With Objectivism you're allowed to care for whomever you want but you aren't forced to.

Same with charity. You're free to donate to whatever cause you find valuable but you shouldn't be extorted to do so (ex. Being taxed to pay for other people's health insurance).

Charity is when you open your wallet and freely give to others.
Welfare is when the gov't reaches into your wallet and freely gives to others.
If you reached into another persons wallet it would be called theft.
Ergo, welfare is theft.

Barbara Branden was once asked basically the same question. "Who will help the poor and disabled in an Objectivist society". Barbara's response: "if you want to help them, no one will stop you."

It allows for private charity, since charity is a function of an individual, or a voluntary association, not a government.

But perhaps you ask: can one behave consistently with Objectivism by caring for another who cannot support himself? Well, hasn't it occurred to anyone that a mutual trade might obtain here? And that trade need not be intimate. It can just be a matter of "I like having this person around."

(1) You are perfectly free to do so, if you desire.

(2) What do you mean by "support" themselves? Stephen Hawking only follows in the tradition of Karl "Proteus" Steinmetz, a hunchback dwarf.

(3) We know now that with attention and care, even Downies can hold jobs. People invested themselves in discovering that. Their motives were their own. Common culture calls it "altruism" but that is too shallow an answer.

(4) What rational motivation could induce a person to care for orchids or a cat? Why feed and walk a dog... twice a day... for 20 years...? The answer is quite simple in Objectivist psychology: self-reflection.

Not every self-reflection is a selfish one, however. Mother Theresa was validated by the suffering of others. Her nunnery was given (and is still given) millions of dollars. They do nothing with it. She did nothing to alleviate the suffering of those who came to her. That is quite a bit different than the service you get when you pay for your last days in an American hospice. The people there take care of those who cannot take care of themselves - and they make good money doing it. It is obviously rewarding to them on several levels.

It is not what you do, but why you do it.

Of course! Furthermore, it allows those who receive charity, to know that their care was not extorted from unwilling taxpayers, but was freely given by people who genuinely want to help them [or more generally, people in their situation].

Having managed group homes for people with severe autism and profound mental retardation, $5Au can say that none of these folks will ever acquire enough skills to live independently. For many, basic self-care skills are an immense challenge. At some point, parents get old and can't care for them. Without societal help, they die. A strict Objectivist who holds to a purely Darwinian perspective might find this unfortunate but acceptable. Your thoughts?

My uncle was severely handicapped, both physically and mentally. My grandparents cared for him, although he was difficult to care for and in the end, had to be sent to a center for handicapped adults. The key to my grandparents "selflessness" was that they valued my uncle.
Objectivism is unique in that you are allowed to donate to whatever cause you find valuable, and to help whatever person you choose to. It isn't regarded as a duty to care for the handicapped, poor, or ill. It is a choice like any other, and Objectivism recognizes your right to make that choice.

The problem is not whether or not to care for someone. The problem is whether one has a duty to do so. Objectivism logically shows why no such duty exists. That means that programs that use the forced confiscation of wealth for such activities are immoral and should be illegal in an ethical society. However, no one has the right to stop anyone from using their legally acquired wealth for any moral purpose, and that includes giving it away.

Galt was willing to take care o Dagny and began to do so. However, Dagney decided to pay her own way.

It allows for it, yes. It just doesn't mandate it.
Except in certain defined situations. (I'm not Ayn
Rand, and don't want to presume to speak for her,
but this is how I understand it). If parents bring a
child into the world, and the innocent child is mentally retarded or disabled so that he never
can grow up to full mature competence, they
have the obligation to care for him as long as
they live, and to make provision for his care af-
ter their deaths, should he survive them. Also
if there is some sort of contract or prior obliga-
tion, such as a disabled veteran's getting care
as compensation for his service.
---It is certainly allowable in the case of a loved
one, or friend, provided no one else's rights are
violated thereby (minor children must come be-
fore a friend, naturally). After all, personal
value counts for something.

Great question.

I have a disabled son. I don't see anything in Objectivism that would indicate we shouldn't care for those with disabilities.

Just this morning, driving in to work, I was struck by something. As my pickup rolled up to some railroad tracks I saw a homeless person with a blanket over their head, wondering around by the tracks. It's very cold out this morning. I looked back at them and thought...What in the hell is wrong with my country? Why do we allow this? All this damn rhetoric about helping the needy...all this damned B.S. altruism is shoved down our throats, starting in early elementary school. Yet, honestly, we crap on those who really have needs. My own son doesn't go to our school district. They, flat-out, refused to take him (a public school that we all pay for). When we started to fight them, they had CPS take three of the children of a woman I was working with to fight the district. They were willing to destroy a family, rather than just obey the altruistic laws that they had set up to HELP DISABLED CHILDREN! That was a major turning point in my life - a major wakeup call.

As an Objectivist, I have really come to realize just how precious the mind of man is, and how we should guard it from birth. We don't, as a society. In fact, we're doing the opposite. Look at what's happening to the neurological health of our children. There is no way America can afford to care for the coming wave of people with mental disabilities. The railroad tracks are going to get crowded...

Many here have laid out the "choice" vs. "duty" in charitable care. I've just started David Kelley's book Unrugged Individualism, which presents it as benevolence vs. altruism. Beyond those who are not authors of their own problems, I believe there are some who may just need a reminder, as much as the food I delivered. A look and a handshake with no pity or condescension might make the difference.

My father was once Mobil's first environmental engineer. He took care of me quite well when I was a kid. Now he has a very bad case of Alzheimer's disease, and I am taking care of him. I am not living my life for his sake, nor did he live for mine, but as family does, we take care of each other because it is in our own long-term self interest.

We have the right to spend our money as we wish. But at the center of our philosophy must be the understanding that some forms of help may be toxic, IE, they build dependency where the alternative is the goal. Some people are beyond providing for themselves. And there we may have to donate to dependency, but only where we will do no harm.

I have read the comments and think that the real corner case here is whether or not a person who cannot support themselves (ie in a coma) and who has no friends and relatives who can support them should be cared for by taxes if voluntary donations do not suffice.

Employable Down's Syndrome cases and loving families miss the point of the question.

Jan

As many Objectivists will tell you, if you want to help them no one will obstruct your desire to do so. Further, if you are particularly interested in a specific charitable cause, you will also be free to organize an institution for helping that cause. And by the way, there's nothing wrong for you to get paid for your efforts.

I would help someone who was trying but just couldnt make it. I wont help the bums who just expect others to take care of them. I resent being forced to help people the government deems to be 'entitled' to help.
There are so many "entitled" people with their hands out these days, I dont give to anyone anymore. Its too hard to figure out if they are wanting help to get back on their feet, or just wanting a free ride.

If you want to, go ahead and care for as many as you would like and are able to. I've got a couple of ex-wives that would probably love to meet you.

I typed a response but didn't see it come on the
screen after I sent it. I signed out of the yahoo
network and signed back in , and came back to
the Gulch to start over but I'm not getting referred
to the sign-in place.

What? It allows you to care for anyone you care to in any way you wish. That is the point. Actual caring versus introducing coercion of others and daring to call that "caring". Everyone can practice as much charity and other types of caring that they wish to.

Tough tough one I only agreed with about 60-70% of the book due to her fridgedness

The answer depends on your reason for caring. From an Obj.ists point of view:
1. If you care for someone because you truly value him, then you are not sacrificing yourself and you are acting morally.
2. If you value him but provide "support" to the point of sacrificing yourself (e.g. it gets well beyond your original intent to help but you can't turn back), then you may end up sacrificing.
2. If you care out of a sense of duty, then you are sacrificing.

"Allow" is not the appropriate word; but I assume you meant "does Obj. say that it is proper to".