Category Archives: Rand

A society of selfless, altruistic beings governed by a similarly minded state is one surely doomed to fail. The notion of universal healthcare runs contrary to the morally selfish behaviors by which society should function. Just as in all other facets of life, a person should be responsible for their and their loved one’s well-being. To be held accountable for the healthcare of all other members of their society would be to put their well-being at the same level of importance as their own; to sacrifice their own earnings for the sake of another.

From a governmental standpoint this as well shows a lack of faith in civil society to maintain a level of individual self-worth and care for themselves. For the state to mandate this proposal would create a sense of altruistic obedience that would damage the laissez fair economic and social culture that has helped the United States achieve enormous success. One man does not owe a thing to another stranger, be it money or healthcare, who is outside of that man’s own interests, they are two separate entities with their own non-crossing paths. If one man has not accumulated the capital to maintain his own health, he clearly has not met the basic necessities for his own life, and would be psychotic to expect someone who has achieved that success to assist him in receiving care.

Taxation on civil society to implement universal healthcare is also quite unjust and tyrannical. While maintaining proper health in a need for individual members of the society to function, to tax each member of such for the benefit of all members is completely undermines the individual worth of each citizen to maintain their own health and puts the weight of it on the shoulders of each member of society. This then forces civil society to become altruistic in believing that the must depend on one another instead of themselves for their own haleness, the most basic and essential of individual concerns.

To have each person commit to the welfare of each member of society would be also to diminish their commitment to themselves and to their loved ones. Similar to an assertion I made in my work “The Virtue of Selfishness,” if a man were to act selfishly, as he should and has the right to, regarding his and his family’s healthcare, he would travel to all ends to pay for essential surgery for his wife. If he were to act selflessly, and in this case altruistically, he would pay for surgery to save the lives of ten other women while leaving his wife to die, being that he would save the lives of ten member of his altruistic society rather than one. Does the second proposal not sound absurdly ridiculous to you? Does it not entirely disregard the natural state of human condition and allocation of importance. If so, you may be beginning to understand the importance and necessity of selfish virtue.

One should provide for the well-being of another if and when that other being is incorporated into the hierarchy of values of one’s life. A man provides money for surgery for his wife because she provides happiness for him, and the loss of her directly corresponds to the loss of his selfish interests. Whereas when one provides for the well-being of a stranger, it does not correlate to the man’s values of happiness, and the man believing he should give his own money to cover the costs for a stranger’s health shows a lack of self-esteem and self-worth essential for one’s own survival and achievement.

To expect civil society to bestow their own earnings for the sake of another’s welfare is a notion of selflessness, sacrifice, and altruism that would destroy the fabric by which this nation is sewn.

In a truly free society, man is free from the government if he wishes to be. Payments under the guise of taxation are voluntary. Man would only pay for what he desires, leaving him free to do work and reap the benefits of such. Any form of forced taxation is tyrannical and should be viewed as such by the populous. The idea of social welfare violates this idea of a man’s right to his life, liberty, and property. Money is taken out of the pockets of hardworking people and given directly to the poor through the government. This is in essence theft from the working man. Of course, if someone wanted to give money to the poor, he is more than welcome too. He has that right to do with his property as he pleases.
Social welfare is ever evolving. The idea of a Universal Basic Income has started to gain steam. In essence, the government would be providing everyone, not just the poor, with an economic stipend. This is still a violation of man’s right to property, but at a much larger scale. The cost for such a plan would devastate the economy. The government would have to reach even deeper into man’s pocket, taking more of his hard-earned property away from him. Now the person cannot turn around and spend this on goods. A policy like this is communism masquerading as altruism. If such a plan would be implemented, apathy would form among the worst of society. What drive would they have to work hard if they were to just feed from the teat of the government? More and more people would turn to this, hurting the economy as it loses more and more workers.
Those who would continue to work hard would be punished as well. Their work would go in vain, as the government would continue to take what isn’t rightfully theirs. The successful would, and rightfully so, find ways to hide their money from the government. Less revenue would be had for this plan, rendering it unsuccessful.
Instead of implementing a Universal Basic Income, which would require heavy regulation, society should look toward rolling back regulations, allowing companies and workers to make more money. The companies would expand, requiring more man power to run them. In turn, more money would be put into the pockets of the people, allowing man to live a life free of governmental control. The selfishness of the best of society would unintentionally elevate everyone. Once the lower classes realized that there was no “parent” there to guide them, they would step up themselves and become productive members of society. Capitalism eliminates the need for altruism. Man succeeds on his own merits.

by Ayn Rand

Man has undoubtedly become corrupt in pursuing their interests as a selfish organism. Certain unethical entities—of which occupy and run large corporations—have chosen to destroy the environment. There is almost no reversing the damage done, however there may still be time if we consult the ethics and rationality between the mindless robots responsible (25). It is important to address the ethics of these corporate heads in the effort of having them realize their wrongdoings. Private companies have one of two choices to make, to either abide by environmental politics or not. When thinking about sensation (pleasure), then the rational course becomes clear and objective: anti-environmentalism benefits the individual and not society.

            When determining what constitutes “sensation,” it is important to understand that man has become lost in their actions, leading them to profit from anti-environmentalism. When man is exposed to pleasure (money for instance), they often continue indulging in actions that provide more of it. From these sensations, any guilt associated with wrong-doing is often ignored, or the guilt from it is not experienced immediately. Value should not be affiliated with self-gain only if it harms others. 

            When thinking about the Great Barrier Reef for instance, consider the catastrophe that has begun to ensue on our planet. Man became aware of the consequences to environmental negligence long ago, but was anything done to mitigate the damage already done? The answer is no. All was swept under the rug. Man has to recognize his own mistakes and attend to the damage; logically speaking, he has to consider the long-term consequences for himself, indeed, but most importantly for others. It is important for man to learn to learn how to use their rationality to control their pleasure, to protect the environmental for not doing so impacts others.

            There may exist a case where man is unaware of his wrongdoing. Some individuals may struggle to differentiate between right or wrong, simply because they have no knowledge in what is considered good or evil. Consider companies like Coca-Cola and Pepsi for instance, two of the leading polluters of plastic in the world. There may have been a time where the two were unaware of their doing, but now scientific evidence clearly attributes blame to these companies in particular. It is up to the company to take responsibility where it is due and begin to think about the long-term consequences rationally.

             I wish to spend my finals thoughts exploring rationality, and how to acquire it given the circumstances purposed above. Objective reality, which is often understood as the innate rights to life–which also entails respecting the rights of others–, should be considered primarily over private interests (money). Irrational judgment such as polluting the waters of the coast of Australia (the Great Barrier Reef) and therefore impacting fishermen and other local inhabitants, should be considered with great importance. It is clearly unethical to knowingly continue harming others for profit. The fact of the matter is between the following: private interest or the safety of people who rely on these polluted waters. One of the two most be chosen in this binary way of thinking for the advancement of society.  These companies have selected the irrational choice by not abiding by global environmental policies–it is time for change.