Even if they realize the negative effects of Altruism, they have two big road blocks to tossing it away.

Road block 1 - People in general prefer being part of a group, the larger the better. Objectivism is based on individual rights and responsibility. A base group of 1 requires more self confidence than many people will ever have.

Road Block 2 - Just in case mind set. Those that are not enamored of Altruism still like the largesse of others it promotes. Even though nowadays little, if any, is voluntary. After all, that largess comes in handy if you have problems yourself. So they support it weakly, Just in Case.

I don't have any problems with someone being altruistic and giving away their stuff. It's their stuff. Where I object is when they want to be altruistic and give away my stuff. Often they want to give away my stuff instead of their own but take credit for their superior character.

SHORT ANSWER: Because Objectivism requires individual RESPONSIBILITY.

Hello richrobinson.
Busy people without initiative or time to examine philosophic principles... to think... Emotion rules and feel good actions are always "well-intentioned." That is the trap for those that do not bother to think of it any further. It is a catch all mental tool of evasion, useful for avoiding the obvious, or the effort of thinking it through, and recognizing the pattern. Following up and checking one's premises may mean one must reassess much of their belief system. Some can be very set in their ways.
Regards,
O.A.

The church and the state have worked so hard to convince people that they are bad an/or owe a debt to society. "Pay your fair share"...

Because the negative effects of altruism are not so obvious to many non-Objectivists.

Compulsory altruism is indistinguishable from theft and theft is a form of slavery.

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.

The effects of altruism are not the concern of altruism. Cause and effect rely on reason, which must be reducible to percepts. Altruism reverses cause and effect. It does not observe the external world and seek verification using the method of logic, rather, it takes a belief and then forces that belief on the external world. Altruism discards the primacy of existence in favor or the primacy of consciousness. Who's consciousness? Does it matter. Thus, force.

What binds an altruist to obedience to the law? Nothing particular. Looking back to the middle ages, the exemplar of altruism, what modern individual can assert the rights to life, liberty, or property were respected or even practiced casually, like a Christian song at Christmas celebration among self-confessed atheists? No one in particular.

The confusion lies in the vogue of primacy of consciousness. The vogue, a bewildering irrationalist chic, is as an obvious phantom to the individual engaged in the pursuits of a mystic. Still, the practitioner somehow believes that he benefits from the propagation of the false worldview in a self-induced fog compounded by the laziness inherent in the necessary avoidance of reality. He seeks, like the compulsive gambler, one more roll of the dice at the table of destiny, slowly dissolving into a man who has faith simply because he has no desire to think... and no desire to change his course. And when the creditors come to collect, he devolves (lit.) into an animal that takes by force in order to propagate his habit.

The altruist of your question is a casual altruist. There is safety in numbers, so to speak. So rather than play dice, he joins causes the gain him favor in the eyes of his god or his peers or or his fuhrer, as the case may be, not realizing that he has been struck by a plague of the spirit from which he and his comrades cannot recover until his entire generation has passed on into their sour graves to be forgotten for their lack of courage. Altruism feels safe to people and it is systematically propagandized by various powerful institutions that believe benefit arises from it's propagation, as if it were some shadowy currency to use when it was most needed. What the world needs to hear is not "Yes, we can [win with altruism]", but "no, I won't [dabble in altruism... ever]".

Because seeing a person in need and walking by isn't something some can live with. Mandating altruism, via taxation, not no longer charity its theft.

Technocracy Road Block 1 - I am not prone to be part of a group. I do however have empathy when I see someone in need. I have no objection to giving a few dollars, getting a meal for someone, or putting a few dollars of gas in someones gas can if its my choice.

Technocracy Road Block 2 - I gave up on hedging my bets with a Creator some time ago - to many Christians its more about faith than works. I give when I choose because its something I want to do be that money, food or time.

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.

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.

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.

Ayn Rand wrote Fountainhead to answer that question. Her answer was that most people are not willing to think for themselves and if you are going to turn your thinking over someone else, you want to believe they are controlling you for altruistic reasons. Those who put their "faith" in others to command them, must believe those people mean good for them.

I remember seeing a documentary program on India in a segment regarding an Indian Banker going into rural villages to set up cottage industries. He taught the rural folk to dig wells, set up solar panels to power their cottage industries. He would be paid back from the percentage of the sales of their products. I thought this was a marvelous way of getting people to be industrious and out of poverty.
I don't know if this same scenario could be used in the USA. It's better than robbing Peter to pay Paul, to use a colloquial phrase.In other words, taking tax payer dollars and paying the poor.

Because Objectivism is far too complicated for most. I get much better results with the NAP - it's simple to explain and also touches people on an emotional level.

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.

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.

We should teach and therefore realize that the only "altruism" that should exist is in Government!

Sacrificing itself for the protection of the people ONLY!!!

Altruism requires the absence of discrimination. Selfishness (self-interest) promotes support of others -- such as a scholarship for a budding scientist or payment of medical bills for a deserving friend or family.

Because many people like getting stuff for free. They don't value a value-for-value proposition nor do they see the predatory nature of a government system that takes from some to give to others because they only imagine themselves on the receiving end.

Frankly, IMHO, it is because altruism is "easy" and objectivism is "hard" and when your end goal is feeling successful, easy beats hard for many people. Objectivism requires you to think rationally and strive hard to be successful. Altruism, all too often, is as easy as throwing some money at a charity and feeling good about yourself and that you have done something to fix a problem. You can pat yourself on the back after donating cans to the local food pantry and have a clear conscience that you have made the world a better place- and that is enough for many people. If you watch someone who is truly dedicated to making the world a better place, objectivist or altruist, you will see that both require hard work and rational thought. It is just that there is an easy way out on the altruist side of the equation. You cannot be a casual objectivist.

Because Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Altruism is a means by which one man can make demands on the life of another by appealing to emotion, fear of the unknown, guilt, loneliness, pity, insecurity, greed, lust and any other emotional appeal that can be used by one individual or group to gain control over another. Unfortunately, mystics have institutionalized the method and have preached it for so long that it seems to be a basic truth. It is just so easy to accept the prepackaged tenets of slavery than to think for oneself. Without altruism the churches and states, as we know them, would be unable to exist.

I think you are falsely assuming that most people see those negative effects. Psychological/emotional issues certainly interfere.
And when the effects begin to become visable, people have too much baggage from how they were raised.