Mitterand at Work
Magnus Kempe
: Mitterand (the French president) has announced, after the
: natural disaster in Guadeloupe (an overseas department of
: France), where many houses and trees have been destroyed,
: that:
: "We will re-build it together"
Once more, Mitterand, like many President/King/Emperor/etc. in statist
countries, is offering solidarity. The question one has to ask is:
*what* is solidarity?
---- ----
Solidarity is an altruistic concept that holds that men *have* to help each
other, in a given group. The group may be the tribe, the corporation, the
family, the race, or society. The altruistic answer to the question as to
*why* men should help each other is "because they are part of the group"
-- whether they chose it, or not [usually, it is considered that there is
no choice; but that doesn't change anything to the principle involved.]
Now, many people will say "of course, you have to be nice, and help your
tribal brother/corporate comrade/family parent/racial twin/social 'other'"
and they will scream that anyone who opposes such a view is necessarily
"heartless." What characteristic is omitted by those people's judgment?
What sets solidarity apart from *generosity*?
---- ----
What is generosity? Generosity, which is based on good-will, is that a man
*voluntarily* helps another man, because it is a fellow human being, and
because he thinks that he can *afford* to go out of his way to help him,
because he has a benevolent view of life -- his life's *purpose* is not
to help others, but it is his own happiness, and his happiness may lead
him to give something away, on the grounds that the value of that which
he gives away is smaller than the value he places in his helping another
man; the reason he helps this man is not this man's need, but it is this
man's *potential*, for living, for producing, for *achievement*, for values.
Observe that there is *no* sacrifice involved: a generous man *chooses*
both *when* to help, *whom* to help, and *how* to help, according to his
*own* values.
---- ----
So, what is the difference between solidarity and generosity? Solidarity
is *compulsory*, it is held as a *duty*, it is a *sacrifice*. Generosity
is *not* compulsory, is *not* a duty, and is *not* a sacrifice. Well, what
*is* the purpose of solidarity, then, and how is it possible that many men
accept to live in a world of "solidarity"?
Solidarity, as it is based on sacrifices, leads men to *fear* any further
solidarity towards their fellow men, to fear their fellow men, because
any new act of solidarity entails a new sacrifice. In fact, men are thus
reduced to the sub-animal level of fearing each other, because they
know that their next act of solidarity will be the next sacrifice of
some of their values, to help *another* man. The result, and the unacknow-
ledged goal, of solidarity is: to destroy man's benevolence, his confidence
in a knowable and predictable world, his confidence in fellow human beings;
that is, to destroy the *individual* for the sake of destroying the
individual.
---- ----
Why do men accept solidarity as an unquestionable absolute? Because altruists
are cashing in on the meaning of *generosity*. When altruists say "solidarity"
they want men to hear "generosity," they want to *hide* the real meaning
of solidarity. Observe that the altruistic argument in favor of solidarity
runs as follow: "men are nice and help each other, and help is good, because
some men may need it; therefore, men *must* help each other -- whatever the
situation" [and that is what the marxists love: from each according to his
ability, to each acording to his *need*. In other words, need is a blank
check over other men's life.]
Altruists hold that slavery is better than freedom; that compulsory help
is better than voluntary help; that forcing the individual to sacrifice
himself is better than letting the individual refuse to sacrifice himself.
Altruists hate the good for being the good. That is the ugly motive behind
the altruistic calls for solidarity. Altruists, in fact, hate generosity,
because it is voluntary, because it is an act of self-assertion of the
individual.
---- ----
In an irrational society, i.e. in a statist society, men are forced into
solidarity, they work for the sake of the others, and not for their own
sake [and that is what the concept "slave" subsumes, BTW.] Such men are
forced to sacrifice, first beef on fridays, then those beautiful shoes
they saw the other day, then the house they wanted to build one day, and
then, some final day, their lives. They are told that it is their duty to
sacrifice material wealth. And isn't life material?
What generations of irrational intellectuals have not said to generations
of sacrificed men is: there is *no* justification for such a duty. Man is
not a sacrificial animal: each man is an end in himself. Solidarity is to
be judged, condemned, and rejected.
The Alternative
---------------
In a rational society, i.e. in a free society, men are allowed to be
benevolent, they *earn* their living, and they may *choose* whom they
want to help, without *any* sacrifice. In a rational society, man is
free to pursue his own *happiness*, at the cost of his *own* effort.
There have been few *rational* philosophers in man's history.
The first giant, who opened the way for the sciences and the arts,
who was the father of the Renaissance, was Aristotle. The Founding
Fathers of the United States of America turned man's reason into a
political system, into a Constitution.
And then, businessmen applied reason to the problem of production,
thus *creating*, in one glorious century, more wealth than men had
ever dreamed of.
This century, Ayn Rand showed that reason is the practical, that reason
is man's only tool of survival -- and that man should treat his faculty
of reason with the same care that he treats his body: the root of all
evil is the irrational, and the root of the good is the rational. This
principle applies to all of man's activities. Man has to follow *his*
reason.
Good Premises -- Magnus eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral crime peculiar to
our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We do not claim -- we *prove*."
-- Hugh Akston, in _Atlas Shrugged_, by Ayn Rand
Hans Huttel
writes:
>: Heard [one] morning on Radio France International:
>: Mitterand (the French president) has announced, after the
>: natural disaster in Guadeloupe (an overseas department of
>: France), where many houses and trees have been destroyed,
>: that:
>: "We will re-build it together"
Once more, Magnus Kempe, like in so many other Objectivist postings, is
uttering nonsense. The question one has to ask is: *what* is nonsense ?
Nonsense is something that does not make sense. Now, many people will
say "hey, you have to be nice to the objectivists", and they may murmur that
anyone who calls their views nonsense is "heartless." What characteristic
is omitted by those people's judgment? What sets nonsense apart from *sense* ?
---- ----
What is sense ? The answer to this depends on the context. If e.g. you speak
French in a place where nobody else understands that language, then your
speech act is nonsense. However, if you are in a place where French is
understood (e.g. France), then the sense/nonsense quality of your speech
act depends on the semantics of what you have uttered. If e.g. you compliment
on the wine when in fact it is orange juice that you are drinking then
your speech act is nonsense.
---- ----
Objectivists hold that words can be defined objectively and therefore
often resort to long lists of their own "objective definitions" ; objectivists
hate any usage of words that does not conform to these definitions.
---- ----
In an irrational discussion people do not discuss each other's opinions;
they hide behind "definitions" and keep putting them forward. Such
"discussions" are nothing but a big load of nonsense.
---- ----
The Alternative
---------------
In a real, rational discussion everybody learns from the discussion.
The people participating in the discussion seldom reach an agreement;
however, everybody has learnt something that may cause them to have
yet another look at (if not reconsider or question) their previous ideas
and understand how others view the world.
There have been few good discussions in this newsgroup.
The first giant howler, who opened the way for this follow-up,
was a long list of definitions posted. The Great Disciple
of Ayn Rand turned man's (and woman's ?) reason into `A is A',
whatever that is.
And then, people applied reason to these nonsensical postings,
thus *creating*, in one glorious week, more postings than men (and women) had
ever dreamed of.
This century, Ayn Rand showed that you can get quite a following of
people who will spend their time quoting her "definitions" and making
their own.
> Good Premises -- Magnus eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
Good Grief -- Hans
"Why are you making these assertions, Taggart ?"
(from Taggart, on British TV every Tuesday)
| Hans H\"{u}ttel, Office 1603 JANET: ha...@uk.ac.ed.lfcs
| LFCS, Dept. of Computer Science UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!hans
| University of Edinburgh ARPA: hans%lfcs.e...@nfsnet-relay.ac.uk
| Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, SCOTLAND ... Ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more!
Jeff Dalton
>countries, is offering solidarity. The question one has to ask is:
> *what* is solidarity?
>
>other, in a given group. The group may be the tribe, the corporation, the
>family, the race, or society. The altruistic answer to the question as to
>*why* men should help each other is "because they are part of the group"
This notion solidarity connects to actual solidarity at no point.
Solidarity does not hold that men have to help each other. Rather,
it involves voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit. Help is
not offered just because someone is in some group, but because
that help may be returned. Solidarity is not compulsory.
Nor is solidarity altruistic in the Randroid sense.
>Why do men accept solidarity as an unquestionable absolute?
They don't.
>Altruists hold that slavery is better than freedom
Now you can see why there are so few altruists in this sense of the
word. (I don't care about defending some other sense, though, because
it's not a word I use.)
Alain Cedelle . IRISA - Rennes/Roazhon
>: Mitterand (the French president) has announced, after the
>: natural disaster in Guadeloupe (an overseas department of
>: France), where many houses and trees have been destroyed,
>: that:
>: "We will re-build it together"
>
>Once more, Mitterand, like many President/King/Emperor/etc. in statist
>countries, is offering solidarity.
In fact, Fanch Mitt. has no choice. Assistance to Guadeloupe is clearly
a duty for the gvt. and a right for Guadeloupean people, as they pay taxes
like every one in france, their 'participation' has to be paid in return
by assistance from the french state.
It's a social deal, and has nothing to do with generosity or solidarity.
If Magnus Kempe happens to have an accident with his car, would he
( rationaly !-) speak of the generosity or solidarity of his insurance
company ?
The governement may claim to solidarity, kindly offered, improving by this
way it's image and it's usefullness. But this is only publicity.
A.C.
Dr. Sanio
>In article <22...@erix.ericsson.se> eua...@euas10.ericsson.se (Magnus Kempe) writes:
>This notion solidarity connects to actual solidarity at no point.
>Solidarity does not hold that men have to help each other. Rather,
>it involves voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit. Help is
>not offered just because someone is in some group, but because
>that help may be returned. Solidarity is not compulsory.
>
from the concept of "trade" on which Markus insists (beneath the concept
of "generosity", which seems to me patronising and arrogant towards the people
it's offered to).
Trade means a contractual relation between people, which i s compulsory in
the last consequence - at least if somebody is forced to buy, sell or pay
by any reason (I don't deny the necessity of trade, btw). If agreement about
the contract fails by any reason, it's either forced or hindered by force
to be fulfilled (This may be private violence or cheat or the monopolized
violence of the state in modern societies).
Solidarity, on the other hand, doesn't commit the receptor to anything except
that it is (implicitly) expected that (s)he might act the same way when able
and required to do so. That means simply trusting in reasonable behaviour.
Though this might seem illusionary to some people, it worked and still works
in wide areas of the society.
Just another consideration: Mutual aid is sometimes compulsory in civilized
societies. Leaving an injured person after an accident, for example, is
considered as a crime in most countries and can cost somebody considering
himself as an end in himself (and regarding it more important not to spoil the
clothes / not to miss a date) pretty well some months or years of prison
(depending on the consequences) .
It would interest me whether Markus regards this as slavery as well.
regards, es