No. Slavery isn't an obligation, it is a blight. Doesn't matter if its to one man, a nation, nor the sum collective of human existence.
Society can sanction you if you violate its rules, so ensuring the society in which you find yourself is a just society is an obligation to your own continued existence.
Only on HN can you see the concept of "doing good for your fellow man" be described with a ridiculous weasel word like "slavery".
This is Ayn Rand style rhetoric that is thoroughly lacking in content and subsists entirely on individualistic outrage. The issue of society vs. individual freedoms is a valuable one, going off the deep end with weasel words does not contribute to the discussion.
This is Ayn Rand style rhetoric that is thoroughly lacking in content and subsists entirely on individualistic outrage
Nobody who has seriously looked into Rand's fiction and nonfiction could say something like that. Either you've only looked into Rand superficially, or you are just parroting what you've heard elsewhere. There is immense intellectual depth in her work.
I don't see why liberals allow conservatives to monopolize Rand (in their half-assed hypocritical way). Rand makes bulletproof arguments for the rights of women and gays, against racism, and against the corporate-government cronyism liberals are railing against today.
She is a classical liberal, not a postmodern liberal, but today's postmodern liberals would do well to return to their roots. By doing so, they'd pull in lots of Republican voters and stomp the Republicans.
That wasn't a reference to the entire body of her work, nor a comment on her other social views. It was a reference to her views re: self-interest, altruism, and society as an oppressive instrument.
The "rhetoric" part is a slightly snarky reference to how said views are presented.
This isn't about women, gays, or blacks - this is about the fundamental notion of whether or not society should encourage altruistic behavior and whether or not the individual has some obligation to a very basic level of altruism. This is a valuable topic that we will probably never agree on, but flying off the handle and calling it "slavery" cheapens the discourse, because the two are so far apart that there is no reason to compare them except for cheap emotional impact.
That wasn't a reference to the entire body of her work
If you use "Ayn Rand style rhetoric" to argue against taking someone's argument seriously, you are discounting Rand and her entire body of work, and you're doing it in a backhanded way.
It was a reference to her views re: self-interest, altruism, and society as an oppressive instrument.
Well, she held that society is a marvelous thing and that we're all much better for it. Just want to make sure you realized this. In fact, she makes the strongest philosophical argument for this that I've ever seen.
calling it "slavery" cheapens the discourse
No, the person who called it "slavery" was right on par. If the individual has "obligations" to society, he is coerced to serve society.
Yes, there is a question of degree. But we're not talking about 1% of an individual's effort being forcibly taken to serve others. We're talking, what, 30, 40, 50%? In France, it's 75% for some people now.
Plus, free speech and just conducting business are becoming highly regulated, which means highly non-free.
Society is great, but not a society like that. Which is why some of Ayn Rand's heros "shrugged" and decided to stop contributing.
Well, I certainly didn't call society an oppressive instrument; so I'm not sure how you read that in there. Society is great, but it is not magical; and if left unattended can be taken over by all sorts of anti-social elements; which is why I stated I have an obligation to make sure it stays just in its dispensation of punishment.
"Altruism" is a cheap emotional fetter; one that very few people want to stand against for fear of being labeled an ogre and demonized by society. Keeping a low profile in an antagonistic social climate is a valid survival strategy in the short run, which only has to be as long as the social climate prevails; I shrug on how long that will be.
So back to charity, charity is not an obligation, and it is not a duty. It is a possible choice that one can use with "spare" (as an individual calculates) resources for ends that he desires to see, or for "inequities" (as he sees them) that he desires to erase. Charity is a payment for values. If I want to live in a world where I help certain people in certain situation when I want to, that's fine. If someone else doesn't want to, that's fine too.
Society exerted very little in "granting me" the life I lead. I am the beneficiary of the selfish collective action of everyone before me having worked to earn their own living, so if I owe society anything its to continue to work to earn my own living just like my ancestors did; which I consider just.
Society can sanction you if you violate its rules, so ensuring the society in which you find yourself is a just society is an obligation to your own continued existence.