John Locke argues that capitalism and objectivism innately infringe on one’s personal freedoms and participates are morally wrong. However, Locke’s own guidelines of human fundamental rights; life, liberty and property, are insightful of how backwards this argument is. Fundamentally, a capitalistic society protects one’s personal life, liberty and property. Locke’s altruistic viewpoint infringes on the personal right to keep what one has earned.
True altruistic behavior is selfless in action, but an Locke’s altruistic viewpoint of anti-objectivism sets impossible standards for all of society. How can one foolishly judge morality based on equality of goods and willingness to give up what they have earned for those who have not worked as hard to be in the same position as themselves.
How can you be the judge of what is moral or immoral when you don’t even have the tenacity to acquire your own selfish goals. When you hit a rock in the road you expect others to sacrifice their own hard earned work to order to lazily acquire your own.
I too believe that man must uphold three things in order to obtain a life worthy of living, these virtues being reason, purpose and self-esteem. Reason as a tool of knowledge, purpose as his choice of (rational) happiness and self-esteem as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness.
You claim that man loses their “personal liberty” when working at a low wage. Lets relate this to my objectivist values. We can see personal liberty as one’s own purpose, that is man’s choice of happiness which allows him/her to succeed. If man’s objective is to obtain more money then they must do so while still upholding their and others virtues. To place oneself in a position where their own self esteem can be compromised due to a “low” wage is irrational and only means they are not working towards their best interest. To demand your employer increase your wages in order for your own selfish desire to achieve purpose is to tear down their virtues. As I’ve always said man is entitled to his own happiness. However, he must achieve it himself, not on the accord of leniency or sympathy of another. Others must not be forced give up part of their livelihood to help satisfy others needs. In your case employers must not be forced to give up their purpose and self-esteem by enforcing them to give up more money.
If a man/woman truly needs something they will overcome any obstacle it takes to earn it. This way they will be respecting their virtues and not infringing on others. Man has free will and is not bound to any single craft or location which is why I am astonished at the fact that you bring up the outlier that is California. If man is not happy then they are more than welcome to leave whatever location they’re in that is keeping them from achieving their own personal greatness/capital goals. However, if they choose to stay in a difficult position and gripe at the difficulty of an institutionally set system that requires them to be self-reliant on how successful they are, they are at fault and will suffer. A true objectivist knows their right to free will and will use their reason to ask themselves why they are where they are. If the goal is to obtain money then the objectivist will bear through low points as they know they are on the journey towards achieving their greatness, and if it fails then man must re-align himself.
To me it seems like most people rely on altruist beliefs in the hope that one day someone will sacrifice their hard earning in order to help them obtain happiness. As I said earlier, man is entitled to his own happiness but must do so while respecting everyone else’s.