PatriotResistance

But does every donation made by an Objectivist have to be made with an expectation for future gain? I certainly hope you don't think so. We've already agreed there is nothing wrong with compassion (so long as it isn't "forced"). I think the very definition of a donation includes no expectation of gain. Ayn Rand said not to confuse altruism with simple kindness. I have certainly made donations with no expectation whatsoever, they were made from nothing more than an expression of compassion. Does that mean I can't join the club? ;-)

David Odden

See my latest reply to my original post. I've somewhat satisfactorily resolved this issue for me. Your points are well taken. I would still argue for birth defects being more important than the long list of "needs" that you assembled (nice job by the way). But since I've abandoned my attempt at justifying birth defects as a responsibility of society it becomes a personal value decision and not one that I care to argue further. But I do want to risk pointing out that I feel you are not being fully objective and honest in your assessment. What I'm referring to is that you've ignored my response to one of your points where I pointed out that someone with a heart defect may not survive long enough to become educated, unless you conceded that point? Also, you tried to impress with some knowledge about speaking difficulties of children with cleft-palates, but you neglected to mentioned the dramatically higher risk of those children simply choking to death. Just food for thought, no response expected.

I've been gone dealing with a death in the family. I had time to think about this issue quite a bit while driving and have come up with the following reasoning to explain why I was wrong. Ayn Rand (and many others I'm sure) said that when one is having trouble to always check your premises. My original premise was that since we are such an advanced civilization with the medical ability to heal many birth defects that we have an obligation to do so. My idea that we are an advanced civilization I now believe is the source of my problem. We may have the means (medical ability) but we do not possess the method (universal political/social/cultural facilities and will), and so we are not as "advanced" as I presumed. A similar example is hunger. While there is enough food produced to feed everyone on the planet some still go hungry. The problem is not the availability of food or the desire to help. It's governments and bandits who prevent it's distribution. My original premise assumed some type of perfect world in which our "advanced" society operates, but that does not exist yet. Within the free-er and more technologically advanced areas of the planet children's cleft palates ARE routinely repaired during infancy, for example. The standard response that many provided, 'if you care so much then donate', also felt lacking to me. But once again, in a "perfect world" where capitalism and the virtue of selfishness is universally practiced it's easy to imagine that those who choose to donate their time and money would easily be able to handle any such need. And again, within a smaller venue such as the United States we see that is already the case, even though the U.S. is not yet close to that ideal. I had argued that birth defects are somehow different from other needs, and so those forced donations are justified. I still believe birth defects are quite unique compared to other "needs" such as clean water, housing, education, etc. but that cannot justify force. Rather, for me, birth defects then are one of the most important reasons for promoting real solutions. So the lesson for me is that even though I realize my meager donations cannot fix this problem today I cannot let my despair lead to an error in judgment about premises, causes and effects. The problem is not insufficient donations. And more importantly the problem can never be fixed by forcing "donations" from everyone. There isn't a single problem or solution to universally repairing all birth defects or any other problem or need for that matter. And there may never be a "perfect" world. But in a world where rights are protected, free trade is practiced and personal responsibility is the norm, it may feel like it.

And it is that possibility, which is a negative and abnormal birth, that differentiates it from being born ignorant which is a normal human birth. Hardly, as I responded above being born ignorant is normal, while being born with a cleft palate is not. Also, being "unchosen" is irrelevant. If parents could choose to enhance their fetus' intelligence before birth they might, while some would chose not to and just have a "normal" birth. No parent would choose to give their child a cleft palate, and any parent would choose to repair that deformity before birth were such a thing possible. By what justification? Your statement seems to me to prove quite the opposite. Being born ignorant is completely normal for human beings - that is our nature, as is the process of learning which is begun by the parents and by all rights should continue throughout life. Children with cleft palates, on the other hand, suffer all kinds of physical difficulties as well as social problems that make education difficult. How is a child going to learn if they can barely even breath or speak? And even regardless all of that, why is it even necessary to rank education and repairing birth-defects. They are both important. But they cannot be ranked because they are apples and oranges. A child suffering with a birth defect isn't even on equal footing with the majority of normal kids to even have a chance at education. To say nothing of the lack of social development these kids usually suffer. The kid with a heart defect won't live long enough to learn how to repair a computer, maybe not even to read. And whether they might be "better off" or not is besides the point and a subjective judgment. I might choose to be the hunter-gather in your example. At least I'd have a chance at a normal human life and a family than to suffer health, speech and breathing problems along with the social rejection. No, the issue here is the morality of leaving children to suffer versus respecting Ayn Rand's definition of sacrifice. I think Ayn's definition needs some adjustment. I appreciate the comments. If I want to attempt a reasoned, rational argument I realize I still have much work to do. Bob

Height, intelligence, and ugliness are all subjective qualities. A cleft palate is a deformity, likewise being born with a bad heart valve, conjoined twins, etc. If you can't see the difference........ Bob

Others have said the same so I'll just respond here. I stand corrected. In retrospect it's quite insidious how easily the "sacrifice of society" idea crept into my train of thought. Makes me have a little sympathy for liberals.....nah, not really. ;-) I would like to hear/read more descriptions of how these types of "needs" would be cared for under a truly free-market system. (Links? Books?) Bob

Wow, I assumed this was understood, but I see how it is a fair question. What I'm suggesting is that birth-defects are a negative, physical consequence of being born a human being. Nothing else that might fall under the slippery slope of socialism meets that definition - not future health care, not education, protection of rights by a just government, freedom from war, civil rights, etc. ad naseum. Nothing. I'm pretty sure I'm going to have to improve that definition, but go ahead and let me have it. ;-) That will help. Bob

Been meaning to read Toqueville, I'd better get on it. But I think you are onto something very significant. With even the tiniest bit of a nanny-state available people will look to that nanny state. But if the free-market really existed in this country, these needs would be filled. And they would be filled more efficiently, effectively and quickly than the biggest government program could ever hope to. Bob

I understand and agree with you except that I am talking about third-world countries. Since I can't at this time identify the exact circumstances that cause some children in these countries to go years without getting the operation I don't know what more I can say. I'm not trying to argue for health-care as a right. My question was specifically ONLY about birth-defects, and only about children from impoverished countries who are not going to get the help they need. If those parents are not able to provide that care to their children through no fault of their own, I think those kids still deserve to get that care. These people live in countries that DO NOT exist to protect the rights of the people. Is that just too bad for them? We all know that Objectivism does not address every single aspect of our lives. I understand the idea of forced sacrifice. But I don't think it applies to this instance. But until and if I can formulate that with reasonable, rational argument using Objectivist principles I don't know what else to say. I appreciate the robust discussion, you've all certainly given me more to ponder. THX

Well, I meant is it really a sacrifice to society. In other words, I believe the amount of money required to fix birth defects of truly needy children would be a tiny fraction of the unjust taxes that you are forced to pay today. Cleft palates are just a single example so we have something concrete to think about. Pick your birth defect! We don't mind paying some taxes for roads and police and such, right? I'm just having trouble understanding how allowing a child to suffer from a physical birth defect, regardless how badly their parents or government screwed up, is just in a modern society. How do you balance your right to selfishness with unnecessary suffering? If other donations are a sacrifice then I guess I need to attempt to come up with a reasonable explanation for why birth defects are not a sacrifice, that they are somehow like roads and police..... ??? What creative solutions, assuming a truly free market and a properly run medical system, are you suggesting? I'm very curious, I think this is critical to my understanding this issue. Bob

I understand that this is the Objectivist position. But I ask you to turn it around and look from another direction. Imagine a neanderthal child is born with a birth defect. That child has no right to cleft palate surgery because they cannot have a right to something that does not exist. But today society has advanced to the point that cleft palate surgery is a non-trivial but relatively inexpensive and easy surgery. Can you really say that child has no right to be healed just because through no fault of the child no one is willing to donate the money? You are willing to let a child suffer the horrors of a cleft palate for years, instead of fixing it during infancy as it should be, just because donations fell short? What does it say about the human race when we allow a child to suffer and I stress - through no fault of the child? I would answer that anyone who voluntarily contributes to a charity has made that justification, so as you point out below Objectivism does not prohibit charity. But you are making me think in new ways about the issue, so I have to admit here that my question does suggest that there would have to be some definition of rights for newborns (the topic is birth defects), that would definitively preclude that right from sliding the slippery slope to include any other rights. I realize that I am only emoting about the issue at present. It just seems to me that birth defects taken as a whole would be a trivial amount spread across all prospective parents. I realize that it's triviality in no way justifies enforcing it. But is it really a sacrifice to ensure that no child lives with the horror of a cleft palate when our society has advanced to the point that the repair is trivial? I agree and I wish that Objectivists would more often point out that while Objectivism objects to force, it does not prohibit compassion. Bob

I'm glad you've brought this up. I'm not a parent and have to ask a stupid question. Is there such a thing as "birth-defect insurance" available today, that parents would buy before conception? I agree with your assessment, this would seem to make sense. It is the only way to spread the risk without forcing taxation. But then what of the parents who do not purchase it, or do not purchase enough? Bob

I just got home from a Health Care Forum sponsored by a local news station (Denver, 9news). The governor and six of Colorado's U.S. congresspeople and senators answered questions. I plan on blogging about it once I organize my notes. But there is one very specific topic I would like to hear your opinions on. As I striving/budding Objectivist I understand that health care is not a right. One man in the audience talked about his daughter being born with issues requiring 27 surgeries, and Ed Perlmutter (Colorado Congressman) mentioned his epileptic daughter in his response. The citizen complained of not being able to get insurance for his daughter's pre-existing condition. Here are my questions - please understand I'm not arguing for these positions, I'm asking how the Objectivist explains rights and values regarding these situations. First, is it necessary for all couples who plan on having a child to be financially able to deal with all possible birth defects before giving birth to that child? I would think the answer is no, so then those unlucky parents who don't have the means are just that - unlucky, and they just have to do the best they can? For a modern civilization like ours, with the knowledge and means to repair many birth defects, does society have a duty to heal those children? If no, why not? I can see part of the problem is defining which parents can and cannot afford that care. But I need much help on this issue. Secondly, one of my favorite charities is Operation Smile. Doctors and nurses donate their time and materials to travel around the world, mostly to quite impoverished areas, and perform cleft lip and cleft palate surgery on children whose parents have no possible means to get that service. Now, my first solution to that problem is rights protected by rule of law and free-market capitalism to empower those people. But until that happens how do you justify not helping such a child left behind after Operation Smile has spent all their donations and has to return home. I assume part of the explanation is how do you define who needs what, and where does the definition of "need" end? And I can accept that. But repairing a birth defect like a cleft palate is a simple operation and many of these kids suffer unnecessarily for years. Surely that does fall under any definition of "need" that could be defined? Is it really enough to say, well they are a third world country and the rest of the world just can't fix everyone else's problems? Bob

Well, I was only trying to relate the "balance" idea of the Y/Y symbol with rights and reason. But your point is well taken. And nothing is going to appeal to everyone, indeed many would argue against any "symbol" or branding at all, and I respect that. Thank you for the suggestion. (And after thinking about it I even changed my avatar back to my dollar sign spelled out with Objectivist ideas.) Objectivist dollar sign

Thanks for the links, freestyle. Great post. IMO, the declaration of "self-evident" also suggests that Jefferson considered rights to be an absolute. That all humans throughout time possess these right and that only just governments recognize those pre-existing rights. Bob Galts Gulch Gifts Patriot Resistance store

So I had a little bit of satori (sudden inspiration) and wondered about the marriage of these two symbols. The Yin/Yang has a generically positive association with the general public, while the dollar sign - as Objectivists know - is too often associated with plain greed. I like the idea of the dollar sign representing a "balance" between rights and freedom in the free-market. (Click to see this design on products in my zazzle store)

Raised Lutheran. Attended parochial school from Grades 2 through 12. Chapel and one religion class every single day. Missed church one Sunday during my entire childhood. We even went to church Sunday morning when camping. Since leaving home at 18 (I'm 47) I've been to church two or three times - when my parents visited and only as a kindness to my mother. I was sincere in my beliefs until I figured out as a teenager than most people are at least somewhat if not wholly hypocritical. Spent much of my twenties looking for "truth" studying religions of the world. Learned that the only truth of human existence is that NOONE knows what the truth is. Bob Galts Gulch Gifts Patriot Resistance store

More evidence the average critical-thinking ability of the world is falling rapidly. It is truly frightening. Bob Galts Gulch Gifts And for fun - Anti-Obama messages store

I hope this is the appropriate forum for this and that it hasn't been beaten to death already. I just discovered this video of some Hollywood Celebs' pledge to be a I must admit I am currently in shock. This video is so wrong and scary that I can't begin to count the ways. But I'm curious, what do Objectivists say about it? And what do you think Ayn Rand's reaction would have been?

Well, I'm at it again. I wondered if the "fish parable" would work as an Objectivist message. I think it makes you think. Objectivist "Fish" Parable Ask a man to feel - irrational for a day. Teach a man to reason - Objectivist for a lifetime. Bob Galts Gulch Gifts

Well, the definition of "unalienable" is "not to be separated, taken or given away" or "incapable of being surrendered". I've always thought of unalienable rights as being inherently possessed by all humans - simply as a result of being born human. Neither of those would be technically consistent with a right that is "granted", as you point out. I suppose this is the reason for my asking the question in the first place. However, I think Jefferson was trying to be as all inclusive as his times would allow and none of them even considered including atheists. So my interpretation is that they thought ALL men believed they were created by some type of god somewhere, and as such rights ARE inherent to all men. Therefore, it is only a technicality that they used the words "their Creator". The intent of rights being inherent to all human life is what is important. Bob Galts Gulch Gifts

Two points. 1) Those foreigners don't buy our products with the money received for their oil. At least some of it is spent to attack us and others. Is it wise to fund your own enemies? 2) At least part of the reason oil imports have grown is because our laws now prevent us from harvesting our own oil. As I understand it we have vast resources in ANWR, the Dakotas, Colorado, off the coast of Florida, and the Gulf of Mexico that companies are not allowed to pursue. Bob Galts Gulch Gifts

I've been looking into this quite extensively lately. You have to be explicit in whether the claim is that the U.S. was a nation of Christians versus the founding fathers created a Christian government. Those are two different things, the former is true while the latter is not. I think it is undeniable that the United States was a Christian country. The evidence from books, quotes, the history of immigrants to engravings on building and monuments around the capital in D.C. as well as the rest of country is overwhelming. Jesus is not mentioned specifically in founding documents or laws because the founders understood the original meaning of the 'separation of church and state' to mean that government shall not establish a state religion. What noone knows today is the other half of 'separation of church and state' is that the government shall not restrict expression of religion in any way. This included the expression of religion in schools and public arenas like courtrooms and legislatures. The founding fathers and generations afterward quoted scripture in Congress daily. Thomas Jefferson rode his horse to Sunday church services held IN THE CAPITOL BUILDING through rain, sleet and snow. So regular was his attendance that it began the tradition of reserving a seat in the front row for the president. I could go on for pages but the point is that the moral basis for many of the ideas found in the founding documents come from the Bible. This was only natural for the times. One example: of the eight 14 feet tall by 20 foot wide murals hanging in the capital building rotunda in D.C. four have religious contexts. One is a depiction of the pilgrims in which is featured a very large Geneva Bible. That Bible was specifically included to depict the pilgrims' use of a verse from Exodus that led them to change their original charter from a "communal" organization to an "individualistic" approach, after which the community began to prosper. The mural was commissioned by Congress to depict one part of the "roots" of the republican form of government they created. NONE of which means that the U.S. is a Christian nation in the sense of having a Christian government. Only that the roots of the U.S. was overwhelmingly Christian, which is nothing to be feared or written off. The pilgrims discovered the virtue of selfishness a few centuries before Ayn Rand and expressed it the only way they knew. So what! So I agree with your opinion on the reason for Jefferson's use of "the Creator" as an all-inclusive term is probably correct. Bob

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." My question concerns the "by their Creator" part of this quote from the Declaration of Independence. I assume Objectivists fully agree with the "created equal" and "unalienable Rights" phrases. Would an Objectivist easily substitute "nature" or "Objective Reality" for "their Creator"? Or something else? Or do Objectivists have an objection to the founding fathers attributing the source of unalienable Rights to a Creator? Bob Galts Gulch Gifts Patriot Resistance store