Objectivism, Empathy and Socialism by Ayn Rand

Being selfish is innate. Look at a little boy; “I want this” or that. It is not until they learn that sharing has positive aspects. So that means it’s nurturing, not nature. All species and biological life is selfish, it tries to do the minimum and make the most of it, conserve its energy, does all life do that, is it just the way of things? So Ayn ​​Rand’s philosophy is “radical.” No, I would tell you that it is just obvious. It is observable, repeatable and it is a viable observation of life, from plants with leaves trying to outcompete other plants in search of sunlight, roots in search of water – bacteria feed on the host or work with the host for their best interests , the viruses themselves. Watch? It is natural and normal.

The best thing for the individual is to work in teams: packs of wolves, packs of gazelles, packs of lions, schools of fish, flocks of birds. Sometimes it is best for humans to work together and help each other, and they do so, in groups large and small. However, when it comes to things like diversity, equality, and other socialism buzzwords, Ayn Rand is not saying that working together is not a good thing, but she is warning us about the unholy alliances that always occur in socialism. Where the group takes from the individual and redistributes it, which may sound egalitarian but is anything but fair.

If we want to have “equality” under the law, we must demand the individual with complete freedom, as long as he does not choose to restrict the freedom of another in the pursuit of his wishes.

Be careful with the term “social justice” because those who use this phrase are trying to undermine logic and appeal to your sensibilities; We know this because those who follow the “social justice” motif modify their definition of this phrase to include whatever. is what they want to convince you of. For example, I could use it now to manipulate you by simply saying; “Social Justice means respecting the individual above all else” and you cannot argue with me now, because it is about SOCIAL JUSTICE.

Or you could say, “We need social justice, so we must take wealth from the rich who have earned it and give it to the poor and homeless.” Both cases are diametrically opposite points of view, but I can use “social justice” in both cases to try to make them understand my point of view. I don’t believe in the social justice trick, nor should you.