About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 5:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for posting.  There is a similar article in the Freeman here.

I was glad to see you post again and hope you are fine. 

Edit: Haiti had another big earthquake today. News story.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 1/20, 6:04am)


Post 1

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 8:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As someone who lived through the Loma Prieta quake and observed far less destruction and death, I agree with the premise that the death toll is the consequence of the poverty caused by government screwups. As liberal and statist as the SF and CA governments are, they are much better than the gov't in Haiti.

Question: is it altruistic and wrong to send aid to Haiti if one is an Objectivist (assuming that everyone there is a stranger to you)? Should a staunch Objectivist's reaction be to shrug one's shoulder and get on with one's life? If so, how would one explain this to one's non-O friends?

Post 2

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 8:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim,

Kindness is one of the lesser virtues. Giving to someone in circumstances like this could only be considered wrong if
a) it was not voluntary, or
b) one gave so much relative to what they had that it could be seen as a sacrifice, or
c) the gift was out of some misguided sense of duty or altruistic requirements, or,
d) the money went to support the tyrant.

That is my take on it.

Post 3

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 4:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Question: is it altruistic and wrong to send aid to Haiti if one is an Objectivist (assuming that everyone there is a stranger to you)?

No. But it would be altruistic to trust every hand extended for a cause you may be interested in.

I wonder if Ron Paul would consider American aid to Haiti as governmental "interference?" If not, why not?


Post 4

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 5:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ron Paul on Haiti - Americans will give billions. Unsurprisingly, he states that private citizens will give that much voluntarily and that that's fine. However, he also says 'we' (presumably referring to the US govt in this case) can help Haitians if "we're in the area" and it's not too much trouble. Even with those qualifiers, that part was surprising and really seems like an instance of going soft on his libertarian view of no foreign aid.

Aaron

Post 5

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 5:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Even with those qualifiers, that part was surprising and really seems like an instance of going soft on his libertarian view of no foreign aid.

<g> I guess that depends on how he defines "foreign." 


Post 6

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 7:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
According to Mark Steyn, in his "America Alone," the West is losing population big-time, with the U.S. only breaking even because of the influx of legal and illegal immigrants, while the places that are experiencing major population growth are the Islamic fundamentalist 3rd world countries. 

Demographics on most of Europe forecast a drastic decline in native population, only partially offset by the flood of Islamic immigrants.  Hundreds or thousands of rural villages in Germany lie empty after the population crashed to the point that the sewage systems and other infrastructure fell apart.  Steyn predicts that because the Islamic populations can cast swing votes in most of Europe, that we will see forms of Sharia Law in France and the Netherlands soon.

Meanwhile, we have a situation in Haiti and many other Caribean islands in which a black population with a mostly European culture and philosophy is desperate to get OUT.  So, why not invite them in?  The U.S. is far from being overpopulated.


Post 7

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 8:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The immediate question is, what are our treaty obligations?


Post 8

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 10:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What do people in Haiti do? I don't think help should be given in the form of a donation. Instead a loan is best. Loan -> its worthwhile for both parties. Donation -> waste towards beggars. Save your resources to better the lives of productive people. Won't helping productive people make your life and the productive people's lives better? How does feeding the bears make your life better?

Productive: Creating (intelligent) life sustaining and life generating values in the free market.

Intelligent means say general human intelligence vs maybe trees or frogs.

Free market means that the values aren't going to end up being stolen or taxed to benefit your attacker, but instead consumed by a person who attained the value through consensual means.

Donating is not productive. It is a form of consuming values.

Post 9

Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 6:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Times change.... time was when you said something like that on RoR, people complained that you might give Objectivism a bad name.

The Big Easy versus the Big Apple.


Post 10

Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 8:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As a general solution to the problem that shouldn't offend anyone - except some of us anarchists of the more doctrinaire variety - why not charge everyone for the state services actually provided, with the option of a refund if one can demonstrate in court that one is not in need of them or already has a better alternative?

Then let anyone come aboard who can pay up front for expected costs - burden on the infrastructure, fair share of the price of recruiting, maintaining, burying the Imperial Storm Troupers, etc.  If someone wants to loan the entrance fee to some Haitian, Mexican, etc., great!  That means that the costs are offset by the fee, while the only people who get in are those who are themselves productive or have demonstrated their value to someone else.

Note that while the first paragraph above makes perfectly good sense by itself, and should be consistent with an objectivist limited government, it is unlikely to pass muster before the political collectivists and deal swappers whose livelihood is strictly dependent upon keeping people at each other's throats.  I.e., congress, the military, corporate industrial, patent stealing, academic complex.

However, it or something similar might actually fly with regard to immigrants in general.  The U.S. needs people, people want to come here, what could be easier?  Of course, the U.S. doesn't need more welfare mothers or terminally ill AIDS victims expecting to get free cadilac health care.  So, require them to post a reasonable bond or purchase insurance.  Whatever is a reasonable way to ensure that mostly the productive people get in.


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.