A natural disaster hits Galt's Gulch

[Travis]

So, somehow, a real Galt's Gulch comes into being. If you are a person who cares only for advancing yourself and nothing for others it is your place to be and you are there.

Then a horrible natural disaster hits. Let's say a major flood cuts off the valley from the outside world and destroys the food stores.

What happens? What happens when an objectivist society is faced with such a dire situation? Do they forget their philosophy and band together or stay true to the ideology even if it means they all starve to death individually?

We may have our answer in real life where many such people have decided to reject science and believe there is no climate change. Indicating that in this scenario they might go into hyper-denial as well and remain true to their beliefs even as it kills them.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

The way I have always understood this Randian philosophy, then there is no contradiction between striving for the greatest personal gain and actually banding together. Starving to death is, after all, a pretty meager profit.


Now, real life on the other hand that is something else entirely.

 

[Travis]

Well in Bioshock we saw that altruism and charity were explicitly outlawed in that Randian society. Would that not also be the case in an actual Galt's Gulch? Would not even the simple act of saving someone else from drowning in a mud flow contradict the core idea of only helping yourself at all times?

Keep in mind most of what I know about Objectivism comes from a friend's college dorm mate who used it as a pretext to steal all his stuff and never clean up. Basically a "because you allow me to get away with this I will continue to do it" sort of excuse. It still makes me angry.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I am afraid that Ms Rand was a little less myopic than that. Although, I am not the super-expert on that either, having read all the fiction books about a decade ago. She and her heroes definitely did realize that there is some kind of mutual benefit where pretty much everyone wins, etc pp. In addition to that, IIRC, her heroes usually pay for their stuff, they don't steal - ever.


And besides, because all the structures in Galt's Gulch are planned by kick-ass architects, built with high-quality materials by only the most skilled craftsmen etc a simple flood couldn't ever harm anything there. And even if a disaster struck, someone would simply invent something super-nifty to make all the suffering go and he'd become rich and happy while doing so.

 

[Dinwar]

Do they forget their philosophy and band together

Only someone with no understanding of Objectivism could make such a statement. NOTHING in Objectivism forbids helping others out--provided you do so volanterily. That was the whole bloody plot of Atlas Shrugged, after all: Objectivists help out other Objectivists by convincing them to walk away from a society going to hell. To say that helping others violates the philosophy is nonsensical given that.

Given what happened in Atlas Shrugged when Galt was kidnapped, what would happen is that the people of the valley would help each other out. They'd make sure they saved as many lives as they could, and prevented as much property damage as they could. Then the lumber yards and stone quarries would make a killing selling building supplies, and Midas Mullilgan would make a killing on loan interest.

Well in Bioshock we saw that altruism and charity were explicitly outlawed in that Randian society.

Another statement that cannot be uttered by anyone with an understanding of Objectivism. Bioshock was anti-O'ism propaganda; or, at best, it was a twisted and mutilated version of Objectivism, as akin to real O'ism as cancer is to healthy cells. You cannot outlaw altruism and charity without violating the property rights of the people in the society, and property rights are held as inviolate in Objectivism. Bioshock's "society" was internally contradictory and one which Rand would have vhemanently objected to.

Keep in mind most of what I know about Objectivism comes from a friend's college dorm mate who used it as a pretext to steal all his stuff and never clean up. Basically a "because you allow me to get away with this I will continue to do it" sort of excuse. It still makes me angry.

So what you're saying is that Mr. Thompson is your ideal Objectivist.

To put it more clearly: that wasn't Objectivism. That was someone lying about Objectivism. O'ism views the Supermen in the same light as any other moocher--that is to say, as more or less the physical embodyment of evil. Rand's heros actually all make the opposite mistake: they take on TOO MUCH responsibility, not too little.

I'm an Objectivist. Yet I've fought floods and fires, helping save property that's not my own. I did it for my own selfish reasons (no damn river is going to defeate ME, and I love my father). I also used to help clean up after parties (I really, REALLY don't like cleaning up stale beer when I'm hung over). I'd much rather live in a society where I can ask my neighbor for help than one where I can't, and am demonstrably willing to put my life on the line to establish such a society. THAT is an Objectivist view of the world: this is what I want, and this is how much I'm willing to pay.

Would not even the simple act of saving someone else from drowning in a mud flow contradict the core idea of only helping yourself at all times?

Rand herlself wrote about this exact type of situation. She said that it's not required, but if you could do so with minimal risk it's a really good idea. It betrays a certain viciousness if you let strangers die for no reason; life, after all, is a value, and living in a society (of people acting in their own best interests) makes your own life easier.

And besides, because all the structures in Galt's Gulch are planned by kick-ass architects, built with high-quality materials by only the most skilled craftsmen

Not really. Francisco D'Anconia's house was a shack. More effort went into two silver cups than into his house's construction.

 

[Carn]

Well in Bioshock we saw that altruism and charity were explicitly outlawed in that Randian society. Would that not also be the case in an actual Galt's Gulch?

No, it would not be, most importantly because for Rand everybody should be free to use what is his as he sees fit. Therefore, charity cannot be forbidden.

Would not even the simple act of saving someone else from drowning in a mud flow contradict the core idea of only helping yourself at all times?

There are several actions of people in Atlas Shrugs, which smell a lot of altruism. For example, Dagny Taggart crashes with her plane near Galt's Gulch and at least 2 people (John Galt and whatever that banker is called) show up, ready to help her.
For example, Ragnar Danneskjöld spends his time taking loot from government ships to refund poor people like Hank rearden exploited by government for every cent government took from them without justification - and not using some paper money, but solid gold.

In both cases the characters have some complicated reasoning, which shows that its not pure altruism but also self interest.In other situations Dagny Taggart simply assumes the existence of something like common human decency, which includes protecting unknown third parties from danger, if it requires little effort.

So one could expect objectivist to find reasons to help victims of natural disasters, though they would send a bill afterwards (which John Galt actually does verbally in respect to helping Dagny Taggart, he asks her to repay his expenses).

Keep in mind most of what I know about Objectivism comes from a friend's college dorm mate who used it as a pretext to steal all his stuff and never clean up. Basically a "because you allow me to get away with this I will continue to do it" sort of excuse. It still makes me angry.

Thats not objectivism, respect for private property is paramount in objectivism. As said above, Atlas Shrugged involves a character effictively fighting a war for the obejctive to refund exploited taxpayers.

 

[Dinwar]

So one could expect objectivist to find reasons to help victims of natural disasters, though they would send a bill afterwards

Possibly. Possibly not. What you need to bear in mind is that the Gulch was never intended to be a model society. Galt even said it wasn't a society of any kind, just a group of like-minded people who happened to live in the same area. You can't extrapolate from the Gulch to society at large.

The reason is simple: sometimes the benefit you derive from something isn't monetary. I used to volunteer for Habitat for Humanity because I enjoy doing home repairs (I stopped because the chapter I was with never got around do actually doing anything). I grew up doing them, it's a skillset that's currently drastically under-utilized (give me two other people and I can build a house starting with "Chop down trees", and I live in an appartment where I'm not allowed to change lightbulbs), and it's good exercise (I get bored lifting weights or running). Monetary compensation would be nice, but the action is of value to me anyway, and I'm willing to do it for free.

Similarly, the firemen I've known are GOING to play with fire. It's inevitable; they're pyromaniacs. Volunteering to fight fires offers the community a service, while at the same time allowing these men (no sexism here; I only know male fire fighters) to do something they enjoy. It has the additional benefit of creating a tight-knit community, the way any social club does. These men have all stated that they'd be firefighters for free, because they derive so much benefit from it.

As a final proof, there's a philosopher with a Ph.D. in philosophy that does a free weekly podcast on Objectivism. She does so because she sees it as helping (along with a LOT of political activism on her part) to bring about a better society. The benefits she derives from it are worth the effort of creating it even if no one paid her. What she DOES do, and what I can easily see an Objectivist doing after a natural disaster, is ask for tips (and she offers goodies like extra content to those who pay).

The more I think about it, the less convinced I am that an Objectivist would charge for helping a victim of a disaster (for the materials, sure, but not the help). It's too akin to the Ubermench concept--they're not dealing with you voluntarily, necessarily, and an Objectivist will realize the benefits that person offers them in society. An Objectivist--meaning one who actually understands and practices the philosophy, not one who merely lives in an Objectivist society--would almost certainly help the person at no charge (again, for the aid alone; materials are something else). I want you to trade with me because what I produce is good, not because you'll starve otherwise. And if you're another Objectivist, as the OP's scenario demands, you'll acknowledge that as well.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Not really. Francisco D'Anconia's house was a shack. More effort went into two silver cups than into his house's construction.

Yeah, you are probably right. I was just trying to poke a little fun. But in essence what I said is not too far off; Galt's Gulch has all the best people of various walks of life.

 

[Dinwar]

Yeah, you are probably right. I was just trying to poke a little fun. But in essence what I said is not too far off; Galt's Gulch has all the best people of various walks of life.

Well, maybe. But it also included folks we'd consider pretty down-to-Earth. There was a truck driver, a writer, a grocer, etc., all living happily in the valley. It's strongly implied that Rearden's foremen and secretary and the rest went there as well--people we'd call middle-management today (given the role of a 1940s/1950s foreman). And we don't actually hear of any archetects being in the valley. I'd assume there'd be one (there's a market, after all), but can't say for certain. Mostly, people seemed to treat their houses as an afterthought.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Well, maybe. But it also included folks we'd consider pretty down-to-Earth. There was a truck driver, a writer, a grocer, etc., all living happily in the valley. It's strongly implied that Rearden's foremen and secretary and the rest went there as well--people we'd call middle-management today (given the role of a 1940s/1950s foreman).

Yes, but these down-to-Earth folk were IIRC amongst the best in their professions. Wasn't Dagny Taggart somewhere complaining about all her good personnel being AWOL?

And we don't actually hear of any archetects being in the valley.

The Protagonist of "The Fountainhead" is an architect, and an exceptionally good one at that. And while it is a totally different novel, he is not too far off from the lot in "Atlas Shrugged".

 

[CaptainManacles]

Why are you making a thread waxing philosophical about the implications of an Objectivist society when you don't know anything about Objectivism? There's plenty to complain about without making stuff up and being intellectually dishonest and irresponsible.

 

[theprestige]

Why are you making a thread waxing philosophical about the implications of an Objectivist society when you don't know anything about Objectivism? There's plenty to complain about without making stuff up and being intellectually dishonest and irresponsible.

You must be new here. Welcome to the JREF Forums!

 

[Brainache]

I understand how O'ists could bandtogether to help each other out in a natural disaster (then charge each other for expenses incurred), but what would happen if they all lost all of their money?

 

[theprestige]

I understand how O'ists could bandtogether to help each other out in a natural disaster (then charge each other for expenses incurred), but what would happen if they all lost all of their money?

I'm pretty sure they'd just barter for goods and services.

Objectivists, properly understood, strike me as least likely demographic to fetishize money for its own sake.

 

[Dinwar]

I understand how O'ists could bandtogether to help each other out in a natural disaster (then charge each other for expenses incurred), but what would happen if they all lost all of their money?

Really?

Well, money is a tool of trade. Objectivism recognizes the difference between a tool and an objective. Thus, Objectivists would exchange things directly if the money were physically lost. As theprestige said, we do not fetishize money. If you get a chance, I recommend reading the Money Speach to see Objectivist views on money.

If the money were "lost" in that Objectivists were economically ruined, they'd be on their own to address the issue. But all Objectivists in the valley being ruined at the same time seems about as likely as them all being mauled by the same polar bear in the same day, and surviving to all be struck by lightning at the same time.

 

[Travis]

Why are you making a thread waxing philosophical about the implications of an Objectivist society when you don't know anything about Objectivism? There's plenty to complain about without making stuff up and being intellectually dishonest and irresponsible.

To learn.

I had only a personal experience before but nothing I've read in this thread makes me view Objectivism as anything other than a horrible evil.

I'm an avowed altruist who thinks society is made better by propping up everyone including the occasional freeloader.

 

[tsig]

To learn.

I had only a personal experience before but nothing I've read in this thread makes me view Objectivism as anything other than a horrible evil.

I'm an avowed altruist who thinks society is made better by propping up everyone including the occasional freeloader.

It looks to me that Objectivism, like all utopias, can only work with a basic change in human nature.

 

[Wildy]

Well in Bioshock we saw that altruism and charity were explicitly outlawed in that Randian society.

The following contains spoilers if you haven't played Bioshock.

No they weren't. If that were the case then Fontaine wouldn't have been able to openly run his poorhouses and orphanages, neither would Dr. Suchong have been able to run a free clinic in one of the poorer areas of the city.

Now I may have misunderstood the view here, but as I understand it altruism is okay in Randian society, it's just that you should get something out of it. To keep on using Bioshock as an example, Fontaine benefited immensely for the little charity he gave. He got a popularity boost against Ryan by providing something of a safety net in a society that didn't have one, the poorhouses gave him disgruntled people that he turned into soldiers to fight against Ryan, and the orphanages gave him access to young girls he could turn into little sisters - vessels for producing the ADAM that the society was hooked on.

Would that not also be the case in an actual Galt's Gulch? Would not even the simple act of saving someone else from drowning in a mud flow contradict the core idea of only helping yourself at all times?

I'd assume that would depend on the person you're choosing to save or not.

Keep in mind most of what I know about Objectivism comes from a friend's college dorm mate who used it as a pretext to steal all his stuff and never clean up. Basically a "because you allow me to get away with this I will continue to do it" sort of excuse. It still makes me angry.

I'd say that your friend's room mate is just a dick who used objectivism as an excuse for his dickishness.

 

[Dinwar]

Why bother trying to learn, then, Travis and tsig? You've both already decided that it's evil and unworkable. In my experience, nothing any Objectivist is going to say will change your minds--the other thread has demonstrated, over and over, that not even quoting Rand will change people's minds on this subject.

Or, to put it another way: What would it take to prove you wrong? What would it take to convince you that altruism isn't the definition of morality? If your answer is "nothing", there's no point to this conversation.

 

[tsig]

Why bother trying to learn, then, Travis and tsig? You've both already decided that it's evil and unworkable. In my experience, nothing any Objectivist is going to say will change your minds--the other thread has demonstrated, over and over, that not even quoting Rand will change people's minds on this subject.

Or, to put it another way: What would it take to prove you wrong? What would it take to convince you that altruism isn't the definition of morality? If your answer is "nothing", there's no point to this conversation.

To prove me wrong set up a society of Objectivists. If it works you're right.