21

Statists, collectivists, altruists, progressives

Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years ago to Philosophy
95 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Statists, collectivists, altruists, progressives

These are some of the groups that are the most objectionable to objectivists. Their ideology is most closely aligned with socialism.
They often masquerade as Liberals, but they are not traditional Liberals of the period prior to the early twentieth century. They are the antithesis of traditional liberalism… of objectivism. Individualism is not a value they wish to foster. Self reliance, autonomy, sovereignty are the characteristics they wish to destroy or minimize. These were the foundational traits of those that built our nation and which it was founded on. Rand saw that the prosperity and Liberty of the people of America were inextricably linked to these characteristics and the corollary small, un-intrusive government. It was this state of governance and freedom that allowed people to pursue their aspirations, that fostered the industrial revolution, invention, entrepreneurship and creativity of the greatest age of increasing prosperity the world had ever seen. This period was the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.

Statists are those that believe that the government should be empowered over the people and that any problem that arises can be solved by government intervention. This is a fallacy of historic proportion. Anyone that objectively observes the unintended consequences of government meddling and that the bureaucracy always grows should recognize the lack of accountability and the increased burdens placed on the productive that inevitably results. Statists support other statists in power that believe they know better than individuals how to run their own lives and more authority should be granted to the government so they may force others to live as their utopian vision dictates. One’s individual will to live for their own sake on their own terms in pursuit of happiness is irrelevant. “A statist system—whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or “welfare” type—is based on the . . . government’s unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. The differences among statist systems are only a matter of time and degree; the principle is the same. Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims.” Ayn Rand

Collectivists are those that believe in majority rule. Democracy is their cry. It is no better than mob rule. They care not for Republican principles or the wisdom the founders of our nation saw in them or the disdain they felt for true democracy. History has demonstrated repeatedly the folly and short lives of true democracies. Most Democrats and the Democratic Party are of this persuasion. Of course there are varying degrees of adherence but they are not called Democrats for nothing. There is also one more seemingly common believe among them that is also corollary. They believe in the common good over the rights of the individual. This is nonsense since the common good is not a superior moral principle over the rights of the individual, but it is often true that a side effect of upholding individual rights results in greater common good. Again they employ the voice of the majority… the mob to pressure government force on those who wish to be free from coercion. “Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group—whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.” Ayn Rand

Altruists are the worst purveyors of sacrifice and servitude. They believe you have no greater responsibility than that to your fellow man. Your life, your good, your happiness and prosperity should be sacrificed to others. You have no right, no legitimate claim to live for your own sake. To every suffering person on the planet your duty is to support them even to your own detriment. That is your burden. Your life is not your own and you have no right to live it as you see fit while others need. Whether they are responsible for their condition, capable or not, it makes no difference. Their need is their claim upon your life, whether you know them or not, even if in some cases they may be better off than you. This is why they too convince the government to force/institute redistributive programs that take from the productive and give to every clamoring voice. The result is a system that grows and encourages takers and penalizes makers while increasing bureaucracy and building a constituency that will help maintain power for those in power. Some in power are altruists. Some only see the profit in playing the part. “Even though altruism declares that “it is more blessed to give than to receive,” it does not work that way in practice. The givers are never blessed; the more they give, the more is demanded of them; complaints, reproaches and insults are the only response they get for practicing altruism’s virtues (or for their actual virtues). Altruism cannot permit a recognition of virtue; it cannot permit self-esteem or moral innocence. Guilt is altruism’s stock in trade, and the inducing of guilt is its only means of self-perpetuation. If the giver is not kept under a torrent of degrading, demeaning accusations, he might take a look around and put an end to the self-sacrificing. Altruists are concerned only with those who suffer—not with those who provide relief from suffering, not even enough to care whether they are able to survive. When no actual suffering can be found, the altruists are compelled to invent or manufacture it.” Ayn Rand

Progressives cover the gamut. They are all of the above in varying degrees. They talk of needing modern approaches to problems largely created by their previous meddling and never recognize, or acknowledge that originally established principles and limited government was superior and equality of opportunity is far superior to attempts to produce equality of outcome. The two primary political parties are both invested in these ideologies, but the modern progressives and the most devoted, effective and destructive of the parties in this regard are the self- proclaimed progressives, which largely belong to the Democratic Party. There are worse political parties, (e.g. Socialist) but they hold little power. “The “liberals” are constantly asserting that they represent the future, that they are “new,” “progressive,” “forward-looking,” etc.—and they denounce the “conservatives” as old-fashioned representatives of a dead past. The “conservatives” concede it, and thus help the “liberals” to propagate one of today’s most grotesque inversions: collectivism, the ancient, frozen, status society, is offered to us in the name of progress—while capitalism, the only free, dynamic, creative society ever devised, is defended in the name of stagnation.” Ayn Rand

Anyone in power or supporting those in power that adhere to these ideologies is in contradiction and incongruent with objectivism.
Ayn Rand — 'I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.'

True capitalism or as close to laissez faire as possible promotes freedom of the individual and provides the greatest opportunity and prosperity for all. No crony capitalism, mixed market variant or centrally controlled market is superior.

O.A.


All Comments

  • Posted by khalling 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    It's my favorite feature right now. I freaked out this morning when I realized some comments did not have "parent" as an option. That just means they are responding to the original post. whew!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Will,
    To see whom the commenter is replying to, you can hit "parent" under the comment and it will take you to the original poster. He was replying to william. Thanks for your conversation. Enjoying your comments.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello WilliamRThomas,
    I hope I can help. dbhalling was replying to WilliamShipley. The replies fall beneath the comment you reply to one column to the right. If he had replied to you, his comment would fall beneath yours one column to the right of yours, not even with yours.
    This site has so many options and functionality, I am glad I have been here since the beginning, so I could learn each new feature as they came. otherwise, I too would be lost... I will be glad to help anytime. :)
    Regards,
    O.A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by sdesapio 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Hi WIll. To find the comment being replied to, click on the "Parent" link located directly underneath the comment.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by WilliamRThomas 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Dear dbhalling: Were you replying to me or to someone further upthread? I'm having trouble understanding the layout of the Gulch.

    Anyway I am perfectly aware what altruism means in Comte's coining. I make that point all the time. But that's not how many people try to use it. They treat it as action that benefits another as such, without regard to the ultimate value at stake.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    The problem with your statement is that is not what altruism is. Altruism requires that no one can be allowed to act in their own self interest. Auguste Compte coined the term altruism and this is how he explains it.

    "The] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service.... This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely."

    See you are asserting some sort of right to disagree or ownership in your property. You are also asserting some sort of right to your individuality. Neither of these are allowed under altruism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by WilliamRThomas 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    WilliamShipley you make a good point.

    I think it would be at least the first step toward a better society if everyone who wanted something done (be it ever so sacrificial) had to accomplish it himself or via voluntary interaction with others (e.g., by convincing them). People would shout less for self-sacrifice if they couldn't force others to pay for it.

    But that's just the first step, because many people have been simply convinced to promote anti-human, destructive goals often in history. That's the problem with the moral premise of self-sacrifice and a duty to serve others. Ayn Rand represents this well in The Fountainhead, where the state basically isn't involved in the plot, but the forces of evil (self-sacrifice) are hard at work, making people poor and miserable.

    Many people use "altruism" today to mean benevolence or generosity. (I teach economics, and economists often do this, for instance.) Objectivism isn't opposed to charitable giving: it just isn't a major virtue. As long as it isn't self-sacrificial, it's fine. I always say it's like buying a Porsche: nothing wrong if you do, if it fits in your values otherwise, but nothing great if you do, either.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello handyman,
    Thank you for the kind words and the information regarding Third Reich coinage... very interesting. Figures... They do act like little Nazis.
    Carpe diem,
    O.A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by handyman 10 years ago
    O.A. Nicely said. You state that "Statists support other statists in power that believe they know better than individuals how to run their own lives and more authority should be granted to the government so they may force others to live as their utopian vision dictates" and "They believe in the common good over the rights of the individual." Nowhere were these views more succinctly carved in stone (metal, actually) and in the minds of its country's citizens than on certain coinage produced by the Third Reich in the 1930's. The edges of these coins were engraved with the motto: "Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz" which translates as, "The community comes before the individual." Interesting that they should be so blatant about it. Today's progressives seem more inclined to obfuscate their adherence viewpoint. If anyone doubt that the Third Reich actually produced such coins, they can still be easily found. I found one in a local coin shop for a very reasonable price. Also, Capitalistpig Assest Management, LLC used to offer them for sale with some background information. Thank you for your enlightening essay. Handyman
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm still learning to use the system properly.

    I have decided to come back and up-vote your comments because, while we disagree to some extent, I believe it is a debate that needs to be had.

    This is the purpose ov voting, is it not?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    It kind of makes sense that you have not heard the word used that way, or maybe just haven't noticed, but look up the origin of the word and how Comte, who coined it, defended his definition of it and how it has been re-defined over the years. This is the destruction of language. If you believe that only the "current definition" applies then apply that idea to the U.S. Constitution. The destroyers of the Constitution already have, and general acceptance of that is why we're losing that battle. And believe me (or not), socialists and christians use the word altruism that way. It is in your mind that it is equated with charity. They win.

    Thus is the importance of Language.

    Dear spellcheck; I am not about to capitalize the word christian every time I write it.

    Edit; Clarity... and humor.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't buy it. At least I've never heard the word used that way, either by socialists or by Christians. Altruism is a motivation, if you don't feel it then you're not being altruistic even if someone forces you to give.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree that we're on the same side but (there's always a but, isn't there) in any debate, clarity is key and to concede to your opponent (not referring to you) that his butchered version of the truth is ok is to give him the upper hand. To allow an opponent in a debate to have his own definition of words is to allow a cloud of uncertainty and make the truth unknowable.

    Altruism is more "duty" to give to charity than willingness. Those that hold altruism as an ideal know this. This is how they justify the theft because they "know" that it is everyone's duty. You cannot defend yourself if you accept that altruism is equal to charity.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I apologize if I've misunderstood your intent, too. I think we are pretty much on the same side.

    I use "altruism" = "willingness to give charity", vs. "Robin-Hoodism" = "willingness to condone or enable theft if it benefits the poor".

    Christianity declares it as noble to be willing to sacrifice oneself for the poor; AR declares it as evil. I just see it as senseless, unless it makes you feel good to do it. But I've taken charity when I've needed it, and given it when I could easily afford it. Which I guess is the same thing KSilver3 said.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo