Altruist ethics is everywhere. Even while so many mistakenly equate it with benevolence if asked, every time anyone is manipulated by guilt to go along with personal or government-forced sacrifice, it is acceptance of altruism at work. That is everywhere. The resentment and 'Age of Envy' is a consequence.

The answer is not an appeal to what "works" -- for whom, for what purpose, at whose expense and by what standard? That is pragmatism. It is true that political and economic freedom is practical and 'works' better than collectivism, but the justification is the rights of the individual, which in turn depends on an ethics of rational self-interest and individualism. Even if some variant of socialism could be made to 'work' by some standard, which it can't, it would not justify the violation of the rights of the individual to pursue his own goals in freedom..

You shouldn't have to give up on convincing the political leaders you listed -- because they were hopeless to begin with and you never should have started trying. Start with rational people willing to listen. The politicians are only the consequence.

That is why Ayn Rand argued that it is too soon for politics. There are some policies and action on which some politicians can still be persuaded from common sense, because they realize that it is 'safe'. Even 'liberal' Democrats can sometimes be persuaded to help on some specific issue. But overall it takes a philosophical revolution. There are no shortcuts.

The negative effects may be obvious in early
childhood: e.g., when someone grabs something
of yours, you resist, and are called "selfish!" But over the years, with the belief in altruism pervading the whole society, the people all around you, the constant, and nearly earthwide,
equation of selfishness with evil, it becomes
far from obvious. I knew I was selfish when a
teenager, and thought that I was therefore in-
capable of love, and could never be happy. I
saw the title The Virtue of Selfishness in a
local library, and though I knew I was selfish,
didn't think it could be a virtue. I nevertheless
got the book (it was on a trading shelf), and ex-
pected to find cynical arguments. But I was
very intrigued. Particularly by the politics, which
were largely my own.

I should have said ethics might not be the most common reason people resist it. It might be one reason, in that: if people hold it always evil to see to one's own wishes or desires, then their motive is not what most people call altruism, but is spite--not wanting the other person to have something. I seek to address those who actually want to relieve suffering. They need convincing that enlightened self-interest works better than having a government "handle things." We know that it does. We have to convince our ordinary fellow citizens of that.

That said, I have given up trying to convince some political leaders of that. The motives of Barack Obama, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.), et al. are clearly spiteful, as their attitudes, behaviors, and policy proposals make clear in this and other contexts.

Ayn Rand was not the first to see that altruism leads to self-sacrifice for the sake of others. That is the way it was defined by its originator who coined the term, Auguste Compte.

Facts in reality exist. Prior to discovering how to classify them and formulate that awareness into concepts and principles, the principles do not exist anywhere. The same is true of any science. Newton's laws were not "discovered" already formulated under a rock.

Ayn Rand did not say that "the proper ethics existed". It did not and neither did capitalism, which resulted from the ideas of the Enlightenment, just like any other social system that comes into existence when certain ideas are practiced.

No ideas of anything exist before someone formulates them. Correct ideas are based on facts of reality observed by a human consciousness. The ideas themselves are not in reality prior to consciousness formulating valid concepts. Discovering a principle does not mean finding it under a rock. It means using valid conceptual classifications to mentally formulate a general statement and then validating it. Knowledge is objective, not intrinsic or subjective. It is a grasp of the facts of reality in accordance with the conceptual means of human awareness. See Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objective Epistemology.

No one created and formulated a proper ethics before Ayn Rand did. It did not exist. The facts of human nature that eventually gave rise to the concepts and principles existed. The principles identifying the standards for proper choice of action and their purpose did not. Please read her article "The Objectivist Ethics":

"No philosopher has given a rational, objectively demonstrable, scientific answer to the question of why man needs a code of values. So long as that question remained unanswered, no rational, scientific, objective code of ethics could be discovered or defined...

"Most philosophers took the existence of ethics for granted, as the given, as a historical fact, and were not concerned with discovering its metaphysical cause or objective validation. Many of them attempted to break the traditional monopoly of mysticism in the field of ethics and, allegedly, to define a rational, scientific, nonreligious morality. But their attempts consisted of trying to justify them on social grounds, merely substituting society for God."

Please refrain from telling me that my "knowledge of how Ayn Rand thought is very very limited". You couldn't be more wrong and it is not an argument. Your dismissal of centuries of philosophers prior to Ayn Rand as "not smart" and nothing more than "looters" is profoundly anti-intellectual. It shows no understanding of how ideas and social systems evolved over centuries.

You said that ethics isn't the problem and that people don't expect enlightened self interest to work. Understanding ethics is the heart of the problem.

The challenge has never been to convince the irrational. Ayn Rand said that she was out to persuade the rational; the irrational were not her concern.

Perhaps it is the strict exclusive "either or" stance which neglects a possible middle ground where one can be selfish and also have empathy for the plights of others and thus be selfishly helpful without giving up one's individuality. Not every action needs be chosen by whether it is good or evil. I grew up in a family of 9 where we were not taught helpfulness but all learned it by example from our selfish atheist father who never would back away from someone who needed emergency help. He did not dedicate his life to helping others in some selfless manner but because he felt a selfish empathy for those in distress he would help. He could not pass by an injured person, even some lost drunk who by his own fault was losing his fight for life, without giving aid if need be. Money was not involved because we were never rich. I suspect there are many who have strong selves, who thus are able to have empathy, who can get past that exclusive "either or" when applied to choosing to act.

Yes. I have noticed if you complain about high taxes politicians usually threaten to cut social programs first. Guilt shames people into silence. Great point that it hurts the recipient as well.

People see the negative effects of altruism (hand outs) when it affects their finances. However, understanding how it hurts not ony the recipient but also the society,takes more understanding than many possess. Going Objectivist also calls for them to confront the herd and stop acting as sheeple, a bit harder. They have to grap the whole conept befoe they are ready for Rand. Governemtn schools have made that very difficult.

The typical liberal argues for increasing taxes on the rich in order to benefit the poor and other disadvantaged people. They do not, however, argue for increasing their own taxes. Technically, this isn't altruistic since they have no intention of sacrificing for others.

The negative effects of Altruism are not obvious to most people. People are steeped in the notion that they should be unselfish. They are taught by their religions and cultural norms that all are created equal, so don't bully, deprive, steal from or mistreat others. Where ordinary manners and respect don't suffice to indoctrinate them from childhood on, laws are put in place to criminalize aggressions and transgressing against others' equal rights.

The purpose of all such behavior control is to secure freedom, safety, equality, peace, getting along, having basic needs met, and promoting friendships and preventing hostilities. "Love thy neighbor" and all that. Entire codes of morality were developed, with concepts of sins and virtues. Complex systems of laws were constructed to handle conflicts. On the largest scale, treaties were concluded to keep peace among nations.

The "doing good" to others to keep them from doing ill to you is the basic premise in relationships. The Golden Rule of treating others as you want to be treated, of loving others as yourself has attempted for thousands of years to arrive at a protocol that would assure equal benefits to all parties. Yet the animal nature from which we evolved is underpinned by the choice of "eat or be eaten", when what we need is "neither eat nor be eaten" by our fellow man. So selfishness has a bad name, and altruism (mistaken for benevolence, generosity, charity, kindness, decency, consideration, respect) is seen as the great virtue in human relations.

Only Ayn Rand saw altruism as what it leads to: total self-sacrifice for the sake of others. Thus the vast majority of people who buy into being good to each other view their being good as the very definition of altruism. And encountering the Objectivist denouncement of altruism and assertion of selfishness as a virtue turns most people against Objectivism, thinking of it as heartless and predatory. That's why.

There is not enough emphasis on Ayn Rand's reformulation of the Golden Rule as stated in Galt's Oath, especially its second half: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I shall never live for the sake of another man, NOR ASK ANOTHER MAN TO LIVE FOR MINE." Without that reciprocal part, Objectivism gets a bad name. Coupled with Rand's praise of capitalism, which is seen as rapacious and greedy and breeds hatred of the successful and the rich, Objectivism is more readily viewed with disdain by the majority of the public, who operate on emotional conditioning rather than rational thought. That's why.

Excellent point Tech. I read an article the other day that two anti Trump groups want to start creating chaos in DC starting this weekend. Hope it fizzles out but things could get ugly soon.

Politicians do act in their best interests Rich.
The error by the people is assuming that the politician's best interests are congruent with theirs.

I have read about groups that want to disrupt the inauguration. We may know soon just how bad things are going to get.

With the real motive of anarchy and rioting providing an excuse to control the populace. Either through Martial Law (unlikely) or using DHS (more likely). Using DHS allows the fig leaf of it being a police type function. No matter what government control expands.

DHS is its own agency, so political approval is not initially required. Easier far to ask for forgiveness after rather than permission before.

The Progressives are pushing for anarchy. Punishment for not voting the way we were told.

That makes sense. I am still amazed at how many people think that politicians act in their best interests.

Altruism is often framed that way to sell it, but everyone who makes moral judgments based on sacrifice, including going along with political collectivism out of moral intimidation, is endorsing what it really means and is motivated by it. The tying of altruism to benevolence to help put if over is another fallacious package deal, not a stolen concept.

Well said EdGoldstein,They have to believe that controllers have good intentions. They also must make excuses in their minds for the lies that are revealed as the end justifies the means. They likely could not explain what the end is.

Because now days altruism is a stolen concept. People have no understanding of what it actually means. They think it simply means benevolence. They don't understand that as a moral code altruism actually means that you have no right to live for yourself and that you have a moral duty to live for the benefit of others. They believe that they can simply change the meaning of the concept to suit their opinion.

That is not an explanation of why they make such choices, when they do at all. It is not innate.

one last though for you to consider. existence exists. when ever someone discovers something it is because what ever it was did exist, and now someone discovers it. A=A!

Objectivism does not offer a moral code of behaviors that are good. It offers instead a set of moral principles as part of an integrated philosophical system which if you know it allows you to select the moral action in any situation. It is intellectual work to learn the philosophy and validate the moral principles. Tara Smith has translated the principles into a set of virtues following Rand. Accepting and integrating the virtues gets you pretty good moral standards but leaves you short on prescriptions. Just getting something vaguely moral out of the culture and feeling good about it is the easy course and Objectivist morality is hard work but very rewarding for getting clear about living among altruists.