Libertarian: Katrina washed away 'human debris'; Obama voters unproductive workers

[IcarusAngel]

"I'm sick to death of some guy who works a 40-hour week; walks out of his job on Friday afternoon, with a meager paycheck, playing his CD of 'Take This Job and Shove-It,' heads off to the convenience store, buys his case of beer for the weekend, and then *****es and complains about how horrible it is that so many people have so much more money than he does."--Neal Boortz

According to this Libertarian, humanitarian disasters like Katrina "cleanse" cities of undesirables, and that rich people - the productive class - should be saved over the lower class. (What if it was easier to save a whole lot of poor people versus saving only a few rich people, would it thus be ethical to save only the "producers" of the society?) He also believes that everybody who is poor deserves to be poor and everybody who is rich deserves to be rich.

This is what passes for Libertarianism in America. Even in places like where "Libertarian" is starting to mean free-market capitalist, I don't think it goes down to this level. This guy sounds like Hans Hermann Hoppe, plus, his radio show is listened to all over the country. How do these Libertarians get away with stuff like this:

-GrgOgmp2MY

LNDKhMyfCkg

[Pogue]

Typical fucking middle class ****, nothing new here.

[IcarusAngel]

I'm pretty sure Neal Boortz is not anywhere near a "middle class" wage earner, and, according to him, even the "middle class" would be considered the "needless, the worthless, and the useless." As he says, the middle class guy only cares about fishing and working at his job. Only the ingenious capitalist class and the rich, those who make profits off of someone else's labor, the movers and shakers of society, are successful people.

This is normal reasoning for Libertarians.

[#FF0000]

Wow that's actually sickening.

[StalinFanboy]

I would go to jail for punching this guy in the face. Honestly.

[Bud Struggle]

Boortz is to Capitalism what Trotsky is to Communism.

Rude, tasteless, meanspirited and ultimately inconsequential.

[Pogue]

Boortz is to Capitalism what Trotsky is to Communism.

Rude, tasteless, meanspirited and ultimately inconsequential.


I think Trotsky was quite important. He was one of the main culprits in supressing workers power in psot-1917 Russia, and obviously his legacy is expressed in the various Trotskyist groups.

[danyboy27]

i got the feeling that this guy gonna get shot, even the most ferocious capitalist worker in the us would gladly shot the fucker with a .50 cal.

[Bud Struggle]

I think Trotsky was quite important. He was one of the main culprits in supressing workers power in psot-1917 Russia, and obviously his legacy is expressed in the various Trotskyist groups.

And no matter what your political beliefs you can't post long on this Internet board without getting you thoughts insulted and ridiculed by any number of well situated Trotskyist loyalists positioned stratigically in the High Command of RevLeft.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The really big question is, how come people who are not filthy rich actually listen to Boortz and don't seem to mind him calling them subhuman scum?

[GPDP]

The really big question is, how come people who are not filthy rich actually listen to Boortz and don't seem to mind him calling them subhuman scum?

I suppose it's part of the whole issue with many people accepting the hegemonic ideological discourse of there being "welfare queens" and this system rewarding those who work hard which is so prevalent in this country. Most would consider themselves hard workers, and if they are not rich, it's merely because their hard work has not yet paid off.

It's fucked up, but that seems to be a widely accepted reality. Many workers are prone to look down upon themselves, and internalize this anti-worker discourse, and are even likely to identify with those above them. Hence why such vile ideas like Boortz's are not rejected outright.

[Havet]

According to this Libertarian, humanitarian disasters like Katrina "cleanse" cities of undesirables, and that rich people - the productive class - should be saved over the lower class. (What if it was easier to save a whole lot of poor people versus saving only a few rich people, would it thus be ethical to save only the "producers" of the society?) He also believes that everybody who is poor deserves to be poor and everybody who is rich deserves to be rich.

This is what passes for Libertarianism in America. Even in places like where "Libertarian" is starting to mean free-market capitalist, I don't think it goes down to this level. This guy sounds like Hans Hermann Hoppe, plus, his radio show is listened to all over the country. How do these Libertarians get away with stuff like this:


Elitist

Many people who are poor DO NOT deserve to be poor and A GREAT DEAL of rich people do not deserve to be rich.

See, this is what i mean when there are far more interesting stupid people to bash than ayn rand (http://www.revleft.com/vb/whats-all-ayn-t113326/index.html):D

[Bud Struggle]

It's fucked up, but that seems to be a widely accepted reality. Many workers are prone to look down upon themselves, and internalize this anti-worker discourse, and are even likely to identify with those above them. Hence why such vile ideas like Boortz's are not rejected outright.

Vert intuitive post. Well said.

[Richard Nixon]

Sick, I sure as Hell don't endorse his comments.

[Raúl Duke]

See, this is what i mean when there are far more interesting stupid people to bash than ayn rand (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../whats-all-ayn-t113326/index.html)While in this case this guy might be worst then Ayn Rand, it's actually because he's more outspoken then Ayn Rand. The basis of his arguments, unless I'm mistaken, comes from the Randian view that the capitalist class are "society's producers", etc while people who are poor (whether they work or not) are "unproductive (to a degree)". He just voices this straight out, in a controversial way (i.e. "rescue the rich first"), while Ayn Rand just states her thesis and sings praises via her character's rants of the "producers" and how our current society is "unjustly putting them back", etc.

What's funny is he's necessarily not productive at all either, in any sense (whether Randian, he doesn't own a productive business per se, or Marxist, he doesn't provide a useful service or product)...If he believed what he said he should put a bullet in his head since he's all about "cleansing" society from the "unproductive"

[Agrippa]

And no matter what your political beliefs you can't post long on this Internet board without getting you thoughts insulted and ridiculed by any number of well situated Trotskyist loyalists positioned stratigically in the High Command of RevLeft.

Uhh...that comment is obviously insulting Trotsky, rightfully so.

And Boortz should not be referred to as a "libertarian". He doesn't believe in liberty, he believes in capitalist totalitarianism.

[Raúl Duke]

It's fucked up, but that seems to be a widely accepted reality. Many workers are prone to look down upon themselves, and internalize this anti-worker discourse, and are even likely to identify with those above them. Hence why such vile ideas like Boortz's are not rejected outright.
Vert intuitive post. Well said. IDK, I never seen such behavior in Puerto Rico...
I doubt we have a "self-hating" working people here.
Instead in Puerto Rico people believe that everyone who doesn't qualify for welfare/etc and yet aren't rich are part of the "middle class" (although in the U.S. it's similar, except that here in PR people sometimes state things like "the middle class is the working class that has the burden to support the rich and the "idle poor"; and other mildly populist sounding slogans/rhetoric/etc. Ironically, no one in Puerto Rico actually pays for those welfare programs from their taxes because those programs are federal programs which are paid by state-side taxpayers; no one in PR pays federal taxes. ). Here, one could argue, the concept of "middle class" is perhas very much used to divide working people and to lump one section of working people (those who don't qualify for federal benefits) with people they may not share a common interest in (i.e. the petit-bourgeoisie).

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

"The rich keep getting richer in this country because they keep doing the things that make them rich, ditto for the poor."

I admire the people who actually have the energy to engage these kind of people. This is so stupid it's unbelievable. What's even sadder is I know plenty of people who would agree with him. Why? Because what he is saying seems "possible."

People don't challenge ideas. As long as someone has an argument that is "possibly true," people will believe it. Barrack Obama was caught kissing another women? What, I made that up? It's believable for many people. They wouldn't question it.

People listening to someone like that want to affirm their own higher position in life as morally justified. I suspect if I sent that to my father, he would not only agree, he'd be nodding his head and ordering the guy's book. Why? My Dad went from poverty to moderate wealth through hard work and natural talent.

Libertarians distinguish "natural talent" as part of life's lottery, but "hard work" is somehow something everyone has access to. The reason people can believe this kind of garbage is because of a belief in free will. Free will is one of the most manipulated beliefs in history. There is some single quality of "humanness" that allows us to judge one another as superior or inferior.

You can judge people as better than one another if you want. But do it based on what they accomplish and with the knowledge that the pleasure of everyone has "equal values." Libertarians think they are entitled to their spoils, which are often unfairly gained through manipulative contracts. On top of that, they think they deserve "more" because they did more. This is ridiculous. The poor will benefit more from the wealth than the rich will from another five cars.

Everyone wants to believe the way they live their life is the just and shouldn't be attacked. The fact is most of us do plenty of things we shouldn't. I think I don't have an obligation to help the poor because it is inconvenient for me to help them, or they could do things for themselves. Too bad if it's inconvenient. I think I don't have an obligation not to steal. Again, too bad.

Libertarians social position is to important for them to so they attempt to claim they're being moral. I'd love to see a millionaire be honest and say. Hey, I know I should give more money to the poor. It's too hard, I'm too lazy, selfish, and I'm not going to, but yes, I "should" give money to the poor. At least that's honest. It's libertarian attempts to confuse ethics and morality into something "capitalist" that contributes to the widespread liberal sentiment that capitalism serves the working man.

People need to start treating the ends of other individuals as compariable to their own, accept their own lazy and selfish characteristics, and work on individual improvement. Accepting that we're all terrible people for eating a pizza instead of feeding a starving child doesn't mean you have to be miserable. You just need a commitment to work towards what we know needs to be done.

Really, the libertarianism this guy advocates disgusts me. I'm sympathetic to some of the economist libertarians who "happened upon the conclusion from a position of neutrality." The typical libertarian is just a dirtbag, though.

Man, I'm one of the people less inclined to using violence towards Nazis as fascists on this forum, but hell, I'd almost support taking this guy outside and shooting him. If he was an average Joe, not so bad. Propagating that garbage to the masses. Not good.

[JimmyJazz]

Know your enemy.

ETA: though I did enjoy his evident butthurtness over being a "b-list" talk radio host :)

ETA2: if his city ever floods I hope they save all the A-list talk radio hosts first.

[Hiero]

It is very strange to attack the "man who works 40 hours a week". I always thought the american right gloriefied these people for the popular vote, say like the Republicans.

[Raúl Duke]

It is very strange to attack the "man who works 40 hours a week". I always thought the american right gloriefied these people for the popular vote, say like the Republicans.

Personally, I doubt that American workers, even those who might vote for Republicans, would listen to this guy. I have a feeling that he could find a good audience amongst the middle class (for example, one could say that most of SWFL below of Tampa has a lot of middle class people, probably mostly retired, who would perhaps listen to this guy) in this country.

[Havet]

Libertarians social position is to important for them to so they attempt to claim they're being moral. I'd love to see a millionaire be honest and say. Hey, I know I should give more money to the poor. It's too hard, I'm too lazy, selfish, and I'm not going to, but yes, I "should" give money to the poor. At least that's honest. It's libertarian attempts to confuse ethics and morality into something "capitalist" that contributes to the widespread liberal sentiment that capitalism serves the working man.


I understand that you're claiming capitalists to have exploited and continue exploiting. But that is no basis for the argument: every capitalist should give money to the poor.

The only way to solve this problem would be to quantify how much of the exploitation was done by the capitalist and to whom exactly, what agents were involved, and start acting in the retribution of stolen money and the destruction of those agents and institutions that prevented the existance of potential money or betterment of life to emerge.

This way, we will ensure the actual capitalist(s) will give back exactly the amount of money they stole to exactly the person that was stolen from.

I have nothing against anyone being willing to help others who have less than him. But I don't see how one's success and results (provided he is not a capitalist and therefore has not exploited) are necessarily claimed by others who don't have as much success or results, as moral. Taking from those who naturally obtain more (at no expense of anybody else) or who have more ambition to obtain more is not going to help anyone in the long run. That creed runs on sacrifices, human sacrifices, and on slavery, because i'm pretty sure those who have more will not want to be forced into giving their stuff away.

Anyway, yeah, that guy is an idiot of such epic proportions that it's hard to believe other people actually believe what he says. I don't think we should use force on him though. After all, he hasn't commanded or actually engaged in any force against others. But if that guy ever steps out of line one bit, i'm pretty sure there will be plenty of revlefters ready to put him in line.

[Psy]

Think of it this way, if you were stranded in some remote location with others who do you think be more valuable capitalists or workers? What use would capitalists even be, do you really need someone to own production before shelter, water and food is made available to the group?

See Marxist question that capitalists generate any utility at all, we mostly see them as a parasite on the productive classes that are actually generating utility in society. All the capitalists in word could die off and it really wouldn't effect world production negatively as capitalists are not involved in producing utility.

[gorillafuck]

What a shithead.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I understand that you're claiming capitalists to have exploited and continue exploiting. But that is no basis for the argument: every capitalist should give money to the poor.

It depends on what you mean by "capitalist," I suppose. If it's someone who utilizes unfair trade agreements to make gains off of the labor of others, I think they have an obligation to give back to those who they've wronged perhaps.

However, anyone who acquires excess wealth through fair agreements, as I see it, has an obligation to give money to the poor. Anyone in a position of advantage has a moral obligation to assist those in need.

This is outside of communist theory. I don't know what the view of communists would be on the following. If we found another planet living in luxury, would we have a right to demand assistance from them?

As long as they have the potential to benefit from being a moral agent, aka having the biological characteristics required for morality (empathy, sympathy, et cetera), I would say yes, within reason.

A person who doesn't develop their ethical capacities by assisting those in need is doing a disservice to their humanity, as I see it. One need not sacrifice ethical subjectivism and egoist sympathies to see an obligation to strive towards ethics as a goal. Unless the rich are devoid of human traits, I think they have an obligation to work towards helping the poor. Ethical behavior is a capacity similar to exercise and academic development. To become a better person for oneself, we can utilize these capacities within the confines of our own limitations. This would explain why Joe feels put out giving money to the poor at all, being an inherently selfish person, while the rest of us are supportive of doing so in small increments with consideration of our own income and obligations.

I really think I life that is not focused on the betterment of oneself and others, with respect to the self, is simply missing out on the benefit of embracing an ethical life and everyone has a necessarily present obligation to themself.

I don't know if I explained that in a coherent way at all.

[Havet]

I

However, anyone who acquires excess wealth through fair agreements, as I see it, has an obligation to give money to the poor. Anyone in a position of advantage has a moral obligation to assist those in need.



Why?

Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not our own?

If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by us?

If the sensation of eating a cake is a value, why is it an immoral indulgence in our stomach, but a moral goal for us to achieve in the stomach of others?

Why is it immoral for one to desire, but moral for others to do so?

Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? And if it is not moral for one to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it?

If one is selfless and virtuous when he gives, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it?

Does virtue consist of serving vice?

Is the moral purpose of those who are good, self-immolation for the sake of those who are evil?

What you are proposing sounds full of contradictions to me. Do notice what I have asked above are not entirely things you have said, but things that derive from the principles you are explaining.

[IcarusAngel]

He has an obligation to give some to the poor in a capitalist society because he is stealing labor and resources away from people. He owes either a "ground rent" on the land that he has usurped from the citizenry, or he owes an investment on the technology and property he is using at the expense of everyone else, that he calls his own even though it's probably someone else's design.

In a free society, he would have no obligation to give to others because the system would automatically be set up in such a way that everybody would pretty much have their needs met and everybody received according to their need.

Of course, some people are more successful than others, and would get more in return. They thus become accustomed to their "lifestyle" and would keep working even if they knew they could just sit around and "be lazy."

Another common argument against freedom is that jobs such as janitorial work wouldn't be done.

But, who in the world would want to live in a society where everything was dirty and work areas were dirty? It would be in your nature to try and keep your work areas clean.

Since there are also those who don't have special talents, they would as janitors to receive more than their need. I don't see how this would be anymore oppressive than capitalism, and in fact, would be freer, because he really does choose to work, he doesn't do it at the threat of starvation.

The idea that Libertarians and agorists purport, that people have to have "fear of the threat of starvation" to do work, is a complete lie. History has shown that the greatest inventions were done by people who were sponsored in one way or another but would not have starved if they didn't discover principles in mathematics etc.

Newton is an example. Russell nearly went into poverty because of his interests, and not because he wasn't any good at mathematics. Also, he gave a lot of it away to various causes.

Basically history proves if allow most people to follow their true passions, society will be more productive. And if you allow people to play a role in moving society forward, they will in general move society forward.

[Havet]

He has an obligation to give some to the poor in a capitalist society because he is stealing labor and resources away from people. He owes either a "ground rent" on the land that he has usurped from the citizenry, or he owes an investment on the technology and property he is using at the expense of everyone else, that he calls his own even though it's probably someone else's design. Well yes but i was talking outside of a capitalist society. This is why he mentioned fair agreements, and i went to discuss that point. Your point is taken though.


In a free society, he would have no obligation to give to others because the system would automatically be set up in such a way that everybody would pretty much have their needs met and everybody received according to their need.

Of course, some people are more successful than others, and would get more in return. They thus become accustomed to their "lifestyle" and would keep working even if they knew they could just sit around and "be lazy."Well if that system is made up at no one expense, then great


Another common argument against freedom is that jobs such as janitorial work wouldn't be done.

But, who in the world would want to live in a society where everything was dirty and work areas were dirty? It would be in your nature to try and keep your work areas clean.

Since there are also those who don't have special talents, they would as janitors to receive more than their need. I don't see how this would be anymore oppressive than capitalism, and in fact, would be freer, because he really does choose to work, he doesn't do it at the threat of starvation.i dont think anyone here is arguing against freedom except Dooga, who apparently might accept some forcing others to give away some of the fruits of their labor basing the sanction of the action in some sort of flawed morality of altruism we've heard all our lives from our parents. Do notice i have nothing against giving something to others. I just dont see how its moral or immoral and why should one be forced


The idea that Libertarians and agorists purport, that people have to have "fear of the threat of starvation" to do work, is a complete lie. History has shown that the greatest inventions were done by people who were sponsored in one way or another but would not have starved if they didn't discover principles in mathematics etc.

Newton is an example. Russell nearly went into poverty because of his interests, and not because he wasn't any good at mathematics. Also, he gave a lot of it away to various causes.If that "safety net" you are proposing is voluntary (you don't force at gunpoint me to pay unless i get any benefit from the actual safety net) then great. i'm all for it. powa to dah ppl


Basically history proves if allow most people to follow their true passions, society will be more productive. And if you allow people to play a role in moving society forward, they will in general move society forward.agreed

[Salyut]

The really big question is, how come people who are not filthy rich actually listen to Boortz and don't seem to mind him calling them subhuman scum?

YOU TOO CAN BE A CAPTAIN OF INDUSTRY IN LIBERTARIAN WORLD~whites only~!!!

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Why?

Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not our own?

If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by us?

If the sensation of eating a cake is a value, why is it an immoral indulgence in our stomach, but a moral goal for us to achieve in the stomach of others?

Why is it immoral for one to desire, but moral for others to do so?

Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? And if it is not moral for one to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it?

If one is selfless and virtuous when he gives, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it?

Does virtue consist of serving vice?

Is the moral purpose of those who are good, self-immolation for the sake of those who are evil?

What you are proposing sounds full of contradictions to me. Do notice what I have asked above are not entirely things you have said, but things that derive from the principles you are explaining.

I have nothing against serving your own happiness. In fact, I think it's quite important and morally obligatory to do so. I simply think people have a moral obligation to consider the interests of others because, rationally, they're indistinguishable in value from your own.

If a baby is drowning in front of you, there is an obligation to act in order to save it. Similarly, if people are suffering because of your excess, you should evaluate the benefits of distributing your wealth in accordance with the idea that their interests deserve equal consideration to your own.

If you will gain just as much from eating a chocolate bar as a starving man, you are fully entitled to eat it. You shouldn't forgo your own interests simply because someone has less. However, if there is a significant gain to be had by distributing your resources to others, you should do so.

A principle of fair consideration to the interests of others, without significantly impairing yourself, is what I would suggest. What constitutes "fair consideration" is up to you.

Consider a drowning baby again. Let's have an infinite line of drowning babies. You can continuously save their lives. They will be cared for, and the world will be significantly better off if you revolve your existence around saving them.

However, if by virtue of your own nature, you cannot continuously save babies, you should make a side effort to save as many as is reasonable. You would certainly not save any.

I do little for the poor myself, and I could assist them. I make the mistake of assuming I am simply not ethical enough or am "better off" by doing nothing. In fact, when I do act on behalf of others, it is within my capacity, and within the capacity of most humans, to receive extreme pleasure from the satisfaction of others. This is a pleasure different from simply satisfying our other needs, and we should develop and act upon this pleasure, as we would any other, to balance or life and become satisfied individuals.

People who pass by the homeless and do nothing are actually worse off than they would be giving to others. Giving and charity are ends in themselves. We simply have a society that discourages our altruistic nature, capitalism, and makes it difficult to embrace our humanity.

As for redistribution, I think it should be voluntary. I also think not murdering innocent people should be voluntary. When I say, "obligation," I mean that the choice is logically the best individual option for living a good life and achieving a just society.

For instance, I will occasionally give money to homeless upon their request. This is a very insignificant act, and I am hardly a saint. I am probably a bit more unethical than the average person, if we judge by my actions. However, I feel a great amount of pleasure in having assisted another individual. I can even criticize myself. That is illogical. Now I am out some money. Why would I do that? Despite these criticisms, I am in touch with my emotions to know that the act of compassion and justice was an end in itself.

This is a slightly "egoist" explanation that basically implies charity is self-beneficial (as opposed to true egoism which says act self-interested by charity is useless).

I am sympathetic to other moral arguments for an obligation to assist others, particularly utilitarian ones. However, I think the above argument relies on the less presumptions. It simply assumes people can benefit themselves by being charitable. Therefore, they should do so.

[Havet]

I have nothing against serving your own happiness. In fact, I think it's quite important and morally obligatory to do so. I simply think people have a moral obligation to consider the interests of others because, rationally, they're indistinguishable in value from your own.

If a baby is drowning in front of you, there is an obligation to act in order to save it. Similarly, if people are suffering because of your excess, you should evaluate the benefits of distributing your wealth in accordance with the idea that their interests deserve equal consideration to your own.

If you will gain just as much from eating a chocolate bar as a starving man, you are fully entitled to eat it. You shouldn't forgo your own interests simply because someone has less. However, if there is a significant gain to be had by distributing your resources to others, you should do so.

A principle of fair consideration to the interests of others, without significantly impairing yourself, is what I would suggest. What constitutes "fair consideration" is up to you.

Consider a drowning baby again. Let's have an infinite line of drowning babies. You can continuously save their lives. They will be cared for, and the world will be significantly better off if you revolve your existence around saving them.

However, if by virtue of your own nature, you cannot continuously save babies, you should make a side effort to save as many as is reasonable. You would certainly not save any.

I do little for the poor myself, and I could assist them. I make the mistake of assuming I am simply not ethical enough or am "better off" by doing nothing. In fact, when I do act on behalf of others, it is within my capacity, and within the capacity of most humans, to receive extreme pleasure from the satisfaction of others. This is a pleasure different from simply satisfying our other needs, and we should develop and act upon this pleasure, as we would any other, to balance or life and become satisfied individuals.

People who pass by the homeless and do nothing are actually worse off than they would be giving to others. Giving and charity are ends in themselves. We simply have a society that discourages our altruistic nature, capitalism, and makes it difficult to embrace our humanity.

As for redistribution, I think it should be voluntary. I also think not murdering innocent people should be voluntary. When I say, "obligation," I mean that the choice is logically the best individual option for living a good life and achieving a just society.

For instance, I will occasionally give money to homeless upon their request. This is a very insignificant act, and I am hardly a saint. I am probably a bit more unethical than the average person, if we judge by my actions. However, I feel a great amount of pleasure in having assisted another individual. I can even criticize myself. That is illogical. Now I am out some money. Why would I do that? Despite these criticisms, I am in touch with my emotions to know that the act of compassion and justice was an end in itself.

This is a slightly "egoist" explanation that basically implies charity is self-beneficial (as opposed to true egoism which says act self-interested by charity is useless).

I am sympathetic to other moral arguments for an obligation to assist others, particularly utilitarian ones. However, I think the above argument relies on the less presumptions. It simply assumes people can benefit themselves by being charitable. Therefore, they should do so.

I'm glad you don't have anything against one pursuing his/her own happiness. Still, I gotta ask: Why is it a moral obligation to serve the interests of others as well? They are certainly not of the same value as one own's interests, except in cases where interaction between both people will give benefits both agree to supply.

Why is there a moral obligation to save a drowning baby? Is there a moral obligation to save anyone or anything? What is morality?

I would define morality as "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life"

The first question isn't what should the code of values be, the first question is "Does man need values at all—and why?"

As much as many people hate her, Rand went to some length to try and show why Man needed a morality (her morality...).

"it is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible," and, "the fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. The survival of the organism is the ultimate value to which all of the organism's activities are aimed, the end served by all of its lesser values."

According to Rand, therefore, possessing free will, human beings must choose their values: one does not automatically hold his own life as his ultimate value. Whether in fact a person's actions promote and fulfill his own life or not is a question of fact, as it is with all other organisms, but whether a person will act in order to promote his well-being is up to him, not hard-wired into his physiology.

If [man] chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course. Reality confronts a man with a great many 'must's', but all of them are conditional: the formula of realistic necessity is: 'you must, if -' and the if stands for man's choice: 'if you want to achieve a certain goal'

Anyway, seems i have departed slightly from topic. What i meant to say is there is no moral obligation unless a person has as his/her goal to achieve the well-being of others.

And, like you very well said, redistribution or morality should be voluntary. Morality cannot be forced upon, "A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality"

To force morality upon others would be to act like a different spectrum of conservatives, who wish to impose their religious values unto us, for example.

EDIT: Also i'd like to add there is no such thing as an "altruistic nature", because we are biologically programmed to care for ourselves first, then for our family, and those closest to us generally.

Also, if you define altruism as Auguste Comte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auguste_Comte)'s version of altruism, which calls for living for the sake of others, then every single "altruist" act you will do will never be altruist, and I can demonstrate this very easily. For an action to be altruist you have to live for the sake of others at your own expense. This means you cannot gain any material compensation, because that would be "selfish". This also means you cannot gain any intellectial compensation, for that would be intellectial selfishness. If, when you help one, you feel well about yourself, then your act was not altruist, because you gained something in return - an intellectual profit. In order for someone to achieve full virtue, according to true altruistic doctrine, then one must engage in sacrifices.

Sacrifice does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious. ‘Sacrifice’ does not mean the rejection of the evil for the sake of the good, but of the good for the sake of the evil. ‘Sacrifice’ is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don’t.

If you exchange a penny for a dollar, it is not a sacrifice; if you exchange a dollar for a penny, it is. If you achieve the career you wanted, after years of struggle, it is not a sacrifice; if you then renounce it for the sake of a rival, it is. If you own a bottle of milk and gave it to your starving child, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to your neighbor’s child and let your own die, it is.

If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is. If you give your friend a sum you can afford, it is not a sacrifice; if you give him money at the cost of your own discomfort, it is only a partial virtue, according to this sort of moral standard; if you give him money at the cost of disaster to yourself that is the virtue of sacrifice in full.

If you renounce all personal desire and dedicate your life to those you love, you do not achieve full virtue: you still retain a value of your own, which is your love. If you devote your life to random strangers, it is an act of greater virtue. If you devote your life to serving men you hate-that is the greatest of the virtues you can practice.

A sacrifice is the surrender of a value. Full sacrifice is full surrender of all values. If you wish to achieve full virtue, you must seek no gratitude in return for your sacrifice, no praise, no love, no admiration, no self-esteem, not even the pride of being virtuous; the faintest trace of any gain dilutes your virtue. If you pursue a course of action that does not taint your life by any joy, that brings you no value in matter, no value in spirit, no gain, no profit, no reward-if you achieve this state of total zero, you have achieved the ideal of moral perfection.

Now i think it is obvious that under this doctrine moral perfection to man is impossible. One cannot achieve it so long as he lives, but the value of one's life and of his person is gauged by how closely he succeeds in approaching that ideal zero which is death.

[Robert]

Why is there a moral obligation to save a drowning baby?

I am sure that's a rhetorical question, but to the extent it isn't, the obligation is there because it's helpless and will die if you don't.

If the question is metaphysical, I hope both deists and atheists can agree that if your life is worth anything, the baby's life is worth something because without babies of some description, there will be no more people to be worth anything.

[Havet]

I am sure that's a rhetorical question, but to the extent it isn't, the obligation is there because it's helpless and will die if you don't.


So should I be compelled into helping the baby? Maybe bring a commissar with a gun and point it at my head so I help the baby?


"Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? None-except the obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality."

The logical extreme of your proposition is the following: I can make as much babies as I can and then leave them of the street because it will be the fault of the passers-by if the baby dies, because it is helpless and will die if the passer-bys don't help. Surely that's irrational.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I agree about the altruism point. However, even a tendency to "assist others to feel good about yourself" is better than pure selfishness. Furthermore, Rand has no justification for the claim that are values are all chosen by us. And even if they are, that doesn't mean we should choose her values. I'd argue that our sympathies towards other human beings are genetic in many circumstances. We simply cannot will ourselves to not care about others. Military individuals are specifically trained to do so and often end up with severe mental illness, presumably from going against their humanity.

If we consider that we can choose our values, which we can at least to some degree, I would also challenge Rand. Here is the following scenario:

1. I eat one ice cream cone and get 50 utility.
2. Another ice cream gone gives me 25. However, because I have developed and encouraged my capacity for appreciating the interests of others, I can also gain 30 utility from buying my sister an ice cream cone. In fact, even if I fill up myself with ice cream, I can continue to aid others by giving them something.

Clearly, an individual attempting to maximize their own utility can achieve a significant advantage by appreciating when good things happen to others. Perhaps the trade off is that you have to mourn bad things (which isn't necessarily the case). Either way, you can say the same about friendship. Even an egoist like Rand will come to appreciate the friends she has as objects. She clearly loses when they die or are in distress because it harms their functionality.

It's simply utility maximizing to care about others, as I see it. I actually don't think you have a choice. We simply tend to suppress our interests in others. I think they are still there and manifest themselves in the form of harming our health and well being.

Short-term sacrifices are not sacrifices, as I see it. You benefit from the pleasure of helping others. Even long-term sacrifices, such as rearing a child (in my opinion), can become justified. Human being are well adapted to cooperation and assisting each other. I don't think sacrifice is always as it appears. Yes, a complete sacrifice such as death might be unjustified. "Might." However, this would suggest that allowing 10,000 people to die, to survive yourself, is justified. To go back on an agreement is justified if the loss entails death. These scenarios are difficult. It seems that, intuitively, we value maintaining our integrity to a large degree.

[Havet]

However, even a tendency to "assist others to feel good about yourself" is better than pure selfishness. Furthermore, Rand has no justification for the claim that are values are all chosen by us. And even if they are, that doesn't mean we should choose her values. I'd argue that our sympathies towards other human beings are genetic in many circumstances. We simply cannot will ourselves to not care about others. Military individuals are specifically trained to do so and often end up with severe mental illness, presumably from going against their humanity.

Of course, I don't think we should choose her values as well. And Military individuals don't have mental illness because they went against "their humanity". Eg: PSTD
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_traumatic_stress)

If we consider that we can choose our values, which we can at least to some degree, I would also challenge Rand. Here is the following scenario:

1. I eat one ice cream cone and get 50 utility.
2. Another ice cream gone gives me 25. However, because I have developed and encouraged my capacity for appreciating the interests of others, I can also gain 30 utility from buying my sister an ice cream cone. In fact, even if I fill up myself with ice cream, I can continue to aid others by giving them something.

Clearly, an individual attempting to maximize their own utility can achieve a significant advantage by appreciating when good things happen to others. Perhaps the trade off is that you have to mourn bad things (which isn't necessarily the case). Either way, you can say the same about friendship. Even an egoist like Rand will come to appreciate the friends she has as objects. She clearly loses when they die or are in distress because it harms their functionality.

It's simply utility maximizing to care about others, as I see it. I actually don't think you have a choice. We simply tend to suppress our interests in others. I think they are still there and manifest themselves in the form of harming our health and well being.I don't understand how you can quantify the amount of good something brings you (50? 25? 30?) but i understand what you're saying. Selfishness as Rand defends it was never about caring for one self at all times, but by discovering what one values and then caring about that, whether it also includes family and friends or not.


Short-term sacrifices are not sacrifices, as I see it. You benefit from the pleasure of helping others. Even long-term sacrifices, such as rearing a child (in my opinion), can become justified. Human being are well adapted to cooperation and assisting each other. I don't think sacrifice is always as it appears. Yes, a complete sacrifice such as death might be unjustified. "Might." However, this would suggest that allowing 10,000 people to die, to survive yourself, is justified. To go back on an agreement is justified if the loss entails death. These scenarios are difficult. It seems that, intuitively, we value maintaining our integrity to a large degree.If you benefit at least something (pleasure), then of course, like i said above, it's not a sacrifice. This is why "pure altruism" which no one practices differs from "actual altruism" which people practice, without realizing they are still taking a selfish advantage of their actions in the later form of altruism.

[Judicator]

This guy gives a really bad name to Libertarians - I think the only thing most libertarians would agree on is smaller government.

[Outinleftfield]

If you will gain just as much from eating a chocolate bar as a starving man, you are fully entitled to eat it. You shouldn't forgo your own interests simply because someone has less. However, if there is a significant gain to be had by distributing your resources to others, you should do so.

Just had to point out that the chocolate bar has a declining marginal utility like everything. It is most likely worth less to you if you aren't starving. The starving person has more need of it, while you have aten already. The chocolate bar will help the starving person to survive, it will help you get a little flavor.

One of the many things taught in econ that isn't bs. One inconsistency in the class is that all calculations with supply and demand assume that all money is equal in value. But since money is worth more if you don't have as much money itself has a diminishing value. Suppliers in general have more money than consumers so just because a policy leads to a "deadweight loss" does not mean utility is not maximized. It depends on the increase for consumers versus the increase for suppliers and on average what the value of that money is to the different groups of people(almost always $1 will be worth more to the demanders than the suppliers) as well as other factors such as wages.

[Dimentio]

In the United States, you could actually establish an authorative position by just shouting at people and behaving like an idiot, I have learned from American talk shows.

[Orange Juche]

boortz is to capitalism what trotsky is to communism.

Rude, tasteless, meanspirited and ultimately inconsequential.

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh burrrrrrnnnnnnnnn!!!!!!

[RadioRaheem84]

Just seems like modern day social darwinism to me. Albeit, in a much much less pseudo-scientific way and in a more right-populist fashion.

But isnt this what the rich and the upper class really think of the lower class? They think we're all parasites and dumpster divers that mooch off of the productiive class!

Guys like this and Rush Limbaugh are just saying what their listeners are only thinking!

The same thing is prevalent among the richer liberals too. Look at any bio of a Forbes multi millionaire that supposedly votes Democrat and most likely his fav. book will be something by Ayn Rand.

It