Question for followers of Ayn Rand (Ron Paul, generation, accuse, radical)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not sure what defines someone as an Ayn Rand follower.
I did read Atlas shrugged, but nothing else she has written. Mostly I liked the book and agree with the philosophy, though I consider Ayn Rand a lot more extreme right than I am. Again what is a follower? I have only read the one book. That said, here is what I think.
If you read the previous post from someone that actually quoted Ayn Rand rescuing people is the right thing to do if you won't die in the process. I agree with this. My life is not worth less than theirs. For example, the people moving others from hospital to hospital and in the process, manually operating breathing devices for babies to save their lives. This is the right thing to do. In another case maybe not. For example, the people that chose not to evacuate when advised to, should rescue teams risk their own lives to go in after them later, especially if it is highly likely that no one can be saved? Maybe not. Why should their lives be valued more than their rescuers?
The same principle applies to redistributing someones wealth to people that won't do enough to help themselves. If you are taking mine that I worked for and you did not, to me that that also values me less than you. Help should go to those that are worthy of it.
I do think that their are exceptions to this rule and I think maybe that is where Ayn Rand and I part ways. I say maybe because I'm not sure what her opinion would be. I think allowances should be made for the disabled and elderly, because we should have compassion for those that really cannot help themselves.
Would any American "die in the process" of saving a life by providing needed medical care?
Would any American "die in the process" of saving a life by providing needed medical care?
I'm not sure I understand your question. It's entirely possible that a resucer could die in the process of providing medical care in a disaster situation. Happens to EMS/Firefighters far too often. '
After Katrina, when hospitals were flooded, disease was rampant and power non-existant, health care providers worked in deplorable conditions for days. I'm not sure any died in the process though.
There is, but the question is, how far do we carry "charity" to individual property owners (including renters and their personal property)? Does the taxpayer replace someone's nice tree that fell over in the storm? Fix someone's car that was damaged, that didn't have insurance? Buy the a new gas grill because theirs blew away? Or rebuild someone's house that was in a known flood plain that didn't want to spend the money on flood insurance? Honestly, I'm torn on how far it goes.
While watching the PBS move "Climate of Denial" one cannot help but notice that one of the agencies that are in complete denial of climate change and fighting very hard against the science, had a poster of Rand at their headquarters. If personal responsiibility is paramount with Rand subscribers, they certainly are refusing to take any with the issue of climate change and their selfishness is evident and confirmed when you see this large poster of Rand so proudly displayed. The correlation of the worst offenders of environmental pollution and defenders of the offenders and their love of Rand is not unnoticed. I am not attempting to hijack the thread with the Climate Change issue, but I thought that this was an intersting observation.
All of your examples are hyperbole and are not, in fact, paid for by government. However, the question is what responsibility do we have for our fellow man? Should we help with food, shelter, clothing, and medical needs?
You missed the point I think of the post you are criticizing. Where does our responsibility to others end? Should each individual be required to care for themselves up to a certain point at least or is there no limit to what the more responsible are required to provide to those that aren't?
All of your examples are hyperbole and are not, in fact, paid for by government. However, the question is what responsibility do we have for our fellow man? Should we help with food, shelter, clothing, and medical needs?
In the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster, sure. That is the proper function of emergency services, paid for by taxpayers. I doubt that anyone will really question that.
The question is how long should we keep doing so? Days? Weeks? Months? Years? Or at some point do we say "get off your azz and move on". De we hand out food and water, or gift cards that end up getting used in casinos and strip joints?
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,450,688 times
Reputation: 6670
Ayn Rand's philosophy, and her life, fit the clinical definition of a Narcissist... grandiose, self-absorbed, exploitative, entitled, and totally lacking in empathy or any sense of accountability (aka, "it's all about ME!"). And arguably the popularity of Rand and her best-known work, "Atlas Shrugged", arose out of the conformity and alienation of the 50's (which of course, also gave us the McCarthy era).
Christopher Lasch and others have suggested that this alienation, disconnection and post-WWII consumer capitalist culture have actually been creating a "Culture of Narcissism", where we increasingly depend on what we consume to make us feel good, to tell us how we live and work, and to basically define who we are. So it's probably not so surprising that the folks now most obsessed with defending that Capitalism and those values, should also feel so "special" and "entitled" (and dogmatic).... and should also view Rand's self-absorbed justification as their "bible".
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy;
that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." -John Kenneth Galbraith
I won't be a burden on you and you won't be a burden on me. I won't be a parasite
on you and I won't allow you to be a parasite on me. You won't suck my blood and
I won't suck yours.
I'll help who I want, when I want, if I want according to my own judgement and
discretion.
The people I'll most admire and want to assist are the people who are too proud to
ask for or accept my assistance. America used to be full of people like that. That's
part of what made her great. Leeches couldn't build America and leeches can't sustain her.
My life belongs to me. I'll take my chances. You take yours.
Last edited by laysayfair; 10-31-2012 at 10:46 AM..
Reason: sp
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
