In an earlier post I talked about the Standard Objectivist/Libertarian “gimmick”: positing some equivalent of a “lifeboat” scenario, and then rattling off a litany of (purportedly) “Statist” solutions.
Since the “solutions” are utterly inapplicable to the specific context, presumably they will fail. Thus (according to Libertarians/Objectivists), they are equally impractical in ALL contexts.
The problem with this is: “lifeboat” scenarios (“emergency” situations) demonstrate why people resort to “collectivism” in the first place.
An emergency is an unchosen, unexpected event, limited in time, that creates conditions under which human survival is impossible—such as a flood, an earthquake, a fire, a shipwreck. In an emergency situation, men’s primary goal is to combat the disaster, escape the danger and restore normal conditions (to reach dry land, to put out the fire, etc.).
By “normal” conditions I mean metaphysically normal, normal in the nature of things, and appropriate to human existence. Men can live on land, but not in water or in a raging fire. Since men are not omnipotent, it is metaphysically possible for unforeseeable disasters to strike them, in which case their only task is to return to those conditions under which their lives can continue. By its nature, an emergency situation is temporary; if it were to last, men would perish.
It is only in emergency situations that one should volunteer to help strangers, if it is in one’s power. For instance, a man who values human life and is caught in a shipwreck, should help to save his fellow passengers (though not at the expense of his own life). But this does not mean that after they all reach shore, he should devote his efforts to saving his fellow passengers from poverty, ignorance, neurosis or whatever other troubles they might have. Nor does it mean that he should spend his life sailing the seven seas in search of shipwreck victims to save . . . .
The principle that one should help men in an emergency cannot be extended to regard all human suffering as an emergency and to turn the misfortune of some into a first mortgage on the lives of others.
Now, notice something, here:
Ayn Rand most likely wrote the above sitting in an apartment in New York, surrounded by stuff like electric lighting, with a refrigerator full of food for which she — or, more likely, Frank O’Connor — had not had to grow/gather/hunt
I submit that the above scenario is NOT “metaphysically normal”. Rather, it is the culmination of centuries — MILLENNIA — of sociopolitical and cultural development — most of which is systematically ignored by the beneficiaries.
In ANY genuine “emergency” situation which were pervasive enough, New York would starve. Hell, let’s look at the various “blackouts” which have impacted New York over the last 50 years or so: 1965, 1977, 2003, etc.:
At Any rate: Ayn Rand (and the vast majority of the “Objectivist”/”Libertarian” movements), exemplify the “Aunt Tillie” phenomenon: near-total ignorance of the physical/social/economic “infrastructure” which allow them NOT to live in a state of “Chronic emergency”.
Oddly enough, if the stupid bitch had managed to (say) fall asleep while smoking, and experience a fire in her apartment. the FDNY (a gaggle of “statists” whose function does NOT fall neatly into any of the 3 “permissible” branches of government stipulated by Objectivists — “Police, Military and Courts”) would have been the ones tasked with saving her ignorant, over-privileged ass.