someone needs help, you give them your money and food. Don't loot me to give it to someone else because it makes you feel better. That is theft in the same way that if I have no house it gives me the right to take yours by force."
Altruism is a lie. It is a sham. If you want to help someone, give them your money and not mine. If I want to help them, I will give them my money of my own free will and no other way. If you want to steal my money and give it to someone else to satisfy whatever guilt you have, then you will have to come and take my money at the point of a gun."
In Objectivism, you don't say, "
Gee, if I give this poor bastard some money because he is poor, It will make me feel like I am doing something good for society"
In Objectism you say, "how can I give food and money to this poor bastard in a way that benefits my rational self interest and encourages him to do the same?"
If you give a man a fish, you will feed him for a day. If you steal one man's fish and give it to someone, he will be your slave.
The other point of Objectivism you have totally misses is the fact that if you come up with an idea that is good, why should you not benefit from your efforts? If you do not benefit from your efforts there is no reason to exert your efforts. Simply giving your ideas away to benefit the 'common good' is bullshit. You make yourself a sacrificial animal in the process.
Look at it this way:
Say you are a rich capitalist. You own a big corporation. You produce a product or service that is needed. You make lots of money in the process and which you invest to provide more goods and service for people to buy and benefit from, and hence buy more of your product.
Now say everyone envies you for having accumulated such wealth. They hate you because you have more than they do. They tax you 'for the common good' and say, "all of your profits should be taken away and given to those who have no drive to do what you do. It's only fair!"
Now suppose you decide that that since I have no reason to do anything because if I do nothing the government will just loot others to pay for me just sitting on my ass and do nothing.
Now suppose everyone else who did the things that make our modern civilization decided to just go 'John Galt' and withdraw their support of civilization.
What if all the rich people said, "we have no desire to enslave you, therefore we set you free. We have no desire to cause you harm therefore we shall just go away."
Where does all the money come from that runs the world? Where do the ideas come from? Certainly not from the people who drone around on other people's money. It's just a matter of time before the producers decide to withdraw their support by not producing because their is no motive to produce. Then comes being forced to work at the muzzle of a gun. Can you say Soviet Union or Nazi Germany? They are the same. All for the benefit of The Father Land, Mother Russia or 'The Common Good'.
People say Ayn Rand was wrong. I say she was right.
What did we see happen today? President Obama signed yet another dictatorial and unconstitutional Executive Order that said you cannot hire or fire anyone who works for you without 'justifying' it to the IRS. And you can't quit your job under 'ObamaCare' without justifying it to the IRS all in the context of avoiding ObamaCare!
Shit, you can't be fired or quit your job anymore! This is great!
I can go to work, do nothing, and I can't be fired without the IRS approving it! I can do nothing, collect a paycheck and I can't be fired! This is exactly and precisely what Ayn Rand details in
Atlas Shrugged.
The best thing that anyone who has a brain and works for a living can do now is to simply 'go away'.
Society hates the rich who provide job. Society hates those who accumulate wealth and the capital to produce industry which provides jobs and products. Society hates those who achieve and wish to benefit from those achievements. Society hates those who excel at what they do. Society hates achievement.
So, what are those who achieve and wish to achieve to do? Simply go away and let society be happy in the fact that those whom they hate have gone away. And when then there are only takers left and no producers of wealth society and civilization simply fails. The engine that runs the world stops.
And here's the irony - I obey the rules set forth by Ayn Rand, I benefit others by providing the means for them to benefit themselves by their own work. If I and others like me go away, the whole thing fails.
You have to pay for all these 'Altruistic' programs and at the same time you want to kill off those who produce the money to support your 'altruism'.
The man who bites the hand that feeds him licks the boot that kicks him.
Think of yourself first in terms of rational self interest and you will benefit the whole the most.
Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOBO3ehh0uI
