15 Responses to “Who Is John Galt?”

1. bk
   April 18th, 2011 @ 12:44 pm

   While there are parts that are reasonable, that snippet reflects an unhealthy selfishness, and presents a false dichotomy. We cannot choose between the pursuit of happiness and serving others. The options are not exclusive.

   It seems to be an expression of the same morality used to justify abortion and euthanasia in our society. The value of a person is not something that depends on our judgement, but is intrinsic. (In the words of Jefferson, “endowed by our creator”.)

2. bk
   April 18th, 2011 @ 12:49 pm

   I should have added that I have not read the whole speech, so I may have misjudged the overall message, which, from this extract seems to be “me first, and damn the little people”.

3. CapitalistPig
   April 18th, 2011 @ 4:15 pm

   I believe that who you help, and how you choose to help, is actually a healthy form of selfishness (without the value judgment). If I can pursue my own happiness, I am free to choose who will benefit from my good fortune.

   FTA:
   Is it ever proper to help another man?

   *No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him.
   *Yes, if it’s your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle.

4. Vox
   April 18th, 2011 @ 5:05 pm

   The point isn’t “don’t be charitable’ – it is more the illustration that charity cannot, and should not, be forced or even coerced.

   Does man, in fact, have free will and dominion over himself and his labors.

   The current thinking seems to be that in order for “the rich” to have accumulated their wealth, they somehow cheated it from others. That the fact that “the rich” have wealth is unfair to those that don’t. That “the rich” will not be kind or generous – or charitable – to others unless forced to do so. And the bureaucrats in power (and those who profit off the suffering of others) have acted accordingly, increasingly forcing producers to forfeit the fruits of their labors in service to “the greater good”

   Never mind human’s natural instinct to help willingly those they see as being in need. Never mind government abhorrent record of waste, fraud, abuse and general inefficiency.

   An illustration would be Bill Gates – pariah. He made his fortune producing a product people wanted enough to pay for; the product he made helped introduce PCs into millions of homes; the PC (and Apple) revolution created new industries and millions of jobs, and many more people got rich. And yet Bill Gates is often mocked & attacked for being so rich – as if the fact that he has money is responsible for the fact that others don’t. In fact, I would not be in the financial position I am if not for his work product.

   Bill Gates willingly gives millions of dollars to help others of his choosing, Oprah gives her money to the causes she believes in. Directly.

   Surely left to our own devises, we humans will do what is fair & kind & right for others. There will also always be ‘bad’ people who give less – but why shouldn’t that be their choice? Who and what are helped by our generosity should ultimately be left to those who produce the wealth. The latest debate over Planned Parenthood funding is a perfect illustration – and sort of fits your point regarding abortion & eugenics. The government has decided that PP is ‘deserving’ of your funds and spends tax dollars on them. Shouldn’t it be your choice whether or not you pay for an abortion providers operational costs? And for those who do choose to support PP, why shouldn’t their money go directly – not siphoned through and depleted by the United States treasury?

   “The rich” write checks – they hire people, they buy products from companies that hire people…. “The rich” aren’t bad.

   The value of a person may be intrinsic, but a person’s intrinsic value does not automatically entitle them to my work product or anyone else’s. Worse, by convincing generations that they are victims of circumstance or of the rich, that they are somehow unable to produce for themselves and are instead in need of and entitled to someone else’s production, we have discouraged untold numbers of valuable humans from discovering & developing their own potential.

   And, as an aside to your “pursuing happiness is separate from helping others”, Rand makes the case that helping others, like most things we do in life is selfish. People help others because it makes them feel good – or keeps them from feeling bad. Either way, when you help others you do so because of the way it affects you – and contributes to your happiness.

   It is “Me first” only in one sense. Refer to the safety briefing at the beginning of every airline flight; when they get to the oxygen mask dropping from the overhead compartment, they always say “If you are with someone who is unable to put on their own mask, put your mask on first and then help them put on theirs” You need to be breathing or you will be no good to anyone, once you are breathing you can help others get the oxygen they need, too.

5. Vox
   April 18th, 2011 @ 5:06 pm

   That isn’t to say Rand didn’t recognize reality – the bad guys in Atlas are also rich, but they have gotten that way through cronyism, gov’t intervention and confiscation. Using the power of the state and the mantra of “the greater good” to punish and/or eliminate competition.

   The point being “the rich” aren’t bad – but they aren’t necessarily good, either. Humans are wonderful, amazing – and flawed beings.

6. bk
   April 18th, 2011 @ 6:57 pm

   I don’t object to the sentiment that we should choose who we help, rather than having it forced on us; that is the “reasonable” part. The problem is that the speech advocates basing that judgement not on the needs of the other and my ability to help, but on that person’s perceived value (utility). In other words, we should only help people if it is a benefit to us. That is straight out the playbook of the culture of death, and should be anathema to American values.

   Helping others out of coercion or out of selfishness is not charity, and it leads us further from our cultural roots, in which there is a long tradition of recognising the obligation of those with wealth or talents to share them. I don’t think that is properly done by the government, or through taxes, except when the they encourage real charity. (Arizona’s tuition tax credits are a good example of doing it right. We decide who benefits, and how much, and use it to reduce our tax burden.)

   I also think that it is an unfair caricature to say that there are a lot of people who don’t think that the rich deserve their wealth. (There are bound to be a few, but I think they are as rare as the undeserving rich.) At any rate, it won’t help to win hearts and minds.

7. CapitalistPig
   April 18th, 2011 @ 7:26 pm

   Here’s the President’s Framework for Shared Prosperity and Shared Fiscal Responsibility:
   http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/13/fact-sheet-presidents-framework-shared-prosperity-and-shared-fiscal-resp

   From each according to his ability…

8. Vox
   April 19th, 2011 @ 12:37 am

   I don’t accept the supposition that when Rand mentioned “a person’s value”, she meant “what can they do for me”. Even if we stipulate to that, however, I say – so what?

   So what if I choose to give my contribution to, say, the Alzheimer’s Association, knowing that it is a disease which has affected my loved ones and will likely affect me at some point in the future. Is the donation somehow ‘lessened’ because there is a chance the work they do might one day help someone I care about?

   Would it be better for me to channel my charitable dollars toward the fight against illiteracy, since I don’t know anyone affected by it? Would it somehow be more “moral” if the only motivation were to be a bit more smug at the next Library Gala*?

   So what if I decide what I value and choose to support, especially when others will find value elsewhere; cancer research, homelessness, evangelism, humane societies…. The beauty of allowing the individual the freedom to place value where he chooses is that then, in a very real way, societies choose that which is valuable. They put their money where their mouth is, to repeat a cliche I already used this week.

   When we allow the state to decide what is valuable and where the needs are, no such distribution can be expected. The loudest members of the group (or the most corrupt, or the most connected) set the agenda. That is how we end up with such an enormous slice of the budget pie going to HIV/AIDS research & support programs and such smaller pieces going to the far more prevalent and deadly areas of cardiac disease and cancer. It is very easy for the “collective” to demand the “state” spend money on that which they themselves deem important, but which they themselves are unwilling to support.

   A frustrating example of this is Bono**, who does great and charitable work – and who spends vast amounts of time pressuring governments to spend their money on causes where he sees value. And yet, he and his band moved their profit centers (publishing, etc) out of Ireland to avoid the increasing tax burden. What right does he have to demand the country support the causes he chooses, when he isn’t even willing to contribute his earnings to the kitty?

   How is it getting away from our cultural heritage to allow the individual with wealth or talent to find their own way to share it? I chose to use my Arizona tax credit to support the Crisis Pregnancy Centers, because I see ‘value’ there. You may have chosen to donate to your children’s school, because you see value there (and from which you are likely to receive a benefit) Is my donation or yours more “moral”? Or are they equally so because they are examples of individuals exercising their free will – and helping others in the process?

   * I do not attend galas – library or otherwise.

   ** Props to him for being one of the only celebrities to acknowledge the work GW Bush did fighting AIDS in Africa.

9. Vox
   April 19th, 2011 @ 12:41 am

   I also don’t think it is an unfair caricature to say a lot of people don’t think the rich deserve their wealth. You can hear it in almost every medium these days.

10. bk
    April 19th, 2011 @ 11:08 am

    You avoided my criticism by changing the focus. I was critical of basing help on the value of the person being helped, but you made your argument based on the value of the help being offered. I think it is prudent to direct our support based on our judgement of its effectiveness and importance.

    I also think we agree about individual choice versus state mandated help. That was, also, not the point of my criticism.

    Nor was I arguing that getting a benefit from helping others was wrong. I was criticising the idea that it was better than altruism, or that it was the only reason for helping others.

    I was criticising three ideas in the excerpt. First, that only valuable people deserve help; Second, that their value is based on our judgement; and third, that selfishness is good but altruism is evil.

11. Vox
    April 19th, 2011 @ 11:31 pm

    OK, I thought I had responded directly to your point, but perhaps I misunderstood your criticism. I will try to speak to your three points

    “First, that only valuable people deserve help”

    I suppose you could make the point that all people are ‘valuable’, having been endowed that value by their Creator. However, not everyone can be helped, and not everyone is as deserving as they were the day they were created – some value judgement must be made.

    “Second, that their value is based on our judgement”

    As I said, I don’t think what she said makes a value judgement in itself, it simply says we all make value judgements – as we should – and that individuals should be able to use those judgements to determine who & how to help. If you were to see a man coming down the street, smashing car windows as he got closer to you, then he stops and asks for $20 because he is hungry, are you allowed to make a value judgement? Suppose he is genuinely hungry and you have the means to give him that much. Are you allowed to make a ‘value’ judgement as to whether that individual deserves your help, or does your charitable cultural history require you to help since he is in need and you have the means?

    Who should make that value judgement if not the individual; the state (we agree that is a “No”), the community (just a smaller version of the state), the Church (if so, which church, which values, what of charitable atheists?)

    “and third, that selfishness is good but altruism is evil”

    Rand does not say altruism is evil, her view seems to be more along the lines that altruism is a myth. Rather, when an individual does something that you might label as altruistic, it is actually for selfish reasons. Whether that reason is that it makes you feel good about yourself, it keeps you from feeling bad about yourself, you believe it is what your God expects you to do (she was an atheist), you want a tax deduction… Whatever the actual reason, it is never selfless – nor does it need to be, nor should it need to be.

    I have always understood her philosophy to hew closer to “anything you, the individual, do that does not cause harm to some other individual is not evil*” As such, ‘forced’ charity is evil, because it does harm by confiscating the fruits of ones labor. Miserliness (is that a word?) is not evil, as it causes no harm to others (giving no aid is a different thing). Giving willingly is absolutely good, whatever basis you use to decide the recipient.

    * I am not sure how she squared that with her willingness to accept abortion as an individual choice.

12. Vox
    April 19th, 2011 @ 11:43 pm

    Again, to your first two points, I repeat this earlier paragraph:

    “So what if I decide what I value and choose to support, especially when others will find value elsewhere; cancer research, homelessness, evangelism, humane societies…. The beauty of allowing the individual the freedom to place value where he chooses is that then, in a very real way, societies choose that which is valuable. They put their money where their mouth is, to repeat a cliche I already used this week. ”

    I applied it to organizations, but it also applies to individuals.

13. Vox
    April 20th, 2011 @ 1:35 am

    Perhaps I should let her define it herself:

    Altruism

    Charity

14. bk
    April 20th, 2011 @ 8:04 am

    Thank you for the links. I was thinking about going there. They explain, in her own words, why she believes altruism is evil and self-sacrifice is wrong. Unlike you, I find this entirely consistent with support for elective abortion. I suspect that she would also take exception with the “classic American hero” figure who willingly takes risks and sacrifices his own life for his beliefs or his comrades.

    Her position is in direct contradiction with western culture, which was formed with the ideas “Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends” and “unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required”. One of our inheritances is the idea of “nobless oblige”, which would obviously been anathema to Rand.

    I have not paid much attention to her before, but I cannot help but conclude that Ayn Rand is one of the architects of the culture of death. I find her ideas repugnant.

15. Vox AZ
    December 22nd, 2012 @ 2:25 pm

    Going through the archives and found this post again – and remembered a Rand interview where she discusses the “American hero” who willingly risks his life (moral) vs the drafted soldier who is forced to (immoral)

    http://youtu.be/jYlaCRH6qK0?t=2m5s

Leave a Reply