Original:
'People come for the selfies but won't pay $2 for pizza'
Altruism. Ayn Rand nailed it really.
The Agora differs from Objectivism on the point of minarchism. My understanding is that Objectivism holds that minarchism is necessary for an absolutely minimal State for 'essential services' such as policing and defense. In the Agora these services can only be provided voluntarily and contractually on the free market.
Larken Rose sets out the differences
Incidentally, following a quick review of comments in Larken's video, if the best argument anyone can come out with against your position is that very few people subscribe to it, they may, inadvertently have just made an argument for, not against that position, because they are arguing from popularity, which is a logical fallacy if relied on heavily.
Ms Fixter used disability as a selling point (it's in the company name) and is then disappointed that the response reflects the altruism back on her (people only come to virtue signal). Altruism, whether you agree with Rand or not, has no economic value. People, quite rightly in my view, expect to exchange value for value. The solution to her problem is to create the best pizza in town, disabled workers or otherwise. If not she's in the wrong business. It's great to see people being honest and true to themselves in this kind of situation, only being prepared to exchange value where it is received. If only people were able to do this in relation to the State, since that would eventually dissolve the State altogether.
If people pay you for something they will be looking to take a piece of value away from you in exchange. This is a harsh reality that we all face on a daily basis. Only you can know if that exchange is worth it. Only you can do something about it. If you are paid for nothing then value has been taken from someone else. The State wants us all to be confused about this so that it can hide the activity that it labels a crime if we do it individually (extortion), but the 'Law' if it does it to perpetuate it's existence, partly by providing 'free services' to the needy.
Anyone who really wants to help the needy can create a business that reduces the impact of the disability, whatever form that takes. They can 'selfishly' make as much profit as they like as disabled people will exchange whatever value they possess to obtain the advantages. Of course, any prospective business will currently have to navigate the taxes, regulations and numerous other hurdles created by the State in it's attempts to control free and open trade. Which is perhaps why some are tempted to throw in the towel and play the State's game of appealing to altruism in an attempt to fool people into making one sided exchanges. I suggest not attempting to adopt such an approach when you're completely outnumbered, outclassed and, ultimately, out gunned by the experts. The best approach, I suggest, is to expose their game for what it is, not attempt to emulate it in response to a lifetime of indoctrination.
There are a lot of good people in this story, working hard to make a better life for themselves. I suggest they get the vision right and base it own their own true, primarily selfish, desires. Self-sacrifice helps no-one in the end and has a long history of ending in disaster for countless individuals. It serves the State, but not humanity, for you to end up like this
as an example to those who remain. Is that really, honestly, what you want? The lesson is obvious, but largely depends on your predisposition. I suggest seeing the world as it is with open eyes, before it is too late for your one, precious life.