The boys at Sadly No! are going mad at the antics of “Jane Galt” in her new gig at The Atlantic.
The amazingly self-centered Darwinism of these people — libertarians, objectivists, whatever — boils down to an abdication of what most of us call humanity in favor of a basic law of the jungle or savannah. They don’t want to make decisions based on anything other than pre-economic reasons. Luck doesn’t exist in their world, unless it’s good, like an Ivy League diploma, straight white teeth, and a full head of hair. Ashthma or diabetes are treatable diseases for most of us, but for some, they are death sentences. Here’s what I left over at S,N!
I’m not as smart of the rest of y’all but here’s an idea to mull over.
If man is the animal that can make choices and decisions, meaning we’re not constantly in the hunter/gatherer/predator mode and can enjoy things like leisure, art, sport, etc. what does it say about people like McMegan who seem to want life to be stripped down to its animal basics?
I really think they — I suspect there are others who “think” like her — want life to be boiled to down to what it was on the African savannah millions of years ago. They don’t want to make decisions about the welfare of others. They won’t be drawn into valuing a singer or bard as a member of the community, if he doesn’t hunt or support himself. The old and infirm? Leave ’em for the lions. The young and sickly? Why should we carry them? Love? Empathy? Sympathy? Who needs these human traits (even if we’re learning that they’re not even exclusive to mammal, let alone humans)?
If they’d rather die, they should do it and decrease the surplus population. Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons?
I have to wonder if these people were ever sick and who took the time to care for them?
I wonder if her parents gave serious thought to the utility and future economic value of feeding and raising her? Or did they just do it because that’s what parents do?