John R. Woolner, P.E.

You state:
But this is another distortion. No man can properly honor another as equal to himself, no man can rightly "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," if he does not first honor himself and subscribe to his own rights and dignity.

By writing this sentence, you have just agreed with the philosophy of Ayn Rand and destroyed your very argument. Ayn Rand states one can give unto others if one so desires. When society dictates that one must give to others regardless of one's own well being then that person becomes a means to another ends. The society dictating this kind of altruistic action is called socialistic(aka communist). Read the Communist Manifesto and you will see the required sacrifice individuals for the sake of another. Also you will find it was the Socialists of Europe which requested Marx to write the Communist Manifesto.

Eyler Coates

I doubt very seriously if my showing in one sentence that Ayn Rand distorts the whole meaning of "altruism" equates to my agreeing with the philosophy of Ayn Rand, thereby destroying my "whole" argument. As with the distorted meaning Rand gives to selfishness, this is another attempt to distort the language in order to support Miss Rand's insidious propaganda. It is merely an attempt to establish a frame of reference in which the individual becomes separated and alienated from the society in which he exists, and it falsely suggests that the society itself does not have the right to act as a whole, even when some few members of the society do not agree with what it decides to do. But this is entirely contrary to the statements of Thomas Jefferson, as when he wrote:
"Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government... This, like all other natural rights, may be abridged or modified in its exercise by their own consent, or by the law of those who depute them, if they meet in the right of others." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Residence Bill, 1790. ME 3:60

Of course! as you say, "one can give unto others if one so desires." We don't need Ayn Rand to tell us that. The real question is, Can a whole society establish programs that provide assistance to certain members of that society, if that society so desires to do so? This is where Ayn Rand tries to establish a philosophy in which individuals are separate from the society as a whole, and tries to say that their individual rights are in conflict with the rights of the society of which they are a member, if that society as a whole performs charitable acts. But this is nonsense. No man can be a member of any body of men (a club, an organization, etc.) and then refuse to go along with the decisions of the group, if the burden of those decisions rest fairly on all members. Nevertheless, she calls that "dictating this kind of altruistic action," and says it is "sacrificing" one member for the benefit of another, and then suggests a society cannot do that. But no modern society can function according to such a dogma, and this is why her philosophy is ultimately destructive to the union and well-being of any society.

In her zeal to oppose the sacrificing of one person's welfare for the benefit of another, she extends that idea to the point that a society cannot take proper care of its own members, if it so chooses. This is not only irresponsible; it would be ultimately self-defeating for a nation to take such a stand. It will never happen, of course; but in the meantime, many are seduced by these ideas.