If it were covered under ObamaCare I might change my mind about the Affordable Care Act. :-)

True. Hard to solve a problem if people are denying there is one.

Good points. I would say most people "feel good" when they get the Government to take over a perceived problem. They feel good as if they "fixed it". In the end we pay higher taxes and the problem persists.

We should teach and therefore realize that the only "altruism" that should exist is in Government!

Sacrificing itself for the protection of the people ONLY!!!

They don't just like it they become addicted to it. Ultimately, I guess, they think they are only hurting the wealthy and don't realize how bad we are all getting squeezed.

Altruism requires the absence of discrimination. Selfishness (self-interest) promotes support of others -- such as a scholarship for a budding scientist or payment of medical bills for a deserving friend or family.

The real goal of Common Core was to give the Feds and ultimately the UN total control over education/indoctrination. Trump has promised to end it. Let's hope he follows thru.

There are some causes that I chose to support. These include veterans support organizations, children's hospitals and the SPCA. However, it is my choice to do this not because of a sense of obligation but because they perform functions that I think are important. So in that sense it is not charity but a form of investment.

Agreed.

Occasional charity, when you can afford it and you are supporting something worthwhile, and raising children are not altruism. Altruism means living for and sacrificing to others as a moral standard. It "casts" its own "net".

My point is that often that is all people are subjected to from the beginning of life... (yes)

Sacrificing your values and wrecking your life by following destructive principles does not result in an easy life. Of course human life takes mental effort, but there are no shortcuts.

Ethics aren't the problem. Practicality is. Or looks like it. People don't expect enlightened self-interest to work.

Because many people like getting stuff for free. They don't value a value-for-value proposition nor do they see the predatory nature of a government system that takes from some to give to others because they only imagine themselves on the receiving end.

Altruism as practiced by government is forcing others to give their money/substance/etc. to others through taxation and social programs. This is government-sponsored theft and promotes the idea of elitism and a class-based power structure.

This is wholly different than charity, which is a voluntary and individual act. Society would not exist if child-rearing - which is undoubtably an act of personal sacrifice - had the same moral fundamentals as altruism. I would strongly caution against trying to cast too broad a net.

Frankly, IMHO, it is because altruism is "easy" and objectivism is "hard" and when your end goal is feeling successful, easy beats hard for many people. Objectivism requires you to think rationally and strive hard to be successful. Altruism, all too often, is as easy as throwing some money at a charity and feeling good about yourself and that you have done something to fix a problem. You can pat yourself on the back after donating cans to the local food pantry and have a clear conscience that you have made the world a better place- and that is enough for many people. If you watch someone who is truly dedicated to making the world a better place, objectivist or altruist, you will see that both require hard work and rational thought. It is just that there is an easy way out on the altruist side of the equation. You cannot be a casual objectivist.

There are a lot of educated people who accept and promote altruism. Altruism wasn't ever rejected in education. The individualistic ethics was always implicit in the right to your own life, liberty, property and pursuit of your own happiness in the American sense of life, but altruism was not explicitly challenged. The spread of destructive philosophical ideas in education is more serious than "dumbing down" education. Altruism appeals to both the educated and the less educated because that is what people are taught to believe across the culture.

They resist because they have been indoctrinated with false philosophy requiring altruism.

Non-compulsory altruism is voluntary slavery.

Ayn Rand's ethics aren't 'counterintuitive' by nature. People are indoctrinated with altruism.

I think you are falsely assuming that most people see those negative effects. Psychological/emotional issues certainly interfere.
And when the effects begin to become visable, people have too much baggage from how they were raised.

Accepting self destructive ideas for a "pat on the back" is Peter Keating, not 'safety in numbers'.

Because Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Most people can't move to a different school. The public schools are monopolies. You're forced to pay for them through taxes and don't have anything left for a different school.

Objectivists require being educated, and the government schools for the past 100 years have caused the population to be dumbed down. without knowledge of both altruism and Objectivism you will not know the difference. Therefore altruism becomes appealing to the uneducated.