Speaking of always following the truth, as versus the idolatrous “following the Rabbanim”, see Rabbi Karelitz’s own example in his Chut Shani Niddah p. 143, sub voce Ulefi zeh, and idem p. 151 s.v. Vehineh Hevi.
Indeed, Rabbi Karelitz tries to claim in one of the above examples he doesn’t really mean it…
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
Far it for me to defend Ayn Rand, but…
An excerpt of Gore Vidal on Ayn Rand:
“She has a great attraction for simple people who are puzzled by organized society, who object to paying taxes, who dislike the ‘welfare’ state, who feel guilt at the thought of the suffering of others but who would like to harden their hearts.
“For them, she has an enticing prescription: altruism is the root of all evil, self-interest is the only good, and if you’re dumb or incompetent that’s your lookout.”
Come, let’s walk through this point by point.
“Simple people”? That’s statistically false no matter how you conduct the research… Unless you define “simple” as non-authoritarian? Ah, yes, that must be it!
All men are puzzled at complexity, but authoritarians encounter it more often.
“Organized society”? Au contraire! The state is anti-social, anti-organization; planned chaos. While the natural division of labor God created is awe-inspiring in its power and constant change, the state is the invisible hand wishing to congeal, make it all static and impermeable.
“Who feel guilt at the thought of the suffering of others but who would like to harden their hearts. For them, she has an enticing prescription: altruism is the root of all evil, self-interest is the only good…”
I would never defend the “system” of Rand in toto, and it would take great length to examine the matter itself, but GV is here guilt-mongering. Where is the guilt for helping the poor grow richer by denying the looters of us all, producing wealth, raising the standard of living, etc.? And yes, Ayn Rand – like others – misunderstands human nature with the false, shallow dichotomy of “individualism” vs. “altruism”.
Now, authoritarians need not harden their hearts directly; they just ignore reality and pretend to “help” while purposely causing harm, as Thomas Sowell explains in his books. GV has zero economic understanding of how traders serve customers, etc.
Note: Vidal hints at a link between government welfare redistribution and taxes, as though one pays for the other. This folly is easily refuted elsewhere a thousand times over.
As for “dumb or incompetent” Rand contradicts herself. At times she correctly says these traits are a question of degree; anyone can make money by “adding value”. When she depicts utopian society as “subhumans” worshiping a Nietzschean-superman John Galt at an apex, Rand is silly. And we do all have some control upon the intellect and competence of ourselves and our families, through habits, beliefs, and breeding. Needless to say, the state, endorsed by GV, helps make us “dumb or incompetent”, and the bigger the badder.
By Rabbi Alexander London
BAVA KAMMA 34b
When a tame ox gores and kills another ox, the Torah states: “and also the carcass shall be divided” (Ex. 21:35). Rabi Yehuda learns from this verse that if the carcass went up in value before the case comes to court, the owner of the damaging ox shares in the appreciation. Thus we reduce the amount that he must pay for damages.
The Tur (OC 403) brings the rule that the owner of the damaging ox shares in the appreciation of the carcass by both a tame ox and a wild ox. The Drisha notes that the verse which is the source of this rule, “and also the carcass shall be divided”, is referring to a tame ox. How does the Tur know that the rule also applies to a wild ox?
The Drisha brings a further gemara which states: Since we see that the Torah gave the owner of the damaging ox a share in the appreciation of the carcass, I might say that he could come out with a profit. For example, if the ox which was gored was originally worth twenty zuz and its carcass went up in value to thirty zuz, I might say that the owner of the goring ox would take a share of the appreciation and come out gaining. Therefore the Torah stated, “He shall certainly pay” (Ex. 21:36); the owner of the damaging ox pays and does not take.
The Drisha notes that the verse, “He shall certainly pay”, is written by a wild ox. The Torah is telling us that the owner of the wild ox cannot come out with a profit. However, appreciation of the carcass can be used to reduce his liability. Thus the Tur ruled that even the owner of a wild ox shares in the appreciation of the carcass….