Objectivism

[mediamogul]

Rand's most obvious fallacy is her use of rational egoism as the foundational principle guiding the totality of human conduct and productive activity.

She saw it as the principle guiding all productive activity - but not all human conduct. She argued that it should guide human conduct, not that it did.

When we talk of rational self-interest we can only talk in terms of consequences and doing that which rationally would confer the greatest benefit to the acting person. This is of course regardless of the effects that any action would have on another person, with specific implications that a person can be used as a mere means to an end. In other words, particularly for powerful people driven by profit in a laissez faire environment, this means destruction of the environment, running the competition out of business, driving up prices of commodities in any way consistent with their own interest, and outsourcing labor to get the best profit margin possible.

This is exactly why it is important to consider her philosophy as a whole. Consideration of just one part such as rational egoism, out of context of the whole leads to incorrect conclusions, like it did here.

Rand was pretty specific about what the premises of rational egoism were. Rand's premise was "No man is a means to an end for another man". The conclusion drawn form this statement is that it is proper for a man to consider himself the means to his own ends - but he cannot consider anyone else as means to his ends. So, according to her philosophy, any acts which make a man means to someone else's ends, like they do in the given examples - would be unethical and not consistent with objectivism (consistency with rational egoism might be a different matter. It was not originally Rand's concept and it held a different meaning to her).

Also, why would a true egoist give to charity? Obviously it would not be out of a genuine desire to help someone elseor reduce another person suffering? Would it be to demonstrate their position of power? To appear as though they were a philanthropist? It would have to confer them some benefit.

Rand saw kindness, compassion and good-will as secondary consequences of egoism. She did not hold that people should not consider lives of others to be without any value - only that they should not value it more than their own. She also held that people should have a preiritized value structure which would help them make these decisions. To take the example of charity - suppose I have a lot of money - more money than I could possibly spend on my needs throughout my life - and by my value structure - the pleasure any reduction in suffering of the poor would be greater that pleasure of buying a new yacht - then I should most certainly donate that money to charity.

Didn't Rand herself go on Medicare at the end of her life to have surgery related to her years of chain smoking? It seems as though ideologically noone wants to pay into the safety net programs but then when they need them people always use them.

That would be the other way around. Rand did not want to pay for the safety-net program and she considered the she was forced to pay into supporting it as hers to the end. Her claim was therefore reclaiming what was hers to begin with. In her own words -

"It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration."

This is where the system begins to become a bit paradoxical to me. So in the interests of charity one can give freely to a system if it gives them pleasure? How could a truly selfish person take pleasure from giving money they earned through their productive activity to another as an unearned handout? I know that in theory it would be a freely willed gift on the part of the giver, not government "theft", but that does not adequetely place the motivation for such an action on egoist grounds. It seems as though, within the Objectivist system, this presents a contradiction. It appears to be special pleading. In one circumstance it is deemed rationally neccessary to pursue one's own ends but to simultanaouesly exhibit compassion for another is to consider their ends as well. As in it is more important to not give the government "my money" as opposed to letting someone die in the street because they lack health care that they can afford on their own. As in it is in everyone's interest to provide safety net programs that the population, outside of once again the rich, will inevitably use. Plus on a practical level a charity system would never be able to sustain the sheer volume of elderly and disabled people who rely on the Social Security system for their daily monitary and medical needs. Rand's justification appears to be ad hoc and she utilized the system in precisely the way it was intended to be used and to her own benefit. People will inevitably become old and utilize Medicare and Social Security. All except the rich, of course.