Virtuous Self-Interest (Selfishness) VS Self-Destruction (Altruism) and libertarianism.

Recently I put up an article stating I was an objectivist and one might think that means I am anti-libertarian. However, you would be mistaken to think so. For decades Objectivist organizations have berated libertarianism as being incompatible with reason. However, this is not the case as there is only one of two ways to come to libertarianism that is a possible basis for the Non-Aggression Principle.

One of them is some form of religious or spiritual view of rights being given by natural rights which makes nature out to be some sort of rights giving force. Those natural rights can be based on god or some other spiritual/intrinsic view of nature as divine rights giver. The other, however, is the Objectivist view of rights being based on human nature and part of ones requirements for living life on Earth.

Specifically, based in reality and what is needed in reality to survive as an entity. It does not get called "Objectivist," and often people will hate Objectivism with its pro-selfishness views while agreeing with this part of the Objectivist world view. Often times it is just considered the non-religious or secularist view of libertarian rights. However, it is the only other justifiable reason for being a libertarian. Yet, there are some that try using utilitarian or other nonsensical reasons for libetarianism as well. It is this view as well as the Anarchocapitalist that are unfortunately part of the broader libertarian movement that most Objectivist object to.

The Objectivist that hates on libertarianism due to these individuals is generalizing and iornically collectivizing all libertarians as nihilists and as anarchists. They paint libertarianism in general as morally relativistic when that is not the case. They paint libertarians as a bunch of people that do not have any reasonable grounding for libertarianism due to not accepting as whole cloth Objectivist Ethics and the rest of the world view. This is silly. Coming to liberty via reason is what matters and not being an Objectivist.

To me getting out the need to have reals before feels. The need for rationality to overrule our older evolved instincts to just believe in patterns regardless of falsehood. This is what I think is important to be a person whom has a close and personal relationship with reality. It is this and not being an Objectivist that matters. That does not mean I think one should not look into Objectivism and contemplate seriously taking on this world view. Or that I think there is a more consistent and precise principle to support individual rights or liberty. There is not in my opinion, but, that does not mean we need to become dogmatic and make in/out groups and become hateful of others that do not agree with us each dot and each tittle.

One of the things that pushes the liberty disagreements between Objectivism and the broader libertarian movement is the denouncing of Objectivism due to its being against altruism. The truth is, however, what Objectivism considers altruism is often not what others think it is. Objectivism does not say that kindness to others, charity, generosity, benevolence and loving others is wrong. That giving help to others; hell even laying down your life is always wrong. It all depends on context and anti-Objectivist libertarians are ignorant and not aware of what they are dissing or defending.

Altruism is literally the philosophical core of all collectivist dictatorships. It is referring to the philosophy of Comte. Whom said that individuals did not exist for themselves, but, instead lived as like a Borg for the religion called The Great Humanity. Altruism means lose/win scenarios. It means rape for example. The sex is not a win/win, but, a win/lose. The rapist wins and the person has sacrificed their bodily autonomy for the pleasure of the other person or the power list of the other person. It is sacrificing the greater value or something you want for something you do not. In the case of rape it is sacrificing your body and your rights for the sake of someone else's need.

It is clear that using the above example no one can defend that definition of altruism and it is this self-destruction that Ayn Rand/Objectivism is against. Altruism as originally define by Comte was that definition. What people really are supporting are various forms of benevolence usually like charity, but, in using Altruism as the thing they are defending they are unknowingly defending the other type. For it gives ammunition to the true Altruists that do want your self-destruction. You should be defending benevolence, kindness and the like. Giving more than you get back, even your life as you value what you are giving up your life for more than you life is not self-destructive. Which if based on rationality and reason is selfish and not anti-Objectivist at all.

What I mean by Altruism is the sacrificing of the self, of the mind and of ones very soul to get romantic to someone else. Which is evil by any other name and is not the same as helping others or the same as even laying down your life for the proper reasoning. I mean self-destruction and self-harm for the sake of someone else and that is not just being kind to your neighbor. It is not even the religious maxim of loving neighbors as ourselves. It is the hatred of the self for being the self and the sacrificing to the collective which is an illusion made of nothing, but, other individuals. So, do I mean it when I say Altruism is evil and I will never support it nor its true proponents? Yes, Altruism is evil and at its most pure. It is the origin of all slavery, of all dictatorship and all coercive collectives.

Altruism kills the self, the mind and the very soul to be romantic. It is the ultimate evil and for this reason I cannot be anything other than selfish which by definition means to nurture the self/mind/soul. To guard against self-harm and live according to ones one rational self-interest. It does not mean to be a brute, savage or a douche. It does not mean being a dogmatic cult like hater of anyone that disagrees. Nor does it mean to not be kind, charitable, have reverence for others or be benevolent. It means that it is done in accordance with ones own interest in doing so as a free-man and not your surf or slave to your mind, but, acting according to my own mind.

So, did I mean it when I said I am selfish? Yes, Damn Right I am and I am damn proud! I love myself, so, why do you hate yourself and continue to deny the virtue of selfishness? I think it is because probably in most instances you have swallowed what is called a package deal. You think selfishness means to not care about others or to run over others for your own interest. When in fact being selfish means living according to the trader principle of win/win relationships where neither person is a surf to the other. Equal and mutual relations between all trading value for value. Not just material ones, but, also human ones of friendship, love, reverence, admiration and even sex.

We should all be selfish and everyone needs to work on nurturing our selves and love ourselves enough. To have enough self-esteem and a benevolent enough sense of life to love ourselves enough to nurture ourselves first and out from their the only real love, and cooperation between people can exist without opening the door to serfdom and slavery amongst people. Love yourself enough to be selfish, rationally so and not douche-like. Before you can say I love you you must first be able to say I.