Home Consumer Education Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, Empathy and Socialism

Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, Empathy and Socialism

0

[ad_1]

Being selfish is innate. Look at a little kid; “I want this,” or that. It isn’t until they learn that sharing has positives to it. So, that means it is nurture not nature. All species and biological life is selfish, it tries to do the least and get the most, conserve its energy, all life does that, it is simply the way of things? So is Ayn Rand’s philosophy ‘radical’ no, I would submit to you that it is just obvious. It is observable, repeatable, and is a viable observation of life everything from plants with leaves trying to outdo other plants for sunlight, roots for water – bacteria feeds of the host or works with the host for its best interests – viruses same. See? It’s natural and normal.

It is in the best interest of the individual to work in teams – wolf packs, gazelle herds, lion prides, fish schools, bird flocks. Sometimes it is in the best interest of humans to work together and help one-another, and so they do – in groups large and small. However when it comes to such things as diversity, equality and other buzz-words of socialism – Ayn Rand is not saying that working together is not a good thing, but she does warn us of unholy alliances which always occur in socialism. Where the group takes from the individual and redistributes, which may sound egalitarian but it’s anything but fair.

If we are to have “equality” under the law, we must demand the individual with full liberty – as long as they don’t choose to curtail another’s liberty in pursuit of their desires.

Beware of the term “Social Justice” because those who wield this phrase are attempting to undermine logic and appeal to your sensitivity – we know this because those who go with the “Social Justice” motif, modify their definition of this phrase to include whatever it is they want to convince you of. For instance, I could use it now to manipulate you simply by saying; “Social Justice means respecting the individual above all else” and you can’t argue with me now, because this is about SOCIAL JUSTICE.

Or I could say, “We need social justice so we must take the wealth from the rich that they have earned and give it to the poor, and those who are destitute.” Both cases are diametrically opposed views, but I can use “social justice” in both instances to try to get you to see my viewpoint. I don’t buy into the social justice trick, nor should you.

[ad_2]

Source by Lance Winslow

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here