Season 2 of the Liberty Relearned Podcast covered a lot of ground, from Bidens expensive and empty promises, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, to Covid, fascism, and Woke Disney. Included are clips from previous episodes of the podcast.
Though the altruistic approach seems good on the surface, even to theists, especially Christians, upon further reflection on how this value actually plays out in the real world, one can see the cracks in the secular altruist's argument. Mainly, how do we define what is good for all of society? We as individuals, cannot determine what is best for society, for we can never have a complete enough picture of what society most needs, at least not to a moral certainty. Moreover, is the simple fact that no individual can act on behalf of society.
Altruism seems good, even Biblical, but cannot serve as a code of ethics. The problem with altruism isn't that self-sacrifice is bad, it's that it allows society, not the individual, to make the call on who is required to sacrifice their own best interests and why. Society is the majority, and altruism makes one's actions subject to the need of the collective.
It took much more violence for the Allies to remove the fascists from power than it took for the fascists to gain that power in the first place. The most common of all regrets is not saying saying or doing something earlier, or at all, then suffering the consequences.
All of the major topics I’ve discussed since the inception of the podcast will be covered in a planned multi-part series. I’d like to think that the ideas I talk about are of value to the listener.
We've all heard someone ask: “Who are you to judge me?” or some variant of that question. It's a defensive question usually asked by someone who reasonably expects to be judges harshly by their peers for some ethical or moral transgression. It's safe to say that someone secure in the notion that society or their peers would judge their actions favorably, is not going to pose this rhetorical question. A good retort to that question might be: “Who are you that you are above judgment?”
When we base rights on what is good for society, that begs the question: Who speaks for society? Throughout history, such people who claim to speak for society inevitably turn out to be tyrants. You have a few, even a single person, deciding what is good for the people. Rand thought that people ought to decide for themselves, based upon rational self-interest.
Ayn Rand saw collectivism in all its forms as an impediment to human rights. "The good of society" cannot be the basis of rights, since society is merely a collection of individuals, and so the only proper rights are individual rights. When we base rights on what is good for society, that begs the question: Who speaks for society? Throughout history, such people who claim to speak for society inevitably turn out to be tyrants. You have a few, even a single person, deciding what is good for the people. Rand thought that people ought to decide for themselves, based upon rational self-interest.
Ayn Rand explains how leaders with a collectivist mindset can justify such lusty sums for pet projects and public largess even though we are experiencing record inflation partly due to previous enormous spending. It comes from altruism, paired with a neurotic lack of self-esteem in a leader or among lawmakers that fuels the need for ever more spending on “the public good”. It is based upon the need to feel good, rather than actually doing good.
The public who support these policies get to feel good about themselves too, but only for a little while, until the bill comes due. By the time they're paying $5 for a loaf of bread, and $6 for a gallon of gas, it's too late.