The Humanitarian with the Guillotine - 1

Posted by mshupe 1 year, 3 months ago to Politics
15 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Chapter XX, Excerpt 1 of 3
The Humanitarian With the Guillotine

If the harm done by willful criminals were to be computed, the number of murders, the extent of damage and loss, would be found negligible in the sum of death and devastation wrought upon human beings by their kind. Therefore, when millions are slaughtered, torture is practiced, starvation enforced, oppression a policy, it must be at the behest of many good people . . . on record as giving approval, elaborating justifications, or cloaking facts with silence, and discountenancing discussion.

There must be a very grave error in the means by which they seek to attain their ends. There must even be an error in their primary axioms, to permit them to continue using such means. Something is terribly wrong in the procedure, somewhere. What is it? It may be said that the wielders of power are vicious hypocrites; that their conscious objective was evil from the beginning; nonetheless, they could not have come to power except with the consent and assistance of good people.

The principal political figures now wielding power in Europe are socialists, or communists; men whose creed was the collective good. It did not happen by chance; it followed from the original premise, objective and means proposed. As a primary justification of existence, the objective is to do good to others. The means is the power of the collective. The premise is that that good is collective. The root of the matter is ethical, philosophical, and religious, involving the relation of man to the universe.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by 1 year, 3 months ago
    At the behest of many good people? Is that behest true? Is that behest the least bit plausible? Consent and assistance of good people? Are these "good" people good? How is any of this good? Of what highly controversial passage in Atlas Shrugged does this remind you?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by j_IR1776wg 1 year, 3 months ago
      The question of what is “The Good” has been asked and unanswered at least since Plato’s Republic in ancient Greece. I doubt that the millions of Germans who voted the NAZI party into power were as evil as the animals who perpetrated the concentration camps and the Holocaust. More likely was that they were voted in at the behest of desperate people.

      The arc of the curve of altruism always follows the same path; a sincere desire to help (the Good Samaritans) followed by begging for alms to help the needy, followed by the use of political power to tax to help the needy, followed by Ayn Rand’s “…the mindless face of a thug with a club in his hand…” demanding your contribution or else.

      Isabel Paterson nailed the essence of the Humanitarian with this sentence “The humanitarian puts himself in the place of God”
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by 1 year, 3 months ago
        What is good is the huge question. Of course, self sacrifice for the common good is widely accepted as the moral ideal, but other concepts have been inverted. Rand is roundly criticized for reversing the inversion of definitions for selfishness and sacrifice.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by j_IR1776wg 1 year, 3 months ago
          Years ago, I argued with commenters on this site who could not/would not accept Rand's conclusion that Selfishness is a Virtue. I think they failed to distinguish between Selfishness and Greed. The strength of altruism I guess.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 1 year, 3 months ago
            That can be a difficult one, and setting aside the greed argument, the real problem is that our culture has accepted a false definition of selfishness. It wasn't always equated with taking advantage of people to get ahead, but you're right, the morality of altruism has redefined it across the entire culture from its true definition: rational self-interest. One way to debate someone is to insist they've been hoodwinked and are choosing to conform. Greed is defined as excessive desire, but I'm not sure that is acceptable, and who gets to decide what is excessive?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by j_IR1776wg 1 year, 3 months ago
              I would define greed as the acceptance of the unearned without remorse
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by 1 year, 3 months ago
                Thanks, but I think there has to be intent to profit. An ethical, yet aggressive marketing campaign with the goal of setting a record for earned profits might be considered greedy, but not to me, yet there is intent. An unethical marketing campaign that condones or disregards fraud should be considered greedy, and there is also intent. To receive an inheritance or other windfall is not greed as there is no intent. To spend an inordinate amount of disposable income on lottery tickets would be greed, and there is also intent.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by j_IR1776wg 1 year, 3 months ago
                  Interesting. I think an inheritance can be earned.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by 1 year, 3 months ago
                    Yes, it sure can be. The obvious way is for the beneficiary to have helped create the equity of a family business, even if they aren't family. Another would be earned recognition of another kind. Yet, in an altruistic culture, rationalism (not rationality) dictates that none is earned and all should be distributed to and through "society." Rand had a great take on that.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 1 year, 3 months ago
            Regarding commenters on this site, it seems there is a significant number, maybe most, that have little understanding of Objectivist ethics, and don't care. How or why they got here, who knows.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by 1 year, 3 months ago
        Great example. Playing God is much easier than independence and productiveness. But as you know, those who independent and productive are vastly more beneficial and benevolent. Of course here, the self righteous must loot producers while producing dependents.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by VetteGuy 1 year, 2 months ago
        I tend to avoid trying to define items as "good". I try to look for what is logical, or what benefits me in the long run.

        Similar for people. Rather than "Are they 'good' or 'bad'?" I prefer, "are they logical?", "do their arguments make sense?".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 1 year, 2 months ago
          You are quite right about precise language. 'Good' and other vague terms may precise (notice how I didn't use good 🙃) in certain contexts, but it takes effort and is considerate of others to be speak clearly.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by VetteGuy 1 year, 2 months ago
    Jim Taggart is a great example of this. He wants to build a line in Mexico for those "poor people", who really have no use for it, and eventually nationalize it.

    Head-of-State Thompson is always talking about "the public good".

    Analogs from today's news would be Bill Gates and Gavin Newsom. Their views of "good" are not supported by logic, and the negative consequences of their actions seem to be "unforeseen" only to them and their supporters.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 1 year, 2 months ago
      What always seems to be missing from these conversations is free market capitalism. To let markets, their price mechanism, and the profit motives of rational operators to decide all capital flows. Of course, that makes bureaucrats irrelevant and why they reject it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo