Reflecting on the merging of government with big business and the “too big to fail” meme, Jonah Goldberg recalls a vintage if chilling Hillarism:
Hillary Clinton’s health-care plan required working with large corporations and other firms. It was little guys for whom she had nothing but contempt. When warned her plan would crush smaller businesses, she shrugged, “I can’t go out and save every undercapitalized entrepreneur in America.”
A rather odd definition of “save,” don’t you think? No doubt she saw (and sees) small business recalcitrance to being ruined as selfish and stubborn.
Of course such was her logic then. This is now:
“Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border . . . causes the deaths of police, of soldiers and civilians.”
Since when are “we” chargeable with smuggling by Mexicans (many of whom are in the government)? Certainly, it’s our job to defend our own country against invaders, but if foreign countries can’t control what goes on in their countries, they have no right to demand that Americans lose the right to buy guns (clearly the goal here).
Are we approaching a time when self-defense will be condemned as “selfish.”
Would anyone say that I’m responsible for auto theft because I own cars? Well, yes, some would, but the thinking is so illogical that no serious person would take it seriously. Yet Hillary is carrying the same logic one stage further, as if she said that American car ownership is the cause of international auto smuggling rings.
What a relief it was to find some simple relief in this Ayn Rand interview that Dr. Helen linked yesterday:
In addition to saying “If you made it yourself,….Why shouldn’t you keep it, you made it,” Rand discusses and condemns altruism (which lies at the root of the idea that criminals are victims, victims are culpable, that kulak types who refuse to collectivize are evil, and the state is beneficent).
How did the altruists manage to win?
Comments
6 responses to “We need to crack down on selfish people!”
How did the altruists manage to win? Why wouldn’t they? Who, besides Rand herself, has seriously challenged their moral premises at any time in the last hundred years?
They won politically because they weren’t challenged morally. And that means if you want to beat them politically today, you need to start by uprooting the moral premises on which their attacks on freedom depend.
Oh come on now, eric. Altruists surely have their place. For example, I might be seen as an altruist if I donated to your site, no matter I had less money than you even.
I do get cranky, however, when altruists, or more specifically legislators, pledge their support for you with my money.
Might I repeat that? Altruists pledging my money….CRANKY!
@ Penny,
“Altruists pledging my money…”
Ah, but don’t you see? Such thinking is so selfish… it’s not really _your_ money, it belongs to the People. For the greater good. For the State, who are the beneficiaries of the People.
Until and unless you challenge that mentality… you’ll never gain any ground politically, I’m afraid. The democrats (And some Republicans too, sadly) will always simply appeal to the “altruistic nature” of America. And they’ll win, too, because 90% of the time, people will choose the moral choice, despite all evidence that it will lead to horrible consequences.
Interesting. Good to hear Rand in her own words. I really dislike to find out that things I’ve heard misrepresent or violently distort a person’s views, whether it be Plato, Aristotle, Jesus, Marx, Muhammad, Galileo, Newton, Lenin, Che, Jefferson or Mother Teresa.
Rand is clearly not “anti-child” or “anti-family” — heck, she says people should help smart, talented children; she does not say to put them in forced labor nor does she dismiss Donahue’s question with anything like “children don’t matter; I won’t talk about something so irrelevant” or “people shouldn’t have children.”
Why some people present Rand as anti-child or anti-family when we can hear and read her own words, I don’t understand.
Those people’s dishonesty/misrepresentation is brought into the light of day for all to see.
And Rand clearly says charity is OK — if done for the right reason. Why do people say she is anti-charity? We can listen to Rand or read her ourselves to see that those people are wrong! Why do those people want to ruin their own credibility?
Rand simply does not want forced charity. What’s wrong with that? Nothing.
In fact, she said in a 1964 interview (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/charity.html):
“My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.”
This quote was not difficult to find on the Internet.
Whether we agree or disagree with a person, we should be honest and reasonable about their views — if we are not, it is at our own cognitive peril.
Great video. What surprised me were the several bursts of applause after Rand made several clearly Objectivist points. If her and her answers could be grafted into a present day Oprah show, she might not get out alive.
Once again, as with the Friedman/Donahue video floating around, Donahue is intellectually out of his league.
Thought this would be useful. Ayn Rand on “altruism”:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html
“Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice?which means; self-immolation,
self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction?which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.”