When a word is being used incorrectly to
convey the opposite of its real meaning, the solution is not to create a new
word but to reclaim the word and teach people to use it properly. For instance,
the statement, “You’re just being selfish,” is commonly heard today. It is often
uttered when one person seeks to “guilt” another into doing something he does
not want to do (such as pay higher taxes or give to charity). Most often, the accused
gives in because he or she wants to be liked. In fact, most people bend over
backwards to convince others that they never think of themselves first.
In fact, it is commonly thought that
selflessness[1]
(as opposed to selfishness) is the preferred moral ideal. This leads to the conclusion
that self-sacrifice is the road to moral perfection. Altruists[2]
promise the so-called joy of giving while ignoring the fact that today what is
given to some is taken from others. They also preach that selfish action and
laissez faire societies create poverty. They warn people that selfish behavior
means hating people, stealing from them and letting them starve on the streets.
Selfish people, according to this view, disregard all moral injunctions and
become exploitative, back stabbing and war-like.
The truth is that, throughout history, the
most moral, prosperous and successful societies have liberated people to pursue
their own happiness without the demand for charity – and such societies are the
most productive, the wealthiest, the safest to live in, have the highest
standard of living and are the most giving to those in trouble. So much for the
anarchy of laissez faire.
So why is self-sacrifice considered to be virtuous?
The cause is the philosophy of anti-self which holds that the concept of selfishness
is an evil idea. This philosophy is made up
of a set of falsehoods that create a sort of anti-self-social movement. Some of
these falsehoods are:
·
That proper moral action should
never benefit the actor
·
That the world is zero-sum – every
transaction has a winner and a loser (the winner is bad and the loser is a
victim)
·
That success of any kind is
always at the expense of others
·
That selfishness and self-interested
action are by nature evil
·
That all actions for the
benefit of others are by nature good
On the other hand, I argue that the
opposites of the above are correct:
·
That proper moral action should
only benefit to the actor
·
That the world is not zero-sum
– moral transactions are win/win
·
That the success of one
individual does not cause the failure of others
·
That altruism and
self-sacrifice are by nature evil
The first set of attitudes above betrays a
view that man is a natural predator whose survival “instinct” is to eat his
fellow men. Toward this purpose, the proponents of such attitudes tell us that
people like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and other criminals are examples of
selfishness. This group of evil doers, according to the altruists, includes businessmen
who are presumably predatory and profit-seeking.
To avoid the “evil eye” of disapproval, most
individuals strive to convince people that they never have a personal motive. The
result: businessmen, even the creators of real value, must tell customers that
their purpose is to give away their profits. Instead of spending money on
research and development, they pay taxes and contribute to charities. Husbands must
believe that taking care of their families is a sacrifice and they do it only
because they must. Soldiers believe that their job is to die for others, etc. Even
in foreign affairs, the American government tells the world that military
action should only help those who suffer. We would never pursue a low selfish motive
like defending the nation’s economic interests.
It is a rare event when a businessperson declares
that he is working for his own sake. To say such a thing is like sentencing
oneself to the rack. Selfishness is considered to be crass and arrogant. How
could any business make a profit, it is thought, when everyone knows that
according to the labor theory of value each penny of revenue came from the
workers? It is, for them, a zero-sum world.[3]
Yet, in reality, being consistently self-sacrificial
is impractical and fruitless. In the name of helping people, one must not be
able to live. And who is to decide what is selfish? By what authority? Who can
possibly answer this question? No one.
Many people say, “Well, I don’t have a
problem with a person seeking his self-interest as long as he doesn’t hurt
anyone. It is wrong to gain at the expense of others. And what is the point of
making all that money and not using it to help others?” Yet, this view reveals
the essence, and the danger, of the philosophy of anti-self. Arguments shift from
zero-sum to hypocrisy. People claim selfishness is evil but have no problem
with it when it improves their own lives. And, they will put up with it if rich
people give everything away. How nice of them; but don’t expect them to give up
their iPhones.
I submit that selfishness is not evil. No
one has the right or authority to tell an honest person that he is benefiting
himself too much. No one has the right to decide when it is time to start
sacrificing. And no one has the right to decide what you should do with a
single penny of your money. Along with others, I consider the word “selfish” to
be wrongly conceived. In fact, because of the general disregard for
selfishness, we no longer have a word that refers to living rationally and using
one’s mind to positively affect one’s life. As a result, due to all the
negativity surrounding the word, we do not acknowledge positive traits that
make life and living possible.
Predatory behavior and benefiting at the
expense of others are not selfish. They are short-term in nature and bring
about long-term damage to the actor. Altruists somehow assume that cheating and
stealing are practical actions. I submit that these actions are not practical
at all. Further, society has too often vilified people who were acting rationally
and punished them unjustly.
To clarify this, I’m going to list a few
commonly held virtues and then ask a question:
·
Honesty· Justice
· Productiveness
· Integrity
· Rationality
If you were to practice these virtues, which
ones would not be in your self-interest? Which would benefit you to violate?
Would being dishonest really make you rich and respected? Ask a robber spending
time in prison. Would being unjust help you keep your job? Ask a frivolous judge
who is resented by plaintiffs and impeached. Would being productive make you
poor? Ask the factory worker who has a nice home and plenty of vacation time.
Would having integrity make you unhappy? Ask the person who can’t decide right
from wrong. Would being irrational make you competent and efficacious? Ask
anybody.
The truth is that rational living, selfish
living, is necessary for survival. Virtuous living can only require the
ultimate in rational thinking and nothing can happen until you have selfishly secured
the tools (knowledge) and conditions that make good living possible. The Greeks
held that there was an important difference between the good person who sought
to live a life of virtue and the lower type who sought short-term advantage at
the expense of moral living. They even had two gods named Eros, one who
represented virtuous love and another for lower, animalistic pleasures.
I’ve known many young people who had a
strong desire to succeed in a particular sport. These people spent many hours practicing
and training during their youth. Many of them went on to become college
standouts and professional greats because they worked hard to hone their skills.
They exploited no one and achieved much. Wouldn’t these young people be considered
selfish by the anti-self mob? Shouldn’t they instead be spending their time as
missionaries in the jungle? If this is true, what is the point of working so
hard to be excellent in sports, or singing or anything?
If you want to live a moral life, the first
question to ask is not “How can I avoid being selfish?” or “How can I make
people like me?” or “How can I advance the welfare of others?” The first
question is “Who should be the beneficiary of my actions?”
“I am the one ultimately responsible for my
life.”[4]
You can’t think through another mind nor
can you live anyone else’s life for them. Only you have the responsibility of
living your life – no one else. Within the quiet repose of your own mind, you will
discover that for you, there is only you; no one else. And since reality, this
universe, is one interconnected whole, only a mind focused on reality, not on
the switching ideas of others, is capable of success in life. The key issue is
to decide what is in your self-interest.
Ayn Rand tells us:
“The term "interests" is a wide
abstraction that covers the entire field of ethics. It includes the issues of:
man's values, his desires, his goals and their actual achievement in reality. A
man's "interests" depend on the kind of goals he chooses to pursue,
his choice of goals depends on his desires, his desires depend on his
values—and, for a rational man, his values depend on the judgment of his mind.”[5]
The judgment of your mind involves knowing that
values are achieved by means of clear thinking and effective action. This
requires an understanding of causality (cause and effect) which helps you know
which actions achieve the desired value. Notice that, by necessity, there
should be no consideration here of the thoughts or needs of other people. To
insert such a consideration at this point is to subvert the process of ethical
decision-making because you can never be sure that another person is right in
his judgments; and more importantly, you lose the ability to evaluate reality
with your own mind.
Imagine what would happen if, at the stage
of identifying reality with your own mind, you decided to consider what society
would like for you to do. This would invalidate your mind because the so-called
needs of society are never based on your needs and values. Further, since the
thinking of your mind “programs” your desires (emotions), not thinking clearly about
your self-interest subverts your emotional capacity and negatively influences
your ability to feel. This impacts your “desire” to be happy, your need of love
and sets you on a track toward confusion and self-doubt.
On the other hand, once you have
established your own moral foundation, you will be able to integrate your
values into your life. These values, as Rand indicates, must be yours alone. They
can include a broad range of interests and desires and they can include other
people and their values. But you must never subordinate your interests and values
to others nor should it be expected of you – and this is the key: no one should
demand that you sacrifice your values, goals, interests and desires for the
sake of someone else. This is the clear line that altruists throughout history
have wanted to breach.
Altruism may be thought by many to be the
moral system that would make men “be good” but, in reality, it is the moral
system that demands obedience, uniformity of ideas and self-destruction. Morality
should not be about sacrifice; but about right action and how to determine it. No
amount of mystic insight, or reading the minds of others, will enable you to
solve the problems of survival. For that, you need your mind and its efficient
use.
In fact, altruism is not a moral system but
a system of anti-concepts that are intended to destroy virtue, values and
reason. When you sacrifice according to altruism’s values, you must give up the
kinds of things needed for success in life. For instance, you must give up
money that you might have invested in a business. You must give up time that
you could have used educating yourself. You must eat a less expensive meal or
not eat at all. You might have to delay purchasing something that would improve
your life or make you safer. If you were to respond to every request for money
and time, you will certainly become impoverished. But most importantly, you
will have a diminished ability to affect your wellbeing.
Many people today never learn about the
value of human achievement, reason and self-interested action. This is due to
the philosophy of anti-self and its prevalence in society. The result is that
people never experience their own true wonderful natures as human beings. They
never learn that they have a right to advance their lives, their goals and
aspirations without guilt and criticism. They never learn that there is nothing
evil about thinking intelligently, ascertaining reality, gaining knowledge and
developing viable principles of action.
Aristotle tells us:
“The question is also debated, whether a
man should love himself most, or some one else. People criticize those who love
themselves most, and call them self-lovers, using this as an epithet of
disgrace…”
“Perhaps we ought to mark off such
arguments from each other and determine how far and in what respects each view
is right. Now if we grasp the sense in which each school uses the phrase ‘lover
of self’, the truth may become evident. Those who use the term as one of
reproach ascribe self-love to people who assign to themselves the greater share
of wealth, honours, and bodily pleasures; for these are what most people
desire, and busy themselves about as though they were the best of all things,
which is the reason, too, why they become objects of competition. So those who
are grasping with regard to these things gratify their appetites and in general
their feeling and the irrational element of the soul; and most men are of this
nature (which is the reason why the epithet has come to be used as it is—it
takes its meaning from the prevailing type of self-love, which is a bad one); …
That it is those who give themselves the preference in regard to objects of
this sort that most people usually call lovers of self is plain; for if a man
were always anxious that he himself, above all things, should act justly,
temperately, or in accordance with any other of the virtues, and in general
were always to try to secure for himself the honourable course, no one will
call such a man a lover of self or blame him.
“But such a man would seem more than the
other a lover of self; at all events he assigns to himself the things that are
noblest and best, and gratifies the most authoritative element in himself and
in all things obeys this; and just as a city or any other systematic whole is
most properly identified with the most authoritative element in it, so is a
man; and therefore the man who loves this and gratifies it is most of all a
lover of self. Besides, a man is said to have or not to have self-control
according as his reason has or has not the control, on the assumption that this
is the man himself; and the things men have done on a rational principle are
thought most properly their own acts and voluntary acts…” “Therefore, the good
man should be a lover of self…”[6]
Over much of the last several centuries, a
constant stream of voices tells us that the man who loves reason,
self-regulation and freedom is evil. They tell us that reason isn't everything, that it really can't make a difference in life, that it makes a person into a robot and self-centered and unfeeling. Such voices insist that the poor are trod asunder
by this person and that he is the cause of their suffering. Other voices tell us that
a free person will gravitate toward immoral actions, that anything goes and nothing matters to him. These anti-self ideas, if repeated often enough, do not become truth.
Work and chosen activities are the cornerstone of the individual life and centuries
of “opinions” cannot change this fact.
We must develop a clear understanding of
the immorality made possible by the anti-self philosophy. Sacrifice is about
destruction of the good. It is good people who must give up their values for
others, not evil villains. Certainly, not every altruist
has evil motives; he may or may not understand the evil inherent in altruism
and may, more or less, be a dupe of the moralizing of others. He may merely be
acting out of a mistaken desire to do some good. This is why it is important for
all men to understand the source of altruism.
Altruism, as a transfer of values from one
person to another, involves a major dropping of the context of what is required
for ethical action. First of all, altruism drops the very existence of the individual
who must sacrifice by considering none of his needs. It literally ignores any
damage done to the honest individual who must pay for the collective banquet.
It tells him to think of himself less and of others more. Further, altruism drops the context of the essence of trade by requiring that
one party in the transaction gives up his values while another gains them. It
drops the context of the issue of property rights by taking what one person
owns and disposing of it. Altruism drops the context of “the good” by requiring
that the productive person lose his values to someone who did not produce them.
Altruism drops the context of justice by demanding that some men be treated
unjustly. Altruism drops the context of what is required for survival in life,
not only production, but reason and individual initiative in favor of unreason
and passivity. Finally, altruism drops the context of what a proper government
does; which is to protect the honest and hardworking citizen from confiscation
of his property.
The failure by our intellectuals to identify
the wide scope of altruism’s evil has created havoc in our society. Altruism is
not just about the preacher’s or the teacher’s insistence that you “be good” or
“help people”. Altruism is a wide principle that is at the foundation of a
large number of very negative human institutions. Most religions are not just
about faith, believing in God, but about sacrifice as a moral ideal. We are
encouraged to be like Christ and sacrifice everything for the poor (and they mean "everything"). Throughout history,
religion has been a cornerstone of monarchy which is a form of dictatorship. If
you don’t believe as the King believes, you could lose your employment or your
head. It meant nothing for people like the leaders of the Inquisition to
sacrifice anyone who departed from the canon (they were punishing the devil).
When philosophy started taking a secular turn, one principle that wasn’t
challenged was the propriety of sacrifice for the collective. This failure
spawned what have come to be known as “total” governments that preached
sacrifice to the race (Nazism), sacrifice to the group or collective (fascism
and socialism), sacrifice to the state (communism). Today, we are mired in a
system which is a cross between fascism, corporatism and communism. Our
leaders, the progressives, originate intellectually from among a wide scope of
altruists, church, fascism, corporatism, communism, welfare-statism and more). They repeatedly speak about the need for sacrifice.
Today, many young people don’t even know
about the evil of altruism because their teachers never connect for them the
relationships between the idea of altruism and the various “isms” that it has
seeded. If you are trying to decide which “ism” you favor, let me give you some
facts to help you decide.
Monarchy – rule by one man, death to
dissenters. The American Revolution was fought against the violations of King
George who was also the leader of the state religion. The history of England is
littered with the bodies of men that the King did not like who spent their time
in prison or were beheaded. Religious persecution was rampant in Europe at the
time of the Revolution and was one of the reasons that the concept of religious
freedom was invented by our Founders. Many people in Europe came to America to
avoid this persecution.
Nazi Germany – 6 million murders[7]
The Soviet Union – 60 million murders[8]
Communist China – 110 million murders[9]
If you think that altruism is not
responsible for these murders, then ask yourself, what is the common
denominator of all totalitarian societies? What idea justifies the slaughters
of millions of people, the confiscation of property, the persecution of
political opponents, income re-distribution, slave labor camps and the
destruction of businesses? It could only be that the state takes upon itself
the “responsibility” for making the world a better place through the sacrifice
of productive citizens. Anyone who “refuses” to go along with the state’s goals – that means
anyone who is perceived as not being willing to sacrifice,
will be discarded. That means business people, educated people, people who have opposing
views and anyone who would dare criticize the state for any reason whatsoever.
Kors explains:
“Shot dead by deliberate exposure, starved,
worked to death, murdered in camps meant to extract every last fiber of labor
and then kill them. And widows and widowers and orphans. No cause ever in the
history of all mankind has produced more slaughtered innocents and more orphans
than socialism with power. It surpassed exponentially all other systems of
production in turning out the dead. They are all around us. No one talks about
them. No one honors them. No one does penance for them. No one has committed
suicide for having been an apologist for those who did this to them. No one
pays for them. No one is hunted down to account for them.”[10]
It is time to stop hiding our head in the
sand. Our leaders advocate the very same philosophy that was advocated by some
of history’s most successful altruists. You can’t only measure President Obama’s
success by the amounts of money he has been able to re-distribute, by the time
he has been able to extort or by the values that the regulated economy prohibits;
altruism is murder in all respects. Not only does this philosophy and its
adherents murder values, they also murder the ultimate value, human life. Don’t
think it isn’t possible for comparable murders to be done here. When you hear
the attacks on selfishness by today’s altruists, you are hearing the
same attacks made by Hitler against the Jews, by Marx, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi
Minh, Castro, Guevarra and Chavez against the bourgeoisie or by Pol Pot against
the educated; what you are hearing is the philosophy of anti-self. If you think
that the critics of capitalism have anything else in mind than the destruction
of the good, you don’t understand altruism.
When we ignore important facts regarding proper
human relationships, we are engaged in a process of self-destruction. We
contradict reality and the principles that are necessary for life and good
living. This contradiction creates discord and conflict and harms all men who
seek to live in a proper society. There is a reason why altruism does not work
and why altruist societies not only collapse economically but kill millions of “selfish”
people in the process. They do not work because altruism contradicts the very
principles necessary for successful living. It makes them impossible.
To illustrate why altruism is wrong, let’s
see an example. Let’s consider what your best friend might do and compare that
to what an altruist would do under the same circumstances. Your best friend has
a high regard for you, he likes you (or even loves you) and he cares about your
happiness. He enjoys sharing your life because of the values the two of you share.
As Aristotle says, a friend is another you. Now ask yourself, does your friend
want you to accomplish only part of your values or does he want you to
accomplish all of them fully and as soon as possible?
If you tell your friend that you want to do
something that affects your life and future, your friend will most likely
evaluate that action in terms of what he thinks is in your self-interest. He
may tell you that the action is not well-advised and give reasons. After all,
he is your friend. That is what friends do.
For instance, if you tell him that are
taking the next two years to feed the villagers in Nicaragua, he may question
the wisdom of such an action because it might jeopardize your goal of becoming
a doctor. He will tell you of the time you will lose toward the achievement of
your career goals. He will ask, “Which is more important to you?” He may tell
you of the income you will lose and of the patients who will suffer if you put
off your goal. He may even tell you that you might be harmed by violent revolutionaries
in the jungle who might hold you hostage. You might never return.
Of course, your friend is openly on your
side. He wants you to consistently pursue what is most important to you. He
sees you as a value and he wants you to be happy. Contrast this with the
altruist who wants you to sacrifice for others. This person would approve of
your going to the jungle. He wants you to live, not according your selfish
desires, but according to self-sacrificial service. In fact, to the altruist,
your desire to be a doctor should never be accomplished because, to him, there
are too many people suffering in Nicaragua. You are, after all, the cause of
the suffering of those jungle people; you are an American who is responsible
for the imperialistic policies of the US government. You must do all you can to
relieve those people of the suffering you have caused them.
The altruist is not your friend.
Imagine then, that you had an enemy who
detested you. What would he want for you? He certainly would not want you to
accomplish your goal either. He would want you to fail. What would be the end
result of the desires of the altruist and of your enemy? Essentially, they
would be the same. Both the altruist and your enemy see you in the same light,
as evil, and as responsible for much harm and misery. Both would want you to
fail in every way possible. The very same failure on your part would please
your enemy and the altruist – but it would not please your friend.
This moral contradiction between your
friend and the altruist/enemy can now be turned toward your regard for
yourself. Replace your steadfast friend with yourself and you’ll see that your
regard for values must come from the selfishly clear logic of what is in your
self-interest. Likewise, if, instead, you replace the altruist with yourself,
you have only the desire to serve others and no regard for any possible damage
to yourself. And, as is clear, your failure to achieve your values is fine with
your enemy.
In this society, dominated by altruism,
you, the individual, and your goals will always be opposed by the advocates of
altruistic self-sacrifice. Politicians, community leaders, intellectuals (universities
and schools) will be seen as not doing their jobs if you are dedicated to your
own personal wants and likes.
Teachers, especially, have an important
role in society. Today, many teachers think their purpose is to teach children
to sacrifice for others – and, once accomplished, they think they have done
their job. The long-term result of this educational philosophy is adults with
no productive skills. Even those who find a productive job have no idea they
are being eaten alive by society. Every tax imposed, every regulation passed,
every obstacle put in front of them is just one more thing they have to
overcome. Who can survive in such an environment? Only someone who disregards
everything he or she was taught in school.
Altruism starts with the demand that people
give up their values for others. However, before that demand can be uttered,
something else must happen. The avowed altruist must decide that he is justified
in making the demand. He must ignore the suffering of those he cajoles into
servitude – and he only considers the suffering of the “needy” as relevant.
When the money runs out, or when the concern is spent, the altruist moves on to
a new set of “needy” and a new set of sacrificial victims.
Altruism is an attack on the good – any
good and all good. Few realize this because they are told only that altruism
itself is good. However, as we have shown, altruism goes deeper. The avowed altruist
does not merely hate producers and the “rich”, he also hates mankind –
especially himself. Let’s make a list of
common statements made by altruists toward those they consider to be selfish
people:
·
Who do you think you are?
·
You think you’re good, don’t
you?
·
You’re nothing but a
pretentious worm.
·
Do you think you are better
than everyone else?
·
How can you be so selfish?
·
What gives you the right to put
yourself on a pedestal?
·
Don’t you care about the poor?
·
Don’t you care about the people
harmed by capitalism?
·
Pride is evil.
·
So you love yourself, do you?
·
You are nothing but an ant.
·
You’re just a lowly, brutish animal.
·
What makes you think you are so
good?
·
You didn’t build that.
·
You didn’t make it.
·
Other people are better than
you.
·
Society is your master and it
can do whatever it chooses.
·
Service to the collective is
good.
·
Service to yourself is evil.
Every time an altruist says these things to
you, he is not only expressing his disdain for mankind, but he is also talking
to himself. If you give in, the altruist receives the superficial satisfaction,
not of having helped someone, but of having made you doubt yourself. This helps
him deal with his own doubts and gives him the satisfaction of having ridiculed
“bad” people. Yet, all of these criticisms are designed to bring good people
down. This puts the altruist, by implication, in a self-imposed trap. The only
possible escape for him is to realize that his view of man is wrong and that
altruism is evil.
Many young people who are confronted with
the demands of altruism, do not realize that they too are walking into a trap
of self-hate. Their confusions, self-doubts and self-flagellation are all
caused by attacks like those listed above and, for the rest of their lives,
they feel compelled to “act out” their self-hatred by making the lives of
others miserable. If you’ve ever lived with a person who was constantly
criticizing people for being selfish, you know what I mean. This is why I say
that altruists do not have the moral high ground. As critics of mankind, they
are simply busy bodies too concerned about what others do while avoiding their
own responsibilities to themselves.
The following Venn diagram will give you a
sense of the relationship between rational selfishness and other ethical and
political principles:
The double arrows are designed to convey
the fact that the anti-principles of altruism and the anti-principles of
irrationalism are traded back and forth between the two philosophies.
Irrationalism, because it creates intellectual confusion, openly borrows
anti-reason, anti-self and anti-man attitudes in order to “validate” itself[11].
This analysis exposes the corruption of altruism and irrationalism and shows
them to be destructive of reason and values.
Finally, the philosophical principles of
rationalism and skepticism serve as barriers to an individual who is trying to
understand. These principles shed only doubt and confusion – and that is there
intent. Their goal is to keep you from ever realizing your value, the value of
your mind and any love you might have for your values. Rationalism,
essentially, is the idea that reason can only be achieved by deduction from
Platonic essences that are disconnected from reality and skepticism holds that doubt
is the source of truth or that knowledge of the real world is impossible.
If you really want to live a good life; if
you have a genuine love for yourself and for the promise that being human offers;
you should not only seek to integrate reason and positive virtues into your
life but also advocate the establishment of a social system that benefits
humanity. That social system is capitalism in which men are free to pursue
their happiness, free to celebrate their minds and love life. If you want a
great society, advocate selfish living, both morally and politically.
To get an idea of what life might be like
today without the incessant demand for sacrifice, let’s imagine a world in
which there are no restrictions on production, the pursuit of values, the
acquisition of knowledge and wealth, the expression of one’s opinions and the
development of ideas and philosophy. In this world, no one would demand that
you give up anything you value.
The use of considerably more money for
research and development (since companies will not be taxed) might mean
significantly greater entertainment options. We could have gone beyond 3D HDTV
to home theaters that are even better than today’s public theaters – all for a
few pennies per movie. In fact, home theaters would not even require flat
screens. We could watch a movie from within the story, with events taking place
around us. We could feel the ground shake and smell the flowers and feel the
warm sun on our faces. Public theaters would be even more spectacular and
include seats that move with the action. The theater might include smells,
tastes, ultra-stereo sound and other wonders not even known to be possible today.
Self-help television shows could put you in the middle of a scene, interact
with you, let you make your own choices and see how they work out. You could debate
important topics with Aristotle and other great thinkers.
Travel would not involve having to drive and
you could arrive at a destination within a few minutes. For instance, a trip
across town or across the country might take only minutes and cost mere pennies
using vehicles that drive themselves without accidents. You could fly to Hawaii
and be on the beach within an hour or you could be walking the halls of the
British Museum or at a civil war battlefield just as fast. You might even be
able to vacation on the moon or Mars – perhaps even Jupiter or Saturn.
Because your wealth was not wasted in
poverty programs, you would be able to educate yourself and become a doctor or
a specialist in a field you love. Your level of knowledge could be so extensive
that you are more secure in your career and have a far better understanding of
life and principles. You can choose the education you want for your children,
rather than have it dictated by the state. Your children would be considerably smarter
than is possible today because the options would be many and the best schools
would rise to the top. Your children would have more self-confidence, more
certainty and they would be looking forward to a long life of accomplishment
without guilt and self-denial.
Because money could be spent on medical
research rather than squandered by government, you would have available to you
the best medical procedures and cures for mere dollars. Cancer could have been
eradicated decades ago and today you might live well past 120 years or even
more. Plus your later years would be
engaged in healthy activity rather than pain and slow movement. You could
extend your sexual pleasures well-beyond your 80s and be looking forward to a
second, third or fourth productive career. Because you keep all your money, you
could easily become a millionaire or billionaire if you invest it well. This
would give you the freedom to start companies, fund worthy projects and even
help people who are having a difficult time.
Because there are no insurance regulations,
insurance programs for medical care could be inexpensive and come to you with a
wide range of choices or cover only one potential disease. More knowledge would
be available about which diseases could be in your future due to quick and
painless genetic analysis of your body. You could head off those diseases by
means of forward-looking procedures and pay for operations years in advance.
Private group plans could be created and employers would be free to provide
medical coverage that actually covered procedures you need. Your health could
be put into the hands of competent professionals with a passion for their
careers. These professionals would provide advanced procedures that would save
your life years before you became sick.
We wouldn’t have to worry about being
threatened by terrorism because our defenses against nihilism and hatred would be
both philosophical and practical. The wonders of modern life would speak for
themselves. People who might otherwise have accepted the anti-life views of religious
radicals might see the magnificence possible through reason and freedom and
choose a life of individual growth rather than early self-sacrificial death.
Above all, if you had not been saddled with
self-sacrifice as a moral principle throughout your entire life, no one would
have demanded that you give up your values for others. More people would have
seen the utter corruption of the idea of sacrifice and avowed altruists would
be considered an affront to humanity. People who advocate such ideas would be
shamed and seen as bad people and virtual thieves.
The environment would be cleaner and more
land will be available for wildlife and recreation. Industrial concerns would
have developed manufacturing processes that produced no pollution. In fact,
products and industries might have developed that would heat an entire city
during cold weather while cooling it during hot weather – and not only clean
the environment but eradicate infectious diseases through cleaner sewage and waste
removal procedures.
How would the poor fare in such a society?
Would they be devastated by the rich? No, they would be rich too and benefit
greatly from companies seeking to provide them with new products that save time
and money. And they need not fear being criticized for trying to start a
company or get an education. Prices of all essentials would be reduced to
pennies and be available to all who want them. They would have access to low-cost
energy, inexpensive communications via phone and Internet; and they would be
able to take vacations to any part of the world. Even food would be fresher,
more nutritious and inexpensive. There would be so many inducements to thinking
and developing skills that anyone could get an advanced education if he or she
decided to pursue it. And workers could be more productive as they operate and
maintain production-enhancing machines and computers that help people earn more
money in less time. The poor would be five times better educated and healthier
than people today and their schooling would make available to them the
essential skills necessary for success in life. The only thing they would need
to do is make the choice to think.
But more importantly, new products that can
only be afforded by the rich, would mean that other excellent products on the
market would find lower prices and never become obsolete. The abundance of
products, the new developments and enhanced efficiencies would mean the poor
could have endless options easily within their budgets. Even health insurance
would be less expensive and made available by a variety of companies and
organizations. Modern-day private companies (such as a non-government-affiliated
AARP) would provide group services, low-cost prescriptions and inexpensive medical
procedures. Doctors, freed of the need to fill out forms for the government,
would have more time to develop their skills and procedures.
Overall, the entire society would be
constantly improving because each person who seeks to work is constantly
striving to improve his skills, his production and his living standard. The
future would be bright, people would be happy and they would know that truly,
“the sky’s the limit”.
Unfortunately, we don’t have that kind of
world today. We are struggling with the remnants of a history dominated by
mysticism, hatred of reason and the demand for collective sacrifice. These evil
ideas are the sources of our sorry state today. They have eaten our substance
and left us with little money with which to advance our lives. Those people who
claim that only sacrifice can improve life have gotten it all wrong.
Yet, the decision to be selfish and let
other people be selfish is not just a “common sense” choice. As we have seen,
being selfish requires thought and work. Deciding on the right action takes
effort and clear thinking. It is a decision about the moral code you will live,
how you will define what is in your interest and how to express your virtues.
It requires well-defined principles and a long-range purpose. Along the way,
there will be obstacles, setbacks and challenges. It won’t just come to you
from out of the blue. Nothing ever does.
Yet, a good start is to understand that
being fully, rationally selfish is not evil; it harms no one. As we’ve seen, it
is merely a matter of being your own best friend. Such an attitude helps to
create a world of traders who inspire others to be their best. It creates
parents who love their children and know what they need in terms of nurturing,
education and values. It brings about educated professionals who understand
their fields and self-confidently assert their desires. These people are not
stabbing each other in the back, stepping over dead bodies or stealing from the
poor.
Should you be more selfish? Yes, it is your
right to achieve your happiness. In fact, in today’s world of anti-self, you
should be proudly selfish, even defiantly so.
[1] Selflessness, having little or no concern for oneself, especially
with regard to fame, position, money, etc.; unselfish. Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/selflessness
[2] Altruist, a person
unselfishly concerned for or devoted to the welfare of others (opposed to
egoist). Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/altruist
[3] Zero-sum mentality is the term used in community psychology to
describe a way of thinking that hinges on the notion that "there must be
one winner and one loser; for every gain there is a loss." Differing
schools of thought believe that social justice is best attained through
cooperative negotiation. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_mentality
[4] Dr. Ben Carson with
Cecil Murphy, Gifted Hands, The Ben
Carson Story, quoted by Don Watkins in RooseveltCare
[5] The Virtue of
Selfishness by Ayn Rand, “The Conflict of Men’s Interests”
[6] Nichomachean Ethics,
Aristotle, Chapter 8, McKeon
[7] Generally accepted
number
[8] A History of Violence
in Soviet Russia, Alexander Yakovlef, quoted by Allen Charles Kors in his
speech Socialism’s Legacy
[9] Mao, the Unknown Story, Jung
Chang and Jon Halliday
[10] Allen Charles Kors,
Socialism’s Legacy
[11] See Kant
