![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Why I'm not a Randist.
Josh Marshall did some snarking about this Most tsunami victims not to blame which, being from the Ayn Rand Institute is pretty rank.
But one forgets how blinkered they are, and one forgets how much some Randian memes have infiltrated the society (or worse are mere distillations of prevalent belief).
If you read further into this screed against foreign aid, of any stripe, you see it is not just against altruism, "It is Americans' acceptance of altruism that renders them morally impotent to protest against the confiscation and distribution of their wealth." but against decency.
He argues that any aid to another, which is not from the wellspring of private love and charity is morally bankrupt. Me, I tend to think some foreign aid is foul (the support for Pinochet, for example, or our support of Samosa, or Diem or...) but all of it can be justified under the rubric of the Constution (that pesky promote the general welfare and provide for the common defense).
So the real problem, according to our more enlightened commentator (who refuses to be bamboozled by any mere social contract) is that such support undermines our values, because, It is past time to question--and to reject--such a vicious morality that demands that we sacrifice our values instead of holding on to them.
Yep, the real values aren't silly little things like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, nope the only real value is wealth.
But one forgets how blinkered they are, and one forgets how much some Randian memes have infiltrated the society (or worse are mere distillations of prevalent belief).
If you read further into this screed against foreign aid, of any stripe, you see it is not just against altruism, "It is Americans' acceptance of altruism that renders them morally impotent to protest against the confiscation and distribution of their wealth." but against decency.
He argues that any aid to another, which is not from the wellspring of private love and charity is morally bankrupt. Me, I tend to think some foreign aid is foul (the support for Pinochet, for example, or our support of Samosa, or Diem or...) but all of it can be justified under the rubric of the Constution (that pesky promote the general welfare and provide for the common defense).
So the real problem, according to our more enlightened commentator (who refuses to be bamboozled by any mere social contract) is that such support undermines our values, because, It is past time to question--and to reject--such a vicious morality that demands that we sacrifice our values instead of holding on to them.
Yep, the real values aren't silly little things like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, nope the only real value is wealth.
no subject
Oy. *sigh*
no subject
The absolute moral bankruptcy of that person's view is staggering. HOw, one wonders does he define overpopulated? PJ O'Rourke pointed out that, in terms of population density there are parts of the Bay Area which are equivalent to the, oft cited, example of Bangladesh. Shall we refrain from earthquake relief when Mill Valley gets flattened? Or only when the poor parts of Oakland fall down?
TK
no subject
no subject
On the other hand, it's interesting that the author included the Marshall Plan as one of his examples of misplaced American altruism. I'm pretty sure that one of the main motives for the Plan was to make western European countries prosperous enough that Stalinist parties wouldn't be able to take over.
(In the same vein, I think Julian Sanchez once remarked in the Reason blog that there might be a good libertarian case for welfare--it's cheaper for the government to feed poor people than to fend off the mobs of the unemployed.)
But I guess anyone who's smart enough to understand the concept of "enlightened self-interest" has better things to do than write press releases for the Ayn Rand Institute.
no subject
He also pointed out that the West's view os Darwin, and the use of it to oppress the poor was no small part of why William Jennings Bryan was so opposed to it. Not so much because it offended God, but becaue it brutalised man.
The odd view that personal comfort is an end all value, and that no one else matters but the self is scary. Not so much because it s selfish and greedy, and lets one ignore the plight of one's fellow man, but because of what it leads to.
Of all the revolutions, the only ones meant to overthrow a government, and replace with a new kind (which have not led to widescale bloodbaths and overreactions were those (and only two come to mind) perpetrated by the middle class/wealthy.
When the poor get so fed up as to rebel, and when the squalor is so widespread as to make the Gov't, with all its inherent advantages unable to stop it, excess follows. The terrors, the re-educations, and the years of revenge which follow are sown by beliefs such as his.
TK
no subject
We are a species that specialises, and that is our strength. We say "you do this, I do that, he'll do the other, we'll play to our strengths and the combination will be better than if the three of us did all three tasks equally." It's the basis of economics, of the theory of comparative advantage, and it acknowledges the strength of individualism and playing to your strengths. The part that is often overlooked is the fact that you can only play to your strengths if you live in a co-operative society where diversity is fostered and encouraged and the social contract is strong. If you can't get to work because you're afraid of landmines or kidnappings, you retreat back into yourself and become a smaller, weaker version of what you could be in a strong society, forced to do the things you can't do well because there's nobody who can do them well that you can trade with.
And, also, if you think that private charity can meet all society's needs, you need to check out 19th Century England. We used to think that alms for the poor would meet their needs too, until we found out that, y'know what, the welfare state actually does do it better. No matter how much they might acknowledge that they don't want poor people dying of cholera and getting in the way of your horse-drawn carriage, people really are selfish motherfuckers who don't give what's good for them unless you take it off them.
no subject
They set themselves up as the keepers of the moral flame, insist, with conviction and a straight face, that they aren't only concerned with the rights of the wealthy, and then they come up with tracts like this.
I know it's a totally evil thought, but there are times I wish the people who put forth these "enlightened" positions would find themselves in the same situation the people they are so reluctant to help are in. How long would their moral convictions about the evils of altruism last if they were hungry, facing the prospect of widespread disease and all or most of their family was gone? Not long I'd wager.
no subject