The true argument is about human nature. ANY philosophy that's going to "catch on" has to take into account mans true nature. Not the personal idiosyncrasies of the members of RoR, but the common traits of all humans. Else you'll never convince anyone besides the one or two thousand members of this website. "Activism" means selling to a market and knowing that market.

The moral purpose of a man's life is the achievement of his own happiness. This does not mean that he is indifferent to all men, that human life is of no value to him and that he has no reason to help others in an emergency. But it does mean that he does not subordinate his life to the welfare of others, that he does not sacrifice himself to their needs, that the relief of their suffering is not his primary concern, that any help he gives is an exception, not a rule, an act of generosity, not of moral duty, that it is marginal and incidental—as disasters are marginal and incidental in the course of human existence—and that values, not disasters, are the goal, the first concern and the motive power of his life.  [Boldface emphasis added.]

UNDERSTAND human nature. Talking philosophy and activism without understanding people is what's bull. Human nature is what it is. NO ONE defines it. NO ONE changes it. Deal with it. Or forget activism.

I’ve been waiting for this debate to cool off, because I have some earnest questions on the article.  I hope you guys excuse me for having little useful to contribute to the tough debate (well, maybe I could pen some perfunctory lines) and dash off a quick reply or give a link or something.

Basically, I’ve just joined a group of young people that meets to discuss philosophy.  I’m pretty sure that some of my acquaintances there are subtle liberals, and that their response to criticism of the mixed economy and welfare, for example, would be that no one needs their uncompromised freedoms: it is no sin to give up just a fraction of them to help people in need.  Indeed, I think that while some of them might concede that liberty is essential but others’ suffering is our duty, others will value that duty over freedom.

This assertion acknowledges that altruism and liberty are incompatible, but that liberty is inessential—and I’m afraid that when I talk to them next, I’ll resort to arm-flapping and simply yelling “FrEeDOm!” which will win me no credibility.  So help: I don’t know the principled position against someone who disvalues freedom (and independence, rights, integrity, self-reliance, and thus sanctions theft, force, and immorality).  (Oh, and I predict that one justification they’ll use is that it’s just a small theft, or just a slight, meaningless marginalization of my rights that shouldn't matter to me, as if extent matters here, as if I should be ashamed for wanting all my rights.  What?  Apoplexy.)

Also, this may be the most basic of questions, but isn’t hoarding money not in anyone’s self interest?  The liberal thought process is that if someone is making money, some people must be losing it.  This is true only if, obviously, the maker doesn’t spend anything.  So is it not simply making money, but spending it that is a virtue?  Not only accumulation, but trade, too?  Money is useful only when it’s exchanged, and this is the only way it benefits the holder, the consumer, the rest of society, etc.  (Of course, it can be saved [hopefully at interest] for expansion, inheritance, etc., but this too is towards the goal of spending it).

Oh, and thank you Joseph, for the fine article.  clarified much for me.  Also, I hope I don't divert any discussion too dramatically.  A PM would be fine for this struggling student; I've only recently been really getting everything, and it's thrilling.

 
Michael Allen Yarbrough

I am not talking in favor of altruism. I am talking against the murder of a child by starvation.

Through altruistic means. No getting around it, Michael

A child has a right to life. Murdering him violates that right.

Also, this may be the most basic of questions, but isn’t hoarding money not in anyone’s self interest? The liberal thought process is that if someone is making money, some people must be losing it. This is true only if, obviously, the maker doesn’t spend anything. So is it not simply making money, but spending it that is a virtue? Not only accumulation, but trade, too? Money is useful only when it’s exchanged, and this is the only way it benefits the holder, the consumer, the rest of society, etc. (Of course, it can be saved [hopefully at interest] for expansion, inheritance, etc., but this too is towards the goal of spending it).