1) Altruism = A willingness to sacrifice yourself to others.
2) Subjectivist Egoism = A willingness to sacrifice others to yourself.
In both of these philosophies, human existence requires martyrs; some men are mere means to the ends of others; somebody must be sacrificed. Is it your life for their sake or theirs for yours? This is not a dispute over a moral principle. It is a haggling over victims by two camps who share the same principle.

3) Selfishness = Concern with one’s own interests.
Man is an end in himself. The sacrifice of a man’s free will is evil no matter who becomes the beneficiary.

http://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Selfishness-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451163931

“The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word “selfishness” is not merely wrong; it represents a devastating intellectual “package-deal,” which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind. In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil: the image it conjures is a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own end, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment. Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is concern with one’s own interests. This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil, nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.” (The Virtues of Selfishness)

“The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness–which means: the values required for man’s survival qua man–which means: the values required for human survival–not the values produced by the desires, the emotions, the “aspirations,” the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never discovered an industrial society and can conceive of no self-interest but of grabbing the loot of the moment. The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifice and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash–that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.” (The Virtues of Selfishness)

If you are, I appreciate the joke.

If you’re not, I’m scared.

Regardless of if John Stuart Mill would agree with it, I would hope that the Republican party would not turn a blind eye to the suffering of North Carolina children.

I know that the “greed is good” crowd got some fancy ways of spinning their selfishness into some sort of academic virtue, but hopefully Republican leaders retain some sense of common decency.

It seems abundantly clear from various claims Mill makes both within On Liberty and elsewhere, that he is willing to countenance restrictions on individual liberty that do not appear designed to prevent harm to others. Here is a partial list of such commitments.

1. Some actions for the benefit of others may be compelled on the ground that their omission causes harm. These include (a) giving evidence in court, (b) contributing one’s fair share to common defense and other public goods, and (c) certain kinds of mutual aid (e.g. Good Samaritanism) (I 11).
2. Each may be required to bear his fair share of the costs of securing public goods (IV 3).
3. Government may regulate trade (e.g. fixing prices or regulating manufacture), because such conduct is not purely private (IV 4).
4. The state should make education compulsory (V 12-14). (a) This is a form of paternalism that is consistent with Mill’s scope worry (I 10), but also (b) a restriction on the liberty of parents that seems not to conform to the harm principle.
5. Mill accepts many forms of social welfare legislation. He thinks that local and central government are empowered to enact various kinds of legislation pursuant to the community’s interest (PPEV.i.2; CRGXV/CW XIX 538, 541). He explicitly includes the following items on the governmental agenda: (a) the redistribution of wealth (through taxes on earned and unearned income and inheritance) so as to ensure a decent minimum standard of living, (b) Poor Laws that provide work for the able-bodied indigent (PPE II.xii.2, V.xi.13), (c) labor regulation (e.g.regulation of the hours of factory-laborers) (PPE:V.xi.12), (d) provision for a common defense (OLI 11; PPEV.viii.1), (e) development of a system of public education (OL:V 12‑13; PPEII.xiii.3, V.xi.8; CRG VIII/467-70; AutoV/128), (f) maintenance of community infrastructure (e.g. roads, sanitation, police, and correctional facilities) (PPEV.viii.1; CRGXV/538, 541), and (c) state support for the arts (PPEV.xi.15). Some of these regulations restrict liberty directly; others do so indirectly inasmuch as the implementation of the legislation can only be supported by compulsory taxation.

In all of these cases, liberty is restricted not, it would seem, to prevent harm to others but rather to provide benefits to others. (1) alone explicitly tries to convert the failure to supply benefits into harms.

“Though this principle seems clear, there are a number of complications. For example, Mill explicitly states that “harms” may include acts of omission as well as acts of commission. Thus, failing to rescue a drowning child counts as a harmful act, as does failing to pay taxes, or failing to appear as a witness in court. All such harmful omissions may be regulated, according to Mill.”