Arkadi

"a spike of millions who came to America ... " only the fittest of whom survived. (well, actually, those were already the fittest of the fittest who survived the journey). i have to admit, the picture has its appeal--not unlike the appeal of Plato's ideal state, where unfit infants were to be right away discarded.

sure, the problem you mentioned cannot be fixed by universal government health care. but neither can it be fixed by totally capitalist, private health care. simply because it is not a problem that can be fixed by health care.

i have a good friend who is 100% white, with a college degree, very hard working, pays thousands out of pocket per year for medicals as deductibles and co-pays with his employer provided insurance and barely makes his ends meet. he can choose his MDs, but none of them is great in his geographical area, and some really suck.with those who are a bit better than others, he is to make appointments months in advance, no matter how urgent the issue is.

Oh, and here it is your own words: " Whatever the government [in US (and Britain?)] imposes, it does badly."--QED. But not so in continental Europe. And your next one is plainly wrong: " When people make individual decisions, they do fine." I know quite a few people who don't. BTW, where do you get your figures from? Fox channel? Wiki says: "In 2009, 62.9 million Americans were enrolled in Medicaid for at least one month, with an average enrollment of 50.1 million."

Wolf DeVoon--To begin with, you quoted me only to discuss not the issue I addressed. Medicaid is not Obamacare, as far as I can tell. But to address your account, I fail to see from it how Obamacare, while it was in effect, made anything compulsory for you. You make enough money to pay the fees you cited--good for you; I know quite a few people who don't. And they are hard working, trust me; perhaps just not as smart as you are, or had worse starting conditions in life. I agree that Obamacare sucks. But that's precisely my point--re the difference with Germany and France.

"Medicaid 100% free health care" --isn't this precisely what is being enthusiastically dismantled at present?

Gio--i don't know how to otherwise explain the fact that things like free higher education and medicine are so difficult to implement in US.

hi, Gio-- i see your point. yet, it is my impression, that there are other principles, on the par with the principle of individual rights, which are recognized in France, Germany, Austria, Finland, etc., but which many objectivists explicitly reject. in other words, it seems to me that the system in place in those countries is not just an imperfect realization of the one principle that you mentioned but there is a combination of principles at work.

BaalChatzaf: this is trivially true.

BaalChatzaf: "Germany, France, Britain, Canada and U.S. function under a mixed system."--yet there are striking differences as regards medical and higher education coverage.

but Germany is currently doing better than US, as far as i can tell. so, it seems that the Economic Fascism they have works better than whatever we're having in US.

studiodekadent: "this really doesn't differ substantially from economic fascism"--so "Social Democracies/Mixed Economies/Regulated Market Economies"= "economic fascism," and this is, according to you, the current regime in Germany and France?

The people who really live the life of duty (not just talk about it) are selfish in the highest degree, for their duty is always, at bottom, to their own self, whether or not authentically chosen. The "boy" in Branden's illustration has chosen himself as a son his mother is to be proud of. He serves not his mother but his own thus chosen "self".

Anthony: "Ultimately, it must create a culture of entitlement, where more and more people will anticipate and demand more of one or the State"--We are talking of CHILDREN being abused by their biological parents!!! Do you seriously believe that finding foster parents for them is "creating a culture of entitlement"?!

Anthony: " the self-sacrificial consequences of making of single, chosen acts instead a life-long career owed to any and all people en masse"--But by this logic, any career is "self-sacrificial"! Take the career of a musician. My playing piano now and then to friends or broader selected audiences whenever I am up to it (i.e., am in a proper mood), is one thing; making these single, chosen acts instead a life-long career is quite another. The latter implies choosing myself as a concerting musician and dedicating my whole life to this self. How does this differ in principle from choosing oneself as a social worker??? Any authentic professional "owes" (if this verb is here appropriate at all) his or her career not to any "people" but only to ONESELF!

One thing you seem to be missing, Anthony, is that one's relation to one's (real) self is not all honeymoon (not for all people, at any rate). Just like in marriage, it's sustaining requires a commitment. Which, yes, is kind of duty. Duty to oneself. I doubt that without it one can possibly be selfish in any non-superficial sense.

Anthony: "There's a central matter you miss."--No wonder, given that you spelled it out so clearly only now. The case of those who have MT as their role model is, of course, another matter. In fact, I know at least one such person. This is a dedicated and gifted social worker and she LOVES what she is doing (namely, finding foster families for kids with special needs). She also has her depression episodes and the example of MT helps her to go through them with her commitment to her vocation (i.e., to her SELF) intact. I fail to see anything wrong with this.

"How do *I* know this was self-sacrifice? Because MT plainly showed it in her misery."--By this logic, all unhappy people--whether they serve anybody or not--are "altruists." This is a sheer misuse of the concept. I see no grounds to claim that MT "sacrificed" anything; i.e., that she could have became any happier by doing anything other than what she was doing. One may follow a vocation of a medical doctor for good "selfish" reasons, get established in the field and then, suddenly, have one's compassion to one's patients and love of one's profession changed into hatred. What would a selfish person do? It is too late to start a second career after a certain age.

Anthony: It would have been easier for me if you confirmed right away that you infer it from her depression (which you strangely call "spiritual agony"; do you believe in spirits?--but this does not matter, as we now understand what we're talking about here). In other words, you infer it from her psychic condition (as documented in her diaries). I am not making any argument, just want to make sure that I understand what you say.

Anthony: "If you find the answer to your last question you'll have a better understanding of altruism wrt Objectivism."--Perhaps. But I can possibly get this answer from you only, as the question is about the grounds of your inference ("how do you know that she did?")

9thdoctor: "What kind of details do you want?"--The topic of this thread says this in plain English.

9thdoctor: "Knowing that he'll be killed too, before long."--But this makes all the difference in the world! If Branden meant this, he should have mentioned it.

Anthony: " I didn't bring in "depression", you did." I refer to your words: "Teresa spent her last 40+ years in spiritual agony, feeling abandoned by God." I call it depression. "Teresa sacrificed her potential existential values"--Which ones, in particular? And how do you know that she did?

Anthony: I thought you meant that T's depression is an indication that her activities were "altruistic" (which would not, in my view, be a valid inference).

"Have I known anyone who made a wrong career choice under parental pressure. Well, yeah. So?" --If you believe those choices exemplify altruism, then "yes" (+ some details) would be enough. "So?" is superfluous.