Jesus and Ayn Rand

A friend of mine sent out a group email about Ayn Rand a few days ago.  The recipients were mostly church members.  Here’s the gist of it…..

A few days ago, (spouse) and I watched a documentary about the life and work of Ayn Rand.  She summed up her philosophy in two words:  objective reality.  Even though her parents were Jewish, at about age 10, she confided to her diary that she was an atheist.   Possibly she used objective reality because, leaving The Soviet Union in 1926, she saw how propaganda and coercion could create false reality and control people.  She abhorred altruism, the idea on which Communism and Nazism were able to function by convincing people that the individual is unimportant, that only the group, the nation is worthy of dedication.  She believed each person should pursue self interest openly without deception.

Is it possible that, when we do something good or charitable, we do so in order to feel better about ourselves, to earn approval of our peer group or, in some cases,  to earn a reward after death?  If true, it would mean the person doing good is acting on enlightened self interest. 

I realize you may consider this silly and unworthy of thought or comment, but if you have any thoughts on Rand's work or this  subject, I would be glad to receive them.   Possibly you will share your thoughts with this group of addressees.

I sent back the following, from Rand’s 1964 Playboy interview:

“My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others—a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal . . . .

To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism’s terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste—then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self-sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such.”

This prompted a few emails about Rand’s atheism, and the vast philosophical chasm that separates Ayn Rand and Jesus.  Here’s a sample, from a guy I genuinely admire:

Ayn Rand was very clear that her personal philosophy is the antithesis of the Christian teaching on selfless love.  She disagreed with Jesus in a fundamental way and made no bones about it.  It follows, therefore, that if Christians are attracted to her philosophy they are either confused, they think Rand seriously misread Jesus, or they see Christianity as a private matter with few moral implications.  I think Rand was right on the money.  The two philosophies are antithetical.  Jesus has my vote.

It went on for a while longer.  Most of the people copied on the email were good church people, all of whom I respect and admire.  I like to think that these are the people who would come to my aid if my family were to get into serious trouble.  I like to think that I would help them out in similar circumstances.  But I started thinking about what Rand said and what Jesus said.  NOT how they’ve both been interpreted, but what they actually said. 
Jesus supposedly said the following, in Matthew 6.  The additional italics are mine, for emphasis:

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon (money).

Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

Behold the birds of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much better than they?
 
Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his height?

And why do you worry about clothing?   Look at the lilies of the field, how they grow; they don't work, neither do they spin fabric for themselves:

And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not dressed like one of these flowers.

Wherefore, if God so clothes the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, you of little faith?

Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, How shall we be clothed?

(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knows that ye have need of all these things.

But seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

That's kinda intense. 
Don't worry about what you're going to eat or drink. 
Look at the birds.  They don't grow crops, but God cares about them and provides for them.  Aren't you better than they are? 
Consider the flowers.  They don't work.  They don't make fabric, or anything else, yet they're more beautiful than Solomon! 
 

Here’s Matthew 5:40 – 42:  And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away your coat, let him have your cloak also. And if someone forces you to carry his load for a mile, go with him for two miles. Give to him that asks upi, and from him that would borrow of you, turn not him away”.

Translated: If the damn lawyers take away your jacket, let 'em have your overcoat also.  If someone forces you to carry their load for a mile, go ahead and put in two miles.  GIVE to anyone who wants what you have, and if someone wants to borrow from you DO NOT turn them away. 

Luke 14:12-14: “Then said he also to him that asked him, When you make a dinner or a supper, call not your friends, nor your brethren, neither your kinsmen, nor your rich neighbors; lest they also ask tyou again, and a recompense be made thee. But when you make a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: and you shall be blessed; for they cannot recompense you: for you shall be paid back at the resurrection of the just”
 
Don't have family over for dinner.  Ever.  Never, ever, ever.  Always feed the street people first. 
 
Now.... Compare Ayn Rand's statements on charity with those of Jesus.  I only know of one Christian who lives his life according to the statements of Christ quoted above, and most people think the guy is stark raving mad.  Maybe he is. 
 
Everyone that I know, and I mean everyone, Christian or not, tries to maintain health and life insurance, and keep up their house payments.  They try to get educations so they can provide for themselves and their families.  I've never seen anyone go into debt so they can feed more strangers, and I've never seen a robin drop worms into every nest in the forest. 
 
The average yearly income on this planet is $6,000 per person.  I've never known any follower of Christ to give away his stuff until he had less than that.  Ayn Rand advocated giving to people you feel like giving to, but only if it's not going to put you at risk.  Jesus taught that we should sacrifice ourselves, our stuff, and our security. 
 
In short, there has been an ongoing battle in the Christian church between the philosophy of Ayn Rand and the philosophy of Jesus. 
 
Ayn Rand has won it. 

Which of King Herod's programs would Jesus support?

From the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 21, verses 9-18: 

And Jesus turned to his disciples, saying 'Blessed is he who sees his brother in pain, or naked, or hungry, and says unto his brother, "Fear not, for I shall get Caesar involved.  Otherwise, I might be personally inconvenienced." 

And the disciples said unto Jesus, "Master, Master, did not you ask us to forsake our homes, our nets, our boats, and our families so that we could help the least of all these?" 

And Jesus mocked them, saying, "Yea, verily, I say unto you, in my Father's house are many mansions.  And the greatest of these shall go to those who are really tight with King Herod." 

Go here for the latest example of the church saying "Let's get Caesar involved".   As if Jesus would really support the Department Of Health And Human Services money pit. 

Julia, those were the moments when I carried you.....

I think we should be a compassionate society. 
I think we really are our brothers' keepers. 
I hope that Broadway Baptist Church, the Libertarian Party, the Little Sisters Of The Blind, or somebody will take me in when I get old, feeble, and worn-out.  (In other words, I'll probably need some help tomorrow.) 
I don't think that people should be required (at gunpoint) to help me. 
I don't think that Barack Obama and the Republicans should have a monopoly on compassion.
Now, let's get down to bidness..... 

Barack Obama has released an unintentionally hilarious slideshow on the White House website.
It's called the "Life Of Julia", and shows a woman's lifelong dependence on The Teleprompter Jesus, from birth to old age.  
Julia doesn't rely on family, friends, or the sperm donor for her baby.  She relies on Barry O. 
Parodies have sprung up everywhere. 

This is the best of the latest.  Here's Peter Suderman, parodying the treacly "Footprints In The Sand" story often found on plaques in Christian bookstores. :
(Suderman's original says "POTUS" for President Of The U.S." instead of Teleprompter Jesus. Sorry. Couldn't help myself.)


One night Julia dreamed she was walking
along the beach with The Teleprompter Jesus.
Many scenes from her life flashed across the sky.
In each scene, she noticed footprints in the sand.
Sometimes there were two sets of footprints.
Other times she only saw one set of footprints.

This bothered Julia because she noticed that during the low points of her life,
when she was suffering
from underemployment, student loan debt, and excessively high insurance copays,
she could only see one set of footprints.


So Julia said to The Teleprompter Jesus:
“Your programmers promised me, O Teleprompter Jesus,
that if I followed you,
you would walk with me always.
But I have noticed that during
the most trying periods of my life
there have only been one
set of footprints in the sand.
Why, when I needed you most,
were you not there for me?


The Teleprompter Jesus replied,
“The times when you have only
seen one set of footprints
is when I carried you.”

Go, and live a better life, knowing that Barack Obama and the Chicago Gang are there for you, should you stumble....

Ron Paul's Racist Past

Becker, Krugman, and spending other people's money

Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker has some more to say about Warren Buffett's assertion that Warren Buffett is undertaxed.... (Buffett is currently in a dispute with the IRS about how much he owes in back taxes, BTW.) 

Warren Buffett has persuaded 68 other billionaires to follow his example and promise to give at least half their wealth to charities. But why hasn’t Buffett proposed also that the very rich make large gifts to the federal government to offset what he considers ridiculously low taxes on their incomes and wealth? My guess is that he and the others who pledged to give away their wealth to charity would have little confidence in how the government would spend such gifts. Buffett, for example, is giving most of his wealth to the Gates Foundation, not to the federal government, and is relying on how this foundation will spend his vast gift. Given this reluctance to make large gifts to the federal government, why should anyone have confidence that the federal government will spend additional tax revenue in a sensible way?

Go here to read Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman's assertion that we need to either print, borrow, or steal enough money to give the government so they can't crank out another stimulus package. 

Can anyone out there name a single instance of wisely spent stimulus money?  Anybody?  Anybody at all? 

Here's a highlight from Krugman's editorial:

Although you’d never know it listening to the ranters, the past year has actually been a pretty good test of the theory that slashing government spending actually creates jobs. The deficit obsession has blocked a much-needed second round of federal stimulus, and with stimulus spending, such as it was, fading out, we’re experiencing de facto fiscal austerity. State and local governments, in particular, faced with the loss of federal aid, have been sharply cutting many programs and have been laying off a lot of workers, mostly schoolteachers.

And somehow the private sector hasn’t responded to these layoffs by rejoicing at the sight of a shrinking government and embarking on a hiring spree.

O.K., I know what the usual suspects will say — namely, that fears of regulation and higher taxes are holding businesses back. But this is just a right-wing fantasy. Multiple surveys have shown that lack of demand — a lack that is being exacerbated by government cutbacks — is the overwhelming problem businesses face, with regulation and taxes barely even in the picture.

No, no, no, no, no.   The United States government is going to spend more this year than it did last year.  They're going to spend more in 2012 than in 2011.  They're going to print or borrow the money to do this. 

ObamaCare is not yet repealed. 

Card Check is not yet dead and buried. 

Our government has not yet taken the suggestions of The Libertarian Party, and gotten the hell out of the economy.  And our government is really, really crappy at intervening in the economy. 

That's enough to make the U.S. a crappy place to do business, or hire people. 

I'm betting that Paul Krugman has made some good investments in his day.  If Congress passes another stimulus package, someone should challenge Krugman to "invest" in the same companies that Pelosi/Boehner/Reid pick for stimulus spending. 

Seriously, can you imagine someone saying "My broker is Barack Obama...and when Barack Obama talks, people listen !"  (This is a 1980's reference.  Sorry for the obscurity.) 

America the stony-hearted

Neal Gabler has an editorial in the L.A. Times.  It's called "America The Stony-Hearted", and it shows how we've gone from a nation that meekly goes along with whatever ridiculous spending boondoggles the Democrats propose, to a cold-hearted group of selfish bastards.  The closing tag (which Mr. Gabler didn't write) is one of the funniest accidental juxtapositions I've ever read. 

It made me spew Coca-Cola and donuts all over a Firestone Auto Repair center waiting lounge. 

But before we get to the money quote, here's a typical paragraph:

One can see this division in something as simple as the denigration of the term "liberal," the "L" word, with its attendant idea that to be compassionate, caring and tolerant — virtues that had been celebrated, if only via lip service, by most Americans — is really to be mush-minded, weak and, more concretely, willing to give taxpayer largesse to the undeserving and lazy. (This was essentially the argument that some Republicans, such as former Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), used when they sought to deny an extension of unemployment benefits.

The conservatives and libertarians that I know are, as a general rule, generous people.  It's just that the Department Of Health And Human Services, HUD, ACORN and such aren't their charities of choice.  The statists (as a very general rule) that I know?  They seem to think that lobbying to tax the rich is enough to exempt them from charitable giving. 

Folks, lobbying to take money from one person to give it to another, after taking a cut for yourself off the top, doesn't make you virtuous.  I'm a moral leper, but I've got that much figured out. 

Anyway, back to Mr. Gabler's editorial, and the side-splitting tag from the L.A. Times.  Here's the last paragraph. 

But it is to say that this moral reconfiguration has not only changed our politics and our perception of morality; it has changed us. If compassion is seen as softness, tolerance as a kind of promiscuity, community as a leech on individuals and fairness as another word for scheming, we are a harder nation than we used to be, and arguably a less moral one as well. In undergoing a revolution for the nation's soul, we may have found ourselves losing it.

Yeah, blah blah blah.  We should all get out of the way of those who best know how to spend our money. 

And here's the glorious tag line at the end of the editorial, courtesy of the L.A. Times....

Neal Gabler is at work on a biography of Edward M. Kennedy.

Go here to read how much Ted Kennedy gave to charity. 
Go here to read about the Kennedy tax avoidance strategy. 

Mama Tried

From Reason magazine's "Daily Brickbats" feature.  I don't recommend going there very often, because you'll spend the rest of your day praying for the damnation of the human race. 

In Canada, Shirley Anderson abandoned her son Ken when he was just 15. Over the next 31 years, he says the only times he spoke to her was when she called asking for money. Now, Shirley, 71 is suing Ken and four of his siblings under British Columbia law that requires children to support dependent parents. A court has already awarded her a payment of $10 a month from each child, but she is now seeking $300 to $350 a month from each of them.

Here's The Calgary Herald:

When Ken Anderson was just 15, his mother, Shirley, made it clear: She didn't want him anymore.
Ken's father, a long-haul trucker, had been transferred from Osoyoos, B.C., to the province's Kootenay region. Although their marriage was rocky, Shirley followed, taking second-youngest son Darryl with her.

Ken was left behind. He had plenty of time to think about it as he wiped bug splatter off car windshields and pumped gas at the local station to make a buck. He says he can't even remember how many couches he slept on, or how he kept himself going. He just knows he never got to go to a prom, finish high school or even think about college.

The way he sees it, he never really had a mother.

On Aug. 3 and 4, Ken, now 46, will face off in B.C. Supreme Court against the woman who gave birth to him.

Now there's a family that puts the funk back in dysfunctional. 
The Whited Mama has made it very clear to her children that they will inherit little or nothing.  Whenever she reads of someone "dying penniless", she sees it as a case of perfect timing. 
We've made it clear to The Whited Mama that if she gets to feeble to take care of herself, she can stay in an extra bedroom with 5 dachshunds, a yellow lab, and whatever reptiles The Aggie has brought in. 
So far, she claims to be healthy. 


Here's Mighty Merle Haggard doing "Mama Tried":

Catholic Relief Services in Haiti

If you've turned on a TV tonight, it's all about the natural disaster in Haiti and the Democrats' disaster in Massachusetts.

If you're interested in a good, established charity for Haiti, I'm going to keep plugging for Catholic Relief Services, AKA Catholic Charities. I have a lot of friends from the former Yugoslavia and Cambodia that CRS helped get re-established after disasters in their native countries. (We were the disaster.) At this point, CRS has a Haiti headquarters on a golf course someplace, and they have the U.S. military providing security and logistics.

Read This

Go here.
Read it.
Answer all questions.

Ask Not What Ted Kennedy Can Do For You, But What You Can Do For Ted Kennedy's Sense of Paid Voluntarism

Here's Reason magazine's Nick Gellespie on the gloriously misnamed "Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act":

Yesterday, President Barack Obama delivered (finally!) on arguably his most hope-changiest of all his campaign promises to use your tax dollars to support make-work jobs that will (finally!) allow America’s vast, all-ages reserve army of the unemployed to be paid volunteers with AmeriCorps. . . .First, public or national service is profoundly un-American as a historical concept and comes always and everywhere slathered in the stink of trench warfare and rhetorical horseshit. This is especially true when it is paid service even as those participating and spending your tax dollars luxuriate in the silky-smooth language of altruism. Which, last time I checked, was supposed to be free. Jesus rendered unto Caesar; he didn’t ask for a block grant from Pontius Pilate in return. That Obama pushes national service and voluntarism even as he works to limit tax breaks for charitable giving that drives all sorts of philanthropy is a classic screw-you, my-way-or-the-highway move.

And why hasn't this mis-step been reported around the globe?

A few things regarding this piece of self-congratulatory lard every bit as bloated and morally compromised as the man for whom it is named (as it happens, Obama seemed to be confusing Teddy K with JFK, proclaiming ""I want all Americans to take up that spirit of the man for whom this bill is named; of a president who sent us to the moon; of a dreamer who always asked 'Why not?'").

Read the whole thing if you get a chance. Worth committing to memory:

AmeriCorps is a program with a long and distinguished history of sucking even by government standards. It effectively comes in second to the standard-issue DMV bureau, with its director in 2003 dubbing it "another cumbersome, unpredictable government bureaucracy." Yeah, yeah, they can fix all that and become squeaky clean, yadda yadda yadda, and that still doesn't address the more basic fact that it is at best superfluous to what Americans, young and old, are already doing: Which is volunteering and "giving back" to the community up the ying-yang.

The concept of "paid" volunteers reminds me of the confusing voluntary/mandatory training camps the NFL gets confused about every summer. (See the 2nd commenter on that link.) It's one or the other, voluntary or mandatory. Not both. Or in another sense of the word, one can either do volunteer work or have a job. Not both within the same organization. If you're getting paid, it's a government job.

Gillespie gives Ted Kennedy credit where a wee bit o' credit is due:

(Kennedy) played a leading role in the deregulation of airline pricing and (even more important) interstate trucking, the latter of which is surely one of the greatest reasons why so much in America is now within reach of even poor people.

Even a blind hog can find an acorn every now and then.

A fresh coat of whitening to Instapundit for the link.

Whoopi Goldberg on taxes

Here's Whoopi Goldberg on her taxes:


She goes off on a rant about being overtaxed, nickeled and dimed on her phone bill. Some of her co-hosts then praise the 50% tax rates in Denmark. You can read the entire transcript here.

Whoopi Goldberg has been criticized in a few places for making lots of money and then griping about paying higher taxes.
I support her 100%, and hope that her tribe increases.
But I do have a problem with a few of Whoopi's opening statements, mostly the preliminary sugar coating she tried to put on her anti-tax rant:

Well, I’ll tell you, I don’t mind paying taxes because I know I make a lot of dough and you want to give some.

I give some. I wish I could give more. But what Whoopi is talking about is NOT giving. It's called taxation. It's taking money from Whoopi, by force, so other people can spend it on their pet projects.
"Giving" is the relationship you have to your favorite charity, a neighbor in trouble, your church or synagogue, or the Chinese Democracy Fund.
I'll bet dollars to donuts that Whoopi Goldberg has a tax accountant. So do her high-tax advocating, Denmark-loving hosts on "The View". The accoutant's job is to ensure that Whoopi gets to hang onto as many of her hard-earned dollars as possible. "Giving" be damned.

Okay? That’s the way it’s supposed to be. That’s the way it’s supposed to be because if you have you want to give.

But when someone dies and leaves a will giving all his money to the Federal Government, it makes the news.
Why?
Because we know that the deceased was probably out of his freakin' mind. People don't voluntarily give their money to the government.

One of Tarrant Liberty Guy's favorite arguments goes like this..... Say you won a lottery, and wanted to help humanity. To which charities would you donate? How far down the list would you have to go before considering The Department Of Health And Human Services ?