RoR: Forum

Post 0

Monday, June 2 - 8:56am

Link

Edit

I am wondering why people with severe disabilities should see their objective interest involved in supporting a lassez-faire government. I know that they need protection from physical force themselves, but wouldn't most people with severe disabilities fair better in the world if they had some kind of support from others (even if it meant mistreating those others). I want it to be understood that I myself believe in lassez-faire capitalism (although sometimes I wonder if I really have any good arguments to make in favor of it), but I still can't help but ask the above question. Thanks.

Post 1

Monday, June 2 - 10:47am

Link

Edit

Having been born with Spina Bifida (although, I hesitate to call myself severly disabled), I know firsthand the need for assistance in surviving into adulthood. However, I think your question has a very important point that needs to be addressed.

I am in favor of assistance, yes, but, not government mandated assistance. There is an organization, The Shriner's Hospital, that is a totally privately funded institution, that assists patients and families of patients with birth defects and certain acquired afflictions. Solely through private donations, these hospitals are able to care for children born with physical problems, at absolutely no cost to the children's family. I cannot begin to calculate the cost of all of the operations and procedures I've had done at the Shriner's Hospital as a child. I guarantee you it is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not over a million.

The Shriner's Hospital is a great example, in my mind, of the type of private health organization, funded by willing donors, that those who truly need assistance with physical health problems can turn to. I know I would not be where I am today, if it weren't for them.

According to the Shriner's website, last year's budget was $721 million. Again, all generated by private donors.

Edit: I noticed, I didn't really answer your question on why I should be interested in having any "assistance" I need, as a person with disabilities, not run by government mandated and controlled means. Simple. I wouldn't want to be forced to help anyone, and I don't want anyone else to be forced to help me. As stated above, I think there are other means to which a person truly in need can turn to, without anyone being forced into anything.

(Edited by Bauer Westeren on 6/02, 10:54am)

Post 2

Monday, June 2 - 11:16am

Link

Edit

Parker,

Given this thread and the other concerning Objectivist Ethics, it appears that your base concern with the philosophy is its view of self interest as excluding the initiation of force. You've given some examples where it sure seems like initiating force against others would benefit the individual doing the forcing.

But Objectivism holds that initiation of force against others is fundamentally irrational. Rand views force as antithetical to the mind, which she views as paramount.

Rand believes a human should use the tools of a human in order to survive and flourish and that force is a sub-human and anti-human tool. She points out all the anti-human nastiness that flows from such force.

So under Objectivism. if a disabled person chooses to act as a human, he should disavow resort to the initiation of force.

Rand's view, not mine,
Jordan

Post 3

Monday, June 2 - 11:25am

Link

Edit

Christopher,

What you are suggesting is that it might be in a disabled person's interest to live in a society in which people have no right to make their own choices. But if people have no right to make their own choices (consistent with the right of others to make theirs), then neither do the people who are disabled, and neither do the people who wish to help those who are disabled. In such a society, people are effectively slaves of the government.

This is not in anyone's interest, no matter how abled or disabled the person is.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 6/02, 11:27am)

(Edited by William Dwyer on 6/02, 2:04pm)

Post 4

Monday, June 2 - 7:37pm

Link

Edit

For those who would rather be lazy than work, or are disabled and so terrible of a person that no one would willingly help them, it may very well be in their best self interest to desire a government that requires others to maintain their health/life.

Post 5

Monday, June 2 - 11:23pm

Link

Edit

Dean wrote,

For those who would rather be lazy than work, or are disabled and so terrible of a person that no one would willingly help them, it may very well be in their best self interest to desire a government that requires others to maintain their health/life.

It is not in anyone's interest to set up a government with that kind of power and authority, because (a) you don't know in advance that others won't help you voluntarily if you are genuinely in need, and (b) once the government has the authority to coerce people against their will, it can use that authority for any purpose it chooses, including the elimination of those it regards as helpless and unfit, for when it comes to initiating force against its citizens (such as by robbing, enslaving or murdering them), the government doesn't have to appeal to their reason or gain their voluntary consent.

If you are disabled, you are far better off in a society in which people have the freedom to make their own choices, including the freedom to help or not help you as they choose, than you are in an unfree society in which the government has the power and authority to harm you if it chooses. In a free society, you have the right to receive the help of others, if they choose to provide it. In an unfree society, you exist and function not by right but by permission of the government, which has the power and authority to dispose of your life and property as it chooses. In a free society, you have the right to life -- which means the right to sustain and enjoy your life to the best of your ability. In an unfree society, you don't have any rights. You are a pawn of the state.

- Bill

Post 6

Tuesday, June 3 - 8:06am

Link

Edit

What you are suggesting is that it might be in a disabled person's interest to live in a society in which people have no right to make their own choices.

It would be in a disabled person's interest to live in a society where people are free to make their own choices -- except for just one tiny infringement upon that freedom, that everyone would be forced to chip in to aid that one individual, plus other people equally "deserving" of compulsory "charity".

And the foundation of much of modern liberalism is that such a society is possible.

Except that it isn't, in the long run. Sure, you may be able to temporarily get seemingly benevolent rulers who only tax for the "right" stuff, but this leads to a war of all against all, and to rulers who are not quite so benevolent. At best, you wind up with the soft tyranny you see in many European countries, with confiscatory taxation rates to support all this "benevolence".

Post 7

Wednesday, June 4 - 7:51am

Link

Edit

Jordan,
Thanks for your post, first of all.
I know however that Rand believed that initiating force against others an "emergency situation" may be o.k. Please see the link here: http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/murder.html
Near the bottom of the page Rand gives an example of where she thought that it would be o.k. to steal from someone else.
This is a major problem I have with Rand. She states without qualifying her statement in any way at all that the initiation of force against others is evil. Then, after such a statement, she equivicates. I understand what people say about "Well, she's only talking about emergency cases when she say's it may be o.k. to initiate force", but I don't agree that you should create moral principles which are stated as general, all-consuming rules if you want to insist later on that that rule wasn't all-consuming. If I say "the initiation of force against others is evil" and don't qualify my remark until after I've made that statement, I SHOULD be regarded as being inconsistent. The fact that many Objectivists appear to be covering this fact up lately when I've asked them about it is very disturbing to me. I thought that I would get a different kind of response than I did. Not that you're saying that though. Thanks again for your post. :)

Post 8

Wednesday, June 4 - 3:55pm

Link

Edit

Christopher,

I think it's fair to say that given Rand's article on "The Ethics of Emergencies" in The Virtue of Selfishness, she did indeed qualify her non-aggression principle as not applicable to emergencies.

You can't expect her to include a full-scaled philosophical treatise in a novel. The finer points of her philosophy had to be left for her non-fiction essays, and she did indeed qualify her ethics in those essays.

The context of someone's statements always has to be considered. If someone says that "honesty is the best policy," he doesn't mean it's the best policy if it will get you killed -- that you should never lie even to save your own life. The speaker is clearly referring to a normal social context.

I think it behooves us to consider Rand's statements in a similar light.

- Bill

Post 9

Wednesday, June 4 - 6:05pm

Link

Edit

I understand what people say about "Well, she's only talking about emergency cases when she say's it may be o.k. to initiate force", but I don't agree that you should create moral principles which are stated as general, all-consuming rules if you want to insist later on that that rule wasn't all-consuming.

Unless you were expecting Rand to issue "rules" and dictums for every single circumstance a human being may face, I'd say this characterization is ignorant at best. Rand was quite clear: non-aggression is the default, unless one is threatened. Without life, ethics would be moot, no?

Post 10

Wednesday, June 4 - 10:08pm

Link

Edit

Hi Parker,

I take your point. I can't add much to what others have already said. But for what it's worth: First, keeping the context is important, like Bill and Teresa were saying. Second, Rand espouses principles, not rules, a difference of some import, I think. Third, Rand goes for hierarchical values where tossing a lower value in order to preserve a higher one is okay. Perhaps those points pave a way out for you?

Jordan

Post 11

Saturday, June 7 - 4:36pm

Link

Edit

Christopher,

I agree with you that no one should �create moral principles which are stated as � [unqualified] rules�, but Bill�s response is accurate and relevant � Rand didn�t create moral principles which were stated as unqualified rules.

In the first place, she didn�t create any moral principles � she discovered them. In the second place, she didn�t state them as unqualified rules. And if she didn�t do these things in the first place, then she can�t be charged as being inconsistent � nor can Objectivists be charged with covering �this fact� up (if it�s not a fact in the first place).

In the attempt to charge her with inconsistency, you provide a link and say:

Near the bottom of the page Rand gives an example of where she thought that it would be o.k. to steal from someone else.

Here�s the relevant quote from the link you provided ( emphasis mine ):

I would say again, this is an emergency situation, and please consult my article "The Ethics Of Emergencies" in _The Virtue Of Selfishness_ for a fuller discussion of this subject. But to state the issue in brief, I would say that you would have the right to break in and eat the food that you need, and then when you reach the nearest policeman, admit what you have done, and undertake to repay the man when you are able to work. In other words, you may, in an emergency situation, save your life, but not as "of right." You would regard it as an emergency, and then, still recognizing the property right of the owner, you would restitute whatever you have taken, and that would be moral on both parts.

Right there in that very quote she warns that there are qualifications and that she has indeed addressed them at length (when she politely directs the interlocuter to her article on the subject). A salient point is that rights don't "go away" in emergencies, but that the exercise -- or the respect -- of rights may become transiently hampered (fixed later via restitution). Do you agree that ...

(1) Rand didn�t create moral principles, but used logic and life to discover them

(2) Rand didn�t state moral principles as unqualified rules but, instead, she qualified them (as she proved that she did in the link which you have provided)?

Also, you say that you thought you�d get a different kind of response than you did. (3) What kind of response were you expecting to get?

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/07, 4:40pm)

question concerning the Objectivist politics