Sacrifice is voluntary
In his April 7 letter to the editor/tirade against individual freedom ["I thought Ayn Rand died," April 7], J. Blair Reeves commits his most grievous error of logic (of many) in the second paragraph, wherein he refers to Randian philosophy as "madness."
The problem is that his attempt to explain this philosophy ("any sacrifice for the betterment of a community as some sort of grievous breach of individual rights") is a gross mischaracterization of Randian and libertarian ideals.
"Sacrifice" is defined by its voluntary nature. If I voluntarily give money to charity, then I have "sacrificed" my wealth for the good of others.
However, if the very same charity organization steals that money against my will, then it is no longer sacrifice; it is theft.
Likewise, if I privately built a school in my neighborhood, then broke down Reeves' door and stole money from him to pay for my school, it would be safe to assume that he would object.
However, according to his rant against Sutz's letter, he has no problem if this very same theft is carried out by government agents. I fail to see the logic behind this blatant double standard (perhaps this is because leftist thought is based on emotionalism, and not rationalism).
While Reeves may think that government is here to provide everyone with some kind of "material subsistence," many libertarians (including Jefferson and other founding fathers) disagree.
Libertarian philosophy is based on the idea of natural human rights; government exists to protect the rights of its citizens, as outlined in the Bill of Rights. This is the foundation of our great nation, and Reeves' subjective definition of the "collective good of society" should not trump these rights.