RoR: Forum

Now to complete my trilogy on charity and the Big Easy ...

Do the inhabitants of New Orleans merit our charity? There are certainly a lot of sad stories flooding the news. To take one example, I can't help but pity some of those who stayed behind because they had no one to help them leave, or even more pitiable, to encourage them to leave. We human beings are a social species, and to dwell upon their isolation in the face of impending disaster is heart-breaking.

But I don't dwell upon that. Having no money to escape a disaster does not mean having no frieds to help you do so. So I must think: How does a person get himself so isolated from the society of others that not even an emergency produces a helping hand? Obviously that person has made some choices in life that have not served him well. His bad luck has nothing to do with luck and everything to do with bad choices.

Of course, that's true of all of us. Almost every problem that has plagued me, I have had a critical role in causing - even when legalistically the problem can't be said to be my fault. Haven't I been a fool enough times in my life to show some compassion to those whose foolishness has been magnified to a life-threatening crisis by nature's blind fury? I think so. By that doesn't mean I suspend judgment. The charity I am willing to extend must be mitigated by the foolishness of those now suffering, and there's plenty of foolishness to consider.

First of all is the dependence of people in New Orleans upon the government to protect them and their property. That is never a sound proposition, even for those who rightfully demand something of value from state that taxes every dollar earned. In the case of New Orleans, that dependence was plain stupidity. It is the most corrupt big city in the U.S. No one should have been surprised that the Superdome was not prepared to handle refugees or that the police would not deter looters. New Orleans is the city that does not work.

Second, New Orleanians have perversely prided themselves on a manana culture. Worry about tomorrow tomorrow, because today we have fun. Let the good times roll. Refusing to make serious preparations for this inevitable disaster smacks of immorality. These grasshoppers have had their day. Why should we ants bail them out now? That's not to say we shouldn't, but the question needs an honest answer.

Finally, there's something about living below sea level in hurricane country that I just don't get. Is there anything to be admired about such defiance against immutable geography? It's one thing to stand against those things that we change, but topography isn't one of them. I suppose that's why I live on top of hill instead living in the valley below and shaking my fist at the river.

To those who demand genuine charity for those in New Orleans or the coerced charity of anti-gouging laws, judgment of Katrina's victims cannot be suspended.

Andy

Post 81

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 7:43am

Steven D,

My compliments on a good article standing up for principled commonsense that appears to have eluded some here who should know better.

Kudos,
Andy

Post 82

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 7:44am

Well done, Andy. Thank you.

Jon

Post 83

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 8:15am

Michael,

I have repeatedly said in response to your reaction to me in the Branden thread that I am not spoiling for a fight with you. However, what you have written is completely opposed to the heart and soul Miss Rand's philoshophy and cannot pass without rebuke ...

Let a man sit on a wealth of food with a multitude of people starving around him and see what happens when his armed protectors (police, army, thugs, whatever) loose their clout. The question of trade becomes academic in the literal sense. Such man will be lucky to escape with his life. Talking about rights will not hold off the hungry mob (and they will be pissed).

How can anyone who has read Atlas Shrugged ever sympathize with the mob again? It is repulsive to the point of gagging to think that a mob has any entitlement to seize wealth it did not create. Disaster does not create a new context in which ethics get tossed aside. The dignity of the individual still reigns supreme. The despicable collective of the mob remains despicable. The trader principle is still in force. Anyone who would advocate that reality dictates that your man with a "wealth of food" must part with it sans charity or profit advocates a crime.

The context of a disaster might permit a starving man to take groceries from an unattended store with his sincere intent to compensate the owner for them later. Never can it give the mob license to seize what does not belong it. To sympathize with the mob, or even excuse it, is the thin edge of the wedge of collectivism.

Andy

Post 84

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 8:17am

My pleasure, Jon.

Andy

Post 85

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 8:47am

Ross,

I am working on an article on this, but rights are not intrinsic to reality. They are social conventions, agreed to or not, backed up by a government. In Objectivism, they derive from ethics (and are then called "moral principles), so then, of course, a right based on rational ethics does not go away when a gun is pointed at you. But that is only if you are using rational ethics.

In every one of Ayn Rand's pronouncements about the absolute nature of rights, her premise has always been rational ethics. Her passion for this was such that she very rarely alluded to other rights, like the divine right of kings and so on, and even then, in an extremely derogatory manner (which is what a concept like that deserves at the minimum, but that is beside the point right here).

If you are in a context where there are no rational ethics predominating, there are no Objectivist-type rights. Not in any reality I can see. Call it "abrogation" if you wish. In the context of a free society, "abrogation" is a very good word because the right can be restored in short order, or justice applied for the "abrogation." In a large scale irrational context, like one based on other ethics, religious ones for example (Islam comes to mind), "abrogation" of Objectivist-type rights is just a word that has no connection to the reality people live.

Change the ethics and you can change the concept of rights.

Jason,

Objectivism is a philosophy for living on earth. We agree 100% that duty to help others coming down as an all-encompassing moral commandment from a Kantian noumenal realm is a despicable evil and completely irrational.

However, there is a thing called human nature, which is the basis of Objectivist ethics - principally the volitional and conceptual aspects of human nature. There is another aspect of human nature - the emotional makeup of the human mind, the mind's emotional nature - that many Objectivists deride and belittle. (As an aside, from what I can see, most who poke fun at emotions are emotional messes of childishness and insecurity.)

Where does this apply in the present case? In the "help others" category. Is Altruism evil as a philosophy? It certainly is. It inverts metaphysical-based ethical priorities. Does "helping others" have anything else to do with living? It certainly does. There is an emotion called empathy built into our minds (in varying degrees). It is just as stupid to deny the existence of empathy as it is to base a whole philosophy (or even whole ethics) on it.

In the case of your man who is sitting on a bunch of water watching others die of thirst, is he morally justified? According to the social part of ethics, property rights, yes. According to the accepting reality - accepting the reality of his own nature - part (which has empathy built into it), no. He is being completely irrational - and he is being so on a much deeper level than politics ("politics" as a philosophical branch, meaning capitalism for Objectivists).

This mix-up is why so many are saying words like "decent" but divorcing this evaluation from ethics, and why even you would condemn such a man, but find it hard to latch onto a moral reason for doing so.

To be clear, empathy taken to a philosophical principle level is evil. Denying the existence of empathy (as a human emotion) also is evil, since such denial is not reality based.

(Merely as an aside and as one small piece of evidence, look at what happened to the guards of Nazi concentration camps. They became alcoholics - at the best.)

The crux of the story is that the dead have no rights or ethics. They are just dead. Their valuing part, the individual life force, no longer exists; they have become just a carcass.

Anyone who promotes death and claims moral justification for it based on reason is making a vast rationalization and is essentially cutting one part of his own nature off from his ethics.

Michael

Post 86

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 9:01am

OK, Andy,

I'll talk to you. You are a flaming Randroid who has fooled most of the people around here for the time being. Not me. (Solo is very good about detecting this over time, though, and the Randroid eventually changes or self-destructs, so I can wait - I've seen this shit before.)

I do not sympathize with mob actions and it is clear that you have not read my other works. Recognizing a reality (there is a mob) and making a value judgment (I want to live) is not the same a sympathizing with the mob. Trying to paint me as sympathizing with mobs is Randroidism par excellence.

Also your snide one-sided smarmy comment about Comintern for Kat makes you just about the lowest form of scum I can think of.

Fuck you.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 9/05, 9:09am)

Post 87

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 9:43am

Y'all have to craveat that guy - he's been living long time in Brazil - and they do things differently down there...

Good posting, Andy...

(Edited by robert malcom on 9/05, 9:45am)

Post 88

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 10:06am

Michael K,

Thanks for restoring communication with me. If you have gotten the name-calling out of your system, let's examine this statement ...

I do not sympathize with mob actions and it is clear that you have not read my other works. Recognizing a reality (there is a mob) and making a value judgment (I want to live) is not the same a sympathizing with the mob. Trying to paint me as sympathizing with mobs is Randroidism par excellence.

I'm glad I'm wrong and that you were not rationalizing the mob's conduct. However, you did write at length on the subject and you did so in defense of Kat's unfortunate denigration of builders as "vultures". So when the productive are maligned and the looters are not condemned, I don't have to be a "Randroid" to think two and two look like four.

Moreover, this statement really does not clear up what you meant. All you have pointed out is that under coercion a person would be rational to choose the preservation of his life or that of his property. If it your suggestion that anti-gouging laws would prevent a mob from forming in the first place, I don't see it. A mob could still form to take supplies from a person unwilling to part from them at any price. So, I'm still in the dark about where you're intended to go with remarks about the "reality" of the mob.

Andy

Post 89

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 10:14am

Michael,

I'll agree-- that it is objectively moral for a person that is starving/dying of thirst to steal or even kill in an extreme situation if that is what is necessary just to survive-- even if the person he is stealing from or killing is innocent. I just question whether this situation actually occurs. No matter whether it was objectively moral for that individual to steal or kill, I still think it would always be objectively moral to punish people for stealing from and killing the innocent.

In your grocery store scenario, you have individuals who have no other chance of survival other than to eat the food in the store. The owner absolutely refuses to make any deal with them, he would rather keep the food for himself then let the starving individuals survive.

I wonder, why does the owner absolutely refuse to make a deal? Is he acting in his own self interest or not? We know the starving individuals are acting in their own self interest... because they have absolutely no other option. How can we judge the morality of the individuals in this scenario? What sort of punishment should be given to them?

First, I would want to know:
1. Did the starving individuals attempt to make a deal, or did they simply immediately attempt to steal?
2. Did the looters injure kill the owner? Was it an act necessary to survive?
3. Did the owner injure or kill the looters? Was it an act necessary to protect his property?

The answer to #1 would determine whether the starving individuals were irrational looters or rational beings. It establishes whether they had the intent to make trade rather than initiate force. In my court, this would make a big difference as to the severity of the thieves punishment.

The answer to #2 would determine whether the starving individuals were irrationally destroying the owner's body, or whether they were rationally doing what they had to do to survive. In my court, this would make big difference as to the severity of the thieves punishment.

The answer to #3 would determine whether the owner was killing/injuring the looters when he need only warn them. In my court, all acts of violence to protect one's own property are innocent (non-criminal) until proven that he was using an unreasonably damaging amount of force above and beyond what was reasonably necessary to defend. Unreasonably damaging amounts of force would be grounds for punishment, to the degree it was unreasonably damaging.

What would society be like if we were to punish people for protecting their property, and not punish people when they take other's property against the owner's will? I could stop working, and become starving. Then I would be able to eat anywhere I wanted to-- for free. Who would want to make food?

Judge Dean Michael Gores

Post 90

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 10:18am

Thanks, Robert M.

As for Michael K hailing from Brazil, then he knows how bad government can ruin a wonderful land.

Andy

Post 91

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 10:23am

Jason, that was a very good post. You can be a very articulate voice for reason and I have seen this on several occasions. I do, however think that MSK, Scott and myself have been misunderstood when you said,

The second group is promoting the value of charity, but seems to be inferring a "duty of charity toward those in need" that is applicable in emergency situations.

No one is promoting a duty of charity here. My words have been completely twisted around. I have said nothing promoting altruism or duty or debt to society. I said nothing about charity, duty or any of that crap.

A need is not a claim against another. I believe that a good deal of the problems down there are caused by the welfare mentality so prevalent in our inner cities. I for one, do not sanction it. When I get approached by an aggressive panhandler it gets pretty ugly. I have also spoken out against involuntary contributions and those beg-a-thons at work long before this situation occurred.

I certainly have never said people cannot make money during a crisis, only that there are many scam artists who come out to prey in such situations... and BAM.... I am painted fucking red.

I am not asking anyone to give anything away. I was addressing the "kick them when they are down" comment and how people band together or attack each other in a crisis. I stated that there were laws on the books to show the legal threshold of price gouging and then stated that I felt it was too low by talking about the gasoline situation.

Capitalism is good, exploitation is is not. I find scam artists disgusting and those who would deny the existence of scam artists delusional. Making a profit and running a scam are two different things. I may be cynical, but I am not red!

(Edited by katdaddy on 9/06, 5:40am)

Post 92

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 11:26am

I wonder what the mooching mob would like to do to Galt. He dismantled a good thing they had going.

I suppose the answer is that he has no rights while they are chasing him, and then he does have rights once they stop. Or is it that he has no rights until he reaches the machine gun emplacement, swings it their direction and now he has rights? Or is it�Oh forget it, I�m going back to saying he always has rights, recognized and honored, or not.

Can�t wait for that article.

And Kat, in anticipation of your invitation to fuck myself�Thanks. It�s a holiday�I think I will!

Jon
(Edited by Jon Letendre
on 9/05, 11:28am)

Post 93

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 11:57am

Andy and Robert, kindly fuck yourselves.

Kat, you and Michael K can get pissed off at those of us misinterpreting your confusing statements, or you can take responsibility for expressing yourselves poorly - as we all do at some time or another. Either you made a misstatement or a repulsive collectivist one. So, own up to what you did instead of cursing those who took you seriously enough to try to figure out what you meant.

Andy

Post 94

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 11:58am

In post #69 MSK writes:

No right exists if there is no way to enforce it.

In "Textbook of Americanism", Ayn Rand wrote:

Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times.

In post #85 MSK writes:

... rights are not intrinsic to reality. They are social conventions, agreed to or not, backed up by a government.

In "Man's Rights", Ayn Rand wrote:

A "right" is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context.

and

Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.

And in Galt's speech she wrote:

The source of man's rights is not devine law or congressional law, but the law of identity.

MSK believes that the source of rights is social convention.

Ayn Rand taught that the source of rights is man's nature.

MSK believes that rights exist only in certain contexts.

Ayn Rand taught that rights are inalienable and exist at all times.

MSK denies the Objectivist concept of rights.

In the "Ayn Rand Letter" she wrote:

The concept of individual rights is so prodigious a feat of political thinking that few men grasp it fully..."

Including, unfortunately, some self-styled Objectivists.

Post 95

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 12:16pm

There are laws against price gouging. There are also anti-trust laws . There are laws against different types of sex between consenting adults. There are laws governing what chemicals a person can knowingly take for their own enjoyment or to take care of factors in their own life. There are laws against certain types of speech and printing certain types of materials when the constitution clearly states that laws such as this are not to be passed.

There were once laws that a black slave was a percentage of a person. There were once laws that stated women could not be trusted with the vote. There were once laws that being a non-christian in the right part of the country could get you executed.

Have I made my point?

---Landon

Post 96

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 12:23pm

Dean,

I'll agree-- that it is objectively moral for a person that is starving/dying of thirst to steal or even kill in an extreme situation if that is what is necessary just to survive-- even if the person he is stealing from or killing is innocent.

Objectivist ethics never sanctions the law of the jungle, which is of course the very antithesis of law. It never recognizes that you can justly reduce yourself to an animal to act lawlessly - even to survive. Yes, the ultimate standard against which all your decisions must be justified is your life, but that is your life as a human being. A human being is moral being, and if you must abandon morality - for example, killing an innocent person - to obtain what you want, then you abandoned the standard that justifies your existence.

Let me put it this way, Dean. If you are starving, you have made a very serious mistake in getting to the dire circumstance. You cannot make an innocent person pay for your mistake without becoming a criminal. A criminal life is no life worth preserving. So if it is a choice between that life and an innocent person's life, Objectivst ethics makes clear which life must go.

Objectivism is not narcissism rationalized.

Andy

Post 97

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 12:26pm

Bravo, Rick. Another reason why I would never blow smoke in that lovely puss of yours. ;-)

Andy

Post 98

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 12:44pm

A human being is moral being, and if you must abandon morality - for example, killing an innocent person - to obtain what you want, then you abandoned the standard that justifies your existence.

What is your standard for morality? Your own life? Or not killing innocent people? Michael has created a scenario where these two values are pitted against each other. Which value will you choose?

Objectivist ethics never sanctions the law of the jungle, which is of course the very antithesis of law. It never recognizes that you can justly reduce yourself to an animal to act lawlessly - even to survive.

I disagree. Objectivism ethics claims that an individuals value of their own life is supreme to all other values. When two innocent lives are stuck in a situation where it is one life verses the other, a battle between rational men will occur. Now... how often does such a scenario actually occur? Under what circumstances? I think it would be best that we did everything we can to avoid such circumstances.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 9/05, 1:01pm)

Post 99

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 1:00pm