Why I'm not a Randist.
Dec. 30th, 2004 11:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumJosh 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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-12-31 09:00 am (UTC)Oy. *sigh*
no subject
Date: 2004-12-31 04:53 pm (UTC)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