Objectivists value other people in proportion to how much that person is productive. ~ Richard (in comments)Or, to put it another way, if the Good Samaritan sees a rich man lying by the road who had been mugged for his purse the Objectivist will help him because such a man is worthy of being helped. If, however, the man by the road is poor and was robbed of his last two quarters that man is of no value and it is a sin to help such a person.
As it has been practiced by conservatives and the Republican Party, compassion is a limited virtue. If a banker while trying to exploit less sophisticated borrowers finds himself in financial distress then it is incumbent upon the government to help him because the banker is a man of worth, he is important. The less sophisticated borrowers, being less worthy, ought to be made to suffer for their poor decisions.
So the borrower, victimized by the sub-prime mortgage shell game, loses his home. The banker, the man of worth too big to fail, finds ready cash at the Fed window and every effort take to make him whole. This is how Objectivism is practiced in the real world. Some charity is needed to prevent collapse of the economy but the charity goes only to the most wealthy, to the most worthy.
The True Objectivist is far more heartless. He wants the economy to dissolve into chaos if that is to be its fate. For it is only from this cleansing that the truly worthy can rise. Better the Götterdämmerung than compassion.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread. ~ Anatole France
4 comments:
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Only if your understanding of Objectivism is limited to a scene you saw in Dirty Dancing could you believe such a claim.
From my understanding, Objectivism values individual rights and the fulfillment of personal goals above all. There is quite a difference between saying you value the realization of your goals, and saying that someone on the street who is not currently realizing their goals is worthless. Having a lot of money, or no money, says nothing about your personal interests and goals.
If I am entirely self-reliant by my own choosing, I have no money, but I have upheld the highest of Objectivist ideals. If instead I con people out of money and have a bottomless bank account, I am rich but I have violated individual rights and am thus seen as immoral to Objectivists.
If a bank has conned someone out of money, in any way, the bank is immoral in Objectivists' eyes and should be brought to justice, no matter how large the bank. If however a person has signed an agreement without fully understanding it, or while understanding it but wanting money ASAP, they should be held to that contract. As always, it depends on the circumstances of each situation. I have never seen an Objecetivist espouse a universal "big corporations are good"/"poor people are bad" view.
As you seem not to have any knowledge of Objectivism, and while you are on the topic of money and the economy, I would suggest for starters that you read "Francisco's Money Speech" from Atlas Shrugged, which another blogger posted in its entirity yesterday.
Objectivism as practiced by conservatives in the United States is as close to theoretical Objectivism as Communism under the Soviet Union was to theoretical Communism.
Under theoretical Objectivism the banking/mortgage crisis would be solved by allowing everyone to fail so that those with the resources or skills to survive the resulting disaster will thrive. Economic Survival of the Fittest.
As practiced by conservatives those worthy of survival, the rich, are helped to survive.
Objectivism, like Communism, is a sick philosophy made worse by how it is implemented in the real world.
I have a dream. In that dream, people who know nothing about Objectivism will refrain from spouting pure drivel. I fear my dream will remain unrealized.
I have to agree with Brian and Mark. Knighterrant, your understanding of the epistemology and practical applications of objectivism are ill founded. You seem to believe that a man's value stems from the size of his wallet rather than his abilities or his rational mind. You need to check your premises. First of all, any true objectivist would NEVER, I repeat NEVER, approve of acts of corporate welfare. We believe in trading value for value. Now I ask you, where do you find the value in throwing money away at failing companies with no expected return on that debt? Secondly, giving money to these looters and frauds is like the government paying a bank robber for a successful heist. Any layman can see that something isn't right with the situation even if they don't exactly know what it is.
What you need to keep in mind is the basic function and purpose of any business or company. And that is simply to produce and make money. That's it. It's as simple as that. Any business that holds as its' foundation that serving others and acts of larceny, fraud, and deception are the means to maintain and produce wealth will not last for long. Because when there are no more hosts to steal and feed off of, these so called "business men" (parasites), will die off.
Now one thing I found to be particularly aggravating about the bailouts is that they try and justify it my claiming it will save jobs. Which to me states that people who have no jobs or are on the verge of losing one, have a moral claim to my hard earned cash by means of taxes, which inevitably will raised in order to pay back this deficit. I should not be forced to provide these people's means of existence. My ability to hold a job and make more money than the guy next to me, should not be his moral claim to my wealth. What has begun to happen on a serious scale as it has been done for centuries is that people are being rewarded based on need instead of ability. That their misfortunes or irrational choices are their moral claim to me. And if things continue on this downward spiral you will find that the people of ability will be in shackles, working as slaves for these looters until it will eventually claim their life.
Now I could go on forever about this and I'm sure there are many points that I have either overlooked or simply didn't bring up. Nor can I put my thoughts into words as logically and fluently as Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikhoff. But I know what is right and I know what is wrong. ANd knighterrant, you are so very very wrong.
Post a Comment