TTI Forums

From what I’ve read in the novels of Any Rand relations between people should be based on equitable trade. Each person delivers a good or service to another in exchange for equitable goods or services. Doesn’t this approach have the ring of a contract?

Charity is one-sided giving. To me it seems that charity is dangerous territory for an Objective world.

Receiver – a person that accepts the gift from another without providing equitable exchange, benefits from the giver’s service. When one man is forced into the service of another we call this evil, we call this slavery. In the charity circumstance there may be no force, but the give and take elements are present. At the top of this slippery slope there is no coercion. But all manners of pressure can be brought to bear to extract charity: from simple guilt, to hazing, until we cross the line that Any Rand has drawn for us – the use of physical force.

Giver – a person that has the capacity to give, should have the choice. Offering someone a gift is asking them to deny the truth in fair trade. And by accepting part of the life force of the giver, the receiver is pushed away from the truth. The receiver becomes less self-reliant, more dependent. To some degree I view the gift-giver as an enabler that encourages self-destructive thinking and behavior of the receiver.

So help me out, are these flawed perspectives? What do you think? Is charity compatible with Objectivism?

Getting a gift does not necessitate becoming more dependent psychologically. I would not give charity to someone that I know would just depend on the charity because its easier.

There is a quote in the Fountainhead that I like that amounts to Gail Wynand saying something like, "Damn you, why can't you need money so I can give you some" (this was addressed to Roark). Gail has good reason to help Roark and he knows that it would not cause Roark to become dependent of him.

If the receiver becomes more dependent on the charity, then that is a moral wrong doing on the receivers part. If the giver feels better about him/her self because someone depends on him/her, then that is a moral wrong doing to him/her self.

Charity is not a virtue, but it is not wrong as long as it is not seen as a virtue. One can still value something enough to donate to it.

I personally plan to donate to Mr. Cropper and the Ayn Rand Institute.

I have also donated ISK to the corp a few times now--but I don't think of it as virtuous at all.

The first few cigarettes do not cause the chronic health effects of smoking. With enough smoking the outcome is certain.

Tolthar Lockbar wrote:There is a quote in the Fountainhead that I like that amounts to Gail Wynand saying something like, "Damn you, why can't you need money so I can give you some" (this was addressed to Roark). Gail has good reason to help Roark and he knows that it would not cause Roark to become dependent of him.

Yes also I enjoyed this plot line in the story. This foil that Wynand routinely used helped to illustrate the corruptibility of even the most noble of men. Ellsworth Toohey used similar tactics. And as you recall Steven Mallory attempted to use force kill Toohey to end his corrupting influence. It might be considered demented but I equate these circumstances to drugs. It seems like a logical extension that the addict would lash out at the dealer once push has come to shove – Never be the roller when there’s nothing left to roll.

To me it seems like Ayn Rand was illustrating the trap in awarding/accepting benevolence. Obviously when we give charity, we strive to award the worthy, but does the very act corrupt the goodness we see?

I confess that in RL I give charitably as well, sometimes in very large amounts (more than enough to claim as a deduction on my tax return).

But each time I do give, I have doubts and questions about the appropriateness of the cause. And with the thought process above, I get sort of a bad feeling from giving. By the Virtue of Selfishness perhaps that bad feeling is a good thing.

I think the slope around giving charity is a very slippery one. The act itself, giving someone something that was not earned with no expectation of personal or productive return, does violate the base values of Objectivism.

Take Hurricane Katrina relief funds and charities as one example. While the notion that giving to these charities will help families rebuild and enable them to get their lives back on track (we hope) sounds like a very "noble" cause, in the end the money donated only serves to harm them.

In affect we're telling these families that we want them to move back into the same area, live life the same way, and continue barely eeking by until the next disaster...and that we'll be there for that one too. There is no investment in further productivity at all.

I can't see the logic in donating money which might eventually trickle down to those people...and then seeing them move right back into the same areas. Hell, even if they relocated...the chances of them producing MORE than what they did before are virtually nil. You are basically investing in the hope that they'll even break even at the same level they were before.

---

Now personally, I don't agree with most forms of charity. I don't consider gift giving at Christmas charity, as its done with an intended result of showing love and affection for family members...but at the same time its not expected from anyone nor do I feel that I get nothing in return.

If you feel some sense of compassion or whatever for donating to charity, that feeling is your return on your investment. As long as you do so with the knowledge that you are throwing that money away, the only real issue with giving is that you're knowingly lowering your own productivity out of a twisted sense of duty or self gratification.

---

An example I used in my application to TTi was that if I were to donate isk or goods to someone in the corporation (or sell them at below market costs) would only do it as an investment on future earnings. If I give Joe Schmoe a Badger M2 and the Cald. Industrial skill book, I know that I'm out that money....yet I'm investing in the fact that I will be able to call on him to help haul ore (paid help of course) if he's available. By spending a few 100k isk....I might see a return of a few million isk in time and goods that he helped me haul.

Could I haul it myself? Yes, but I'd spend more time doing it.

Could he take the ship and skill then never help? Yes, but at that point its my fault for choosing a bad investment. If I had any idea he'd turn tail, I wouldn't have given it to him. At the same time, I don't EXPECT him help...I just know that he now has the ABILITY to help.

But this act of "charity" is a not a virtue. I would much rather Joe Schmoe buy the ship and skill on his own, the act of be giving it to him or selling it cheaper is due to the need I have to potentially haul ore/goods with his help. Now if Joe decides he wants to agree to help me haul IN RETURN for me buying him the ship and skill book, that's just a trade transaction like any other: a good for a service.

Charity is not a virtue, but it is not wrong as long as it is not seen as a virtue. One can still value something enough to donate to i

This isn't really an argument though, as you have to see what this statement means in other contexts.

You're still advocating giving something for nothing, but trying to justify the reason behind it by saying "as long as you realize its not a virtue, its not wrong." I believe that having the understanding that what you are doing provides no logical value and still doing it is even more of a concern...you're twisting the reason to fit the act.

I might find a small value in knowing that my tax dollars go to support people on welfare...I know that "giving" this money is not virtuous...but to say its not wrong because I hold value in it is quite wrong. Ayn Rand warned against people who place value in things illogically, and thus called the action morally justified because of their perceived value.

You may hold a small bit of value in the feeling you get when you take drugs, so the act of trading money for those drugs is not virtuous but its not wrong...at least according to that statement.

While I realize those are extreme cases, its essentially the same cop out. You have to analyze the value you get from it as well as the logical reasoning behind that value. Giving money because it gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling inside is no different than taking money cause it gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling inside. The value is irrelevant if its based off of flawed reasoning and faith.

Ciaras wrote:I don't consider gift giving at Christmas charity, as its done with an intended result of showing love and affection for family members...but at the same time its not expected from anyone nor do I feel that I get nothing in return.

Exactly, the common moray is that gift giving at the darkest part of the year is somehow supposed to communicate love and affection. If opinion changes regarding gift giving to a corrupt/corrupting practice, then I wonder if people would feel the same way?

Ciaras wrote:An example I used in my application to TTi was that if I were to donate isk or goods to someone in the corporation (or sell them at below market costs) would only do it as an investment on future earnings. If I give Joe Schmoe a Badger M2 and the Cald. Industrial skill book, I know that I'm out that money....yet I'm investing in the fact that I will be able to call on him to help haul ore (paid help of course) if he's available. By spending a few 100k isk....I might see a return of a few million isk in time and goods that he helped me haul.

Could I haul it myself? Yes, but I'd spend more time doing it.

Could he take the ship and skill then never help? Yes, but at that point its my fault for choosing a bad investment. If I had any idea he'd turn tail, I wouldn't have given it to him. At the same time, I don't EXPECT him help...I just know that he now has the ABILITY to help.

But this act of "charity" is a not a virtue. I would much rather Joe Schmoe buy the ship and skill on his own, the act of be giving it to him or selling it cheaper is due to the need I have to potentially haul ore/goods with his help. Now if Joe decides he wants to agree to help me haul IN RETURN for me buying him the ship and skill book, that's just a trade transaction like any other: a good for a service.

In this analogy I think you are describing a trade understanding without terms. You support Joe Schmoe, later he reciprocates. 9 times out of 10 this ends up being a bad deal, only because there is no definite “meeting of the minds”. Either you do not receive full fair value returned, or Joe ends up over paying. All that said, I prefer even this arrangement to just giving charity to Joe.

BTW welcome to TTI Ciaras

musashi wrote:

Ciaras wrote:I don't consider gift giving at Christmas charity, as its done with an intended result of showing love and affection for family members...but at the same time its not expected from anyone nor do I feel that I get nothing in return.

Exactly, the common moray is that gift giving at the darkest part of the year is somehow supposed to communicate love and affection. If opinion changes regarding gift giving to a corrupt/corrupting practice, then I would if people would feel the same way?

Ciaras wrote:An example I used in my application to TTi was that if I were to donate isk or goods to someone in the corporation (or sell them at below market costs) would only do it as an investment on future earnings. If I give Joe Schmoe a Badger M2 and the Cald. Industrial skill book, I know that I'm out that money....yet I'm investing in the fact that I will be able to call on him to help haul ore (paid help of course) if he's available. By spending a few 100k isk....I might see a return of a few million isk in time and goods that he helped me haul.

Could I haul it myself? Yes, but I'd spend more time doing it.

Could he take the ship and skill then never help? Yes, but at that point its my fault for choosing a bad investment. If I had any idea he'd turn tail, I wouldn't have given it to him. At the same time, I don't EXPECT him help...I just know that he now has the ABILITY to help.

But this act of "charity" is a not a virtue. I would much rather Joe Schmoe buy the ship and skill on his own, the act of be giving it to him or selling it cheaper is due to the need I have to potentially haul ore/goods with his help. Now if Joe decides he wants to agree to help me haul IN RETURN for me buying him the ship and skill book, that's just a trade transaction like any other: a good for a service.

In this analogy I think you are describing a trade understanding without terms. You support Joe Schmoe, later he reciprocates. 9 times out of 10 this ends up being a bad deal, only because there is no definite “meeting of the minds”. Either you do not receive full fair value returned, or Joe ends up over paying. All that said, I prefer even this arrangement to just giving charity to Joe.

BTW welcome to TTI Ciaras

X-mas:

Regardless of whether society views this gift giving as right or wrong, the gifts aren't being given to attempt to communicate love. The gifts are given BECAUSE of that love, whether they understand that or not. When I give my girlfriend/mom/cousin a gift, I'm saying I love you and I find value in your reaction to this gift. If said person responded in a way that I did not find value you in or didn't respond at all, then I would not give further gifts. The giving of the gift is a demonstration of an emotion or idea, rather than a good to be exchanged for later productivity.

The fact that I apply Objectivist principles to my family life also does affect my relationship to them. I have uncles that make incredibly stupid decisions with their lives, thusly I see no value in supporting them. My mother, however, works quite productively in her job as well as works around the local town with my step-father to improve things and bring more business into the town.

I do not send my mother gifts thinking that it will improve her productivity at work, I send them because they are a demonstration of my feelings and they make her happy. If at some time she wasn't happy to receive them or I didn't feel it was a good demonstration, I wouldn't send them.

The act of giving her a gift at x-mas time isn't the communication of love, its the fact of giving the gift itself regardless of the time.

This differs from charity in that my mother is a productive individual...my gifts to her aren't to support her or provide something for her. The gifts aren't' expected or depended upon. I wouldn't call it charity when a wealthy industrialist sends a fellow businessman a bottle of wine, its a gift and that's all. neither man "needs" or asked for the gift exchange, its simply a demonstrative gesture.

Trade:

What I was more going for was that if I did give (or sell at a reduced price) goods to Joe Schmoe, it is done so WITHOUT the expectation of reciprocation. Now...on my end...if I look at the bigger picture and see that my giving goods/a break to this man will enable him to grow faster to a point where I might be able to hire him, that's an investment I'm making in him. A risky investment with no guarantee, but an investment nonetheless.

The moment I attach definite stipulations or expectations to said "gift" and he agrees or disagrees to them, it is actually no longer a gift. At this point we're attempting to conduct a transaction of goods and services, so the definition of "gift" is totally thrown out.

I personally would never just give said goods or price breaks out just for the sheer fact of doing it, despite how it made me feel. Going back to my x-mas discussion, this isn't the same as that bottle of wine. If Joe was a peer, he'd have the means to purchase his own goods at whatever price...so my gesture of the ship and skill book would be meaningless in a productivity standpoint but might mean something personally to him as sign of the relationship.

The idea of giving to Joe without true expectation of return, but the possibility for further use is still based on a hierarchy of values. Some new player has virtually no value to me, I wouldn't not see him as someone with further use to me. However Joe might have been a TTi member for months, so I know that the chances of him not at least indirectly using that gift towards further productivity are slim. I'll also more than likely know whether or not Joe could realistically use the goods for further productivity.

wow, someone is more long winded than musashi...

Yes, you are right, I was making the unsaid assumption that the value was logically placed.

Charity is not always wrong though. An example would be if Oleksandr (my very good friend) suddenly had his income cut completely off and he was left with no money and his saving are used up. I would perhaps donate something--not because he asked, and not because I think it is my duty. Furthermore, I would not do it unless I could easily afford it.

So you are saying that this act (in which I am throwing away my money) necessitates him becoming reliant on me and thinking that he doesn't have to worry about making money? I don't think so. Saying that seems to assume that all people are stupid.

I don't care how much money you give Roark, he will never think that he doesn't have to make his own money. Of course, he will not accept donations unless he needed it.

This is an example of having reasonable value in something enough to give charity to it. Olek would be able to survive without my help (though not as easily) in this example.

If you remember another scene from the Fountainhead, Keating tried to give Roark money and Roark was about to accept until he found out the reason. If Peter had just valued Roark as a friend or valued his help, than I think he would of taken the money. But Keating did it because he wanted someone to depend on him and that is the reason Roark tore up the check.

Ah, nice and short.

But look at your example. You personally know that he would use the money to get back on his feet and keep growing and being productive, you aren't relying on blind faith or hope that he will.

In this case, your charity is because you hold value in him as a friend. His happiness and success are important to you. You personally know that your charity wouldn't make him depend on you for support.

I would see no problem or conflict in loaning Olek money/support in this case. My issue is with those that donate to charities where there is no direct connection or reasonable assurance/knowledge of how it will be used or that the people receiving it would properly use it.

Oh, I agree with that. I thought you and Musashi were hinting that all charity was bad by nature. I agree that charity without reason is pointless--but anything without reason is dumb, so I've always taken reason as being a given (not axiomatic, but assumed in argument). That is why Rand said, "rational selfishness", to the public. But I bet she didn't always append the "rational" part when talking to other Oist.

Then again, this is in the public part of the forum...

Tolthar Lockbar wrote:Charity is not always wrong though. An example would be if Oleksandr (my very good friend) suddenly had his income cut completely off and he was left with no money and his saving are used up. I would perhaps donate something--not because he asked, and not because I think it is my duty. Furthermore, I would not do it unless I could easily afford it.

So you are saying that this act (in which I am throwing away my money) necessitates him becoming reliant on me and thinking that he doesn't have to worry about making money? I don't think so. Saying that seems to assume that all people are stupid.

I don't care how much money you give Roark, he will never think that he doesn't have to make his own money. Of course, he will not accept donations unless he needed it.

Charity might be an opiate, but it certainly is not as addictive as crack cocaine.

Sure, gift giving to a self-reliant person like Oleksandr would have little if any harmful effect on him. We are very high up on that slippery slope. But just like Gail Wynand’s hobby, it wasn’t the first charitable act that corrupted; it was a long pattern of behavior. Could a burned out, shell of a beggar harm themselves or another with/for just a small handout? I’d say yes.

The question is not how much money you would have to give Roark to corrupt him.

• The question is how much giving would Roark accept? IMO not much.

I don't think charity was the essential cause of Wynand's demise... it was the want of power. Charity was a natural side effect of that. Even from the beginning, he wanted power--which was a large second-handedness act.

I am constantly asked for charity from work now >.<. Its like saying "No" to a beggar. I just want to tell them, "the trash is out back, its yours."

Charity, like any other action, should not escape cost-benefit analysis.

Tolthar Lockbar wrote:I don't think charity was the essential cause of Wynand's demise... it was the want of power.

In the book Wynand used charity as a tool to debase and bring down noble men. It was his hobby to transform them from self-reliant successful people into worthless sycophants. He first practiced it on the man who owned the bar that would not assist him in his moment of need after the beating in the street. The story was quite descriptive about Wynand’s penchant for destroying men through careful acts of charity, and then the removal of these graces once the victim became dependant.

musashi wrote:

Tolthar Lockbar wrote:I don't think charity was the essential cause of Wynand's demise... it was the want of power.

In the book Wynand used charity as a tool to debase and bring down noble men. It was his hobby to transform them from self-reliant successful people into worthless sycophants. He first practiced it on the man who owned the bar that would not assist him in his moment of need after the beating in the street. The story was quite descriptive about Wynand’s penchant for destroying men through careful acts of charity, and then the removal of these graces once the victim became dependant.

So you agree then? What you pretty much said there that he wanted power over those people, and charity was just a tool. The tool didn't corrupt him, it was his want of what the tool offered.

At some level yes, Wynand’s hobby was all about gaining power over these people. But actually bringing the people to their destruction is an abuse of the power relation ship he created. Power was an intermediate goal.

I don't think that is right. I'll have to look it up when I find the book.

I believe Roark even explicitly thought that power was Wynand's main goal, and his main flaw.

There was that moment on the top of some roof, where Wynand was looking at the city, and he came to a dicission: To tell or to be told. At least I think it went something like that--I'll have to look it up.

On page 422 in The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand gave the precise description of how Wynand "died":

For three years Wynand had kept one small clipping, an editorial on corruption ... He had kept it, because it was the most beautiful tribute to integrity he had ever read. He took the clipping and went to see the great editor... He did not introduce himself, but laid the clipping down on the desk and asked: "Do you remember this?" The editor glansed at the clipping, then at Wynand. It was a glance Wynand had seen before: in the eyes of the saloonkeeper who had slammed the door. "How do you expect me to remember every piece of swill I write?" asked editor.

After a moment, Wynand said: "Thanks." It was the only moment in his life that he felt gratitude to anyone. The gratitude was genuine - a payment for a lesson he would never need again. But even the editor knew there was something very wrong in that short "Thanks," and very frightening.
He did not know that it had been an obituary on Gail Wynand.

This is a moment when Wynand, the first-hander, died.


As far as his goal goes, just a few pages before (pg. 420):

Gail Wynand was sixteen when his father died. ... He had decided that the time had come to decide what he would make of his life. ... Could one rule men through the bread they bought? They had shoes, they had coffee, they had ... The course of his life was set.

QED: his primary goal was power. He was becoming a second-hander.

And one more quote to finish it off with the goal of Wynand:

(pg. 636)

Afterward, when Wynand had gone below to his cabin, Roark remained alone on deck. He stood at the rail, staring out at the ocean, at nothing. He thought: I haven't mentioned to him the worse second-hander of all - the main who goes after power.

And one more quote to finish it off with the goal of Wynand:

(pg. 636)
Quote:
Afterward, when Wynand had gone below to his cabin, Roark remained alone on deck. He stood at the rail, staring out at the ocean, at nothing. He thought: I haven't mentioned to him the worse second-hander of all - the main who goes after power.

I'm curious, and Olek - you seem like the correct individual to ask this question - is there a Randian definition/conceptualization of 'Power'; I'm not aware of one in my admittedly limited reading on the subject. The closest I've seen is the normal cross definition of power and 'Force', but the quotes about Wynand above don't seem to be implying Force at all. I'd really like to know how Rand defines power and what, therefore, leads it to be evil. It would be a great subject for comparison with a couple of other philosophical outlooks.

Thanks in advance for any sources.

AT

Sure thing. Here's a great part with even more references to Ayn Rand books.

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/e ... power.html

Sure thing. Here's a great part with even more references to Ayn Rand books.

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/e ... power.html

Interesting. In every single one of the definitions on that page, all forms of 'political power' are defined in relation to Force. "Political Power" is the "power of guns".

There's no discussion of democratic government at all - no discussion of the idea of people having control over their government officials and, thus, no control over the power which has the single monopoly of force. The only discussion of 'democratic' votes is in relation to economic power, the 'vote' a person gives to one producer over another in chosing their product.

So people really have no control at all over their government? The implication of all of those definitions is that all government is an authoritarian construction somehow 'outside' of the citizens of the State. I don't see how that can be reconciled with the idea of a Democracy. I also don't see how that can even be reconciled with the Objectivist conception of government as a 'necessity for the protection of individual rights and property'.

I'll have to take a look at the rest of those materials to see if anything is illuminated to those questions.

Thanks for the sources.

AT

AT, you should have taken a look at the definition of Democracy in the same lexicon:

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/democracy.html

Example:

"Democratic" in its original meaning [refers to] unlimited majority rule … a social system in which one's work, one's property, one's mind, and one's life are at the mercy of any gang that may muster the vote of a majority at any moment for any purpose.

As well as discussion on the government:

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html

Example:

The source of the government's authority is "the consent of the governed." This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.

AT, you should have taken a look at the definition of Democracy in the same lexicon...

This pair of definitions appears, to me at least, to strengthen the problem:

1) The first definiton is merely historical, referring to Athenian democracy. The example is outlined on the same page you quoted. Further down, there is a definition by Leonard Peikoff that mentions the difference between this 'mob-rule' idea of a democracy, and American Constitutional Republicism. The extrapolation of Peikoff's statements are that the American governmental system is limited by boundaries perscribed by individual rights, and, as such, has no power to rule as the historical democracy might. The majority cannot infringe on the individual's rights.

2) The second definition you quoted makes clear that government is not an independent entity, but serves the citizens composing it. On that same link, further down, is a discussion of that government "should be an impersonal robot, with laws its only motive power."

All of these definitions serve to bound government to the people that make it up. The people define its powers and responsibilities. It is just a tool - an impersonal robot.

Based on that, I ask again - how is it consistent that, on one hand, this tool is completely bound by the citizens, and, on the other, act recklessly against those same citizens? How can it ever be correctly defined as a force 'outside' of the citizens making up the State.

I see a lot of discussion on this board about the 'evils' of government - I ask simply 'How can a tool be evil?' It has no freedom of action outside those who use it. A Hammer is neither good nor evil. If I use a hammer to build a house, you might attribute to me the moniker of 'good', and, by its connection to me, perhaps the 'hammer' may be thought of as good as well. But if I use the hammer to bludgeon someone to death, then it is my action, not the hammer's, that renders it 'evil'.

Likewise, I take great issue with the concept of 'evil government'. I understand how, conceptually, it might be considered a 'necessary evil' - in as much that, as the sole monopoly on the use of physical force, it represents something both conceptually distasteful (force)and absolutely necessary (the need to protect life and property, occasionally through the use of that force), but to describe a government's actions as good or evil is to make the same mistake as calling the hammer good or evil based on what I cause it to do.

Calling government actions evil misses the real responsibility - the individuals who actually have the freedom to act. They are the ones using the tool to bludgeon others. Don't hate the hammer - hate the wielder.

Ultimately, the "power of guns" is never in the instrument itself; it is in the hands of individuals. If the government acts to bring harm, it is not the gun killing people, it is people killing people, to paraphrase an oft-used quote.

AT