Ayn Rand Signed on for Medicare and social Security

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by bookitty

Being a hypocrite doesn't make someone ineligible for care.

How about being a sociopathic hypocrite who idolized a guy who butchered a little girl in front of her desperate father?

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I'm a fan of Rand because, like Orwell, she popularized ideals counter to *Communist ideology as espoused by the likes of Stalin and Mao. She did this at a time when many were questioning capitalism and the importance of self against extreme socialist utilitarian philosophy that devalued the individual. She was also a strong woman in an age of patriarchy.

I'm happy to grant much of the plethora of criticism directed at her. She was a woman but didn't appear to do anything to advance the cause of women but was in fact arguably hostile to the woman's movement. She had no philosophical rigor. Her books were overly didactic. Etc., etc..

The social security criticism I don't buy. From her perspective it would be idiotic to not take advantage of an insurance policy forced on her. It does not, IMO, make her morally inconsistent.

*so called.

She was, quite possibly, the worst writer ever published and a filthy human being.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by IchabodPlain

The main problem being that even in this analogy, Peter is being robbed and the money is being spent regardless. Ayn can't piously retort "And give it all back to Peter to correct this reprehensible unfairness!" as she virtuously rejects SS and Medicare. Her decision is independent of Poor-Peter's Plight.

As for Trakar's line of reasoning*, Rand is in a pinch between being hypocritical, a tax cheat (and thus, a jailbird more likely), or a sucker. Assuming there isn't a better country (all things considered) to move into, and that she doesn't want to spend her days in a cell, she'll do what any sane person would: pay the damn tax so you don't end up in jail. Now that's demonstrating her ability to prioritize moral principles! Taking the money makes her a hypocrite, and turning it down doesn't correct the injustice done to her, nor to Petr (who's also now Ukrainian), and rejects her claims to the ****** end of a bum deal, thus allowing the system she abhorrs to become temporarily and fractionally more solvent.

*Sorry Trakar for not getting your own post, but there's only so much typing and maneuvering I can do on this tablet before it takes the coherence of my thoughts, and grammar from my fingers.

((no problem at all!))

In general, I agree with your assessment. I disagree about the injustice done to her, because, of my understanding of taxation and it being a tithe on earnings to pay for the benefits that enabled the earnings in the first place, rather than as a "lock-box" savings account she was forced to pay into and then gave her the ability to rationalize taking benefits as already paid for.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Because social contract doesn't work that way. Govt isn't business. It's purpose is to promote the common welfare not turn a profit. College students who are living in a dorm and have never worded a day in their lives are entitled to use roads, the library, or get help finding a job through EDD. They can because benefits have no relationship to when taxes are paid.

College students who have never worked a day in their lives, have paid taxes. But more to the point, our system is progressive, according to ability to pay. If your earnings are low enough, it is more beneficial to all that you keep most all of your earnings (most of the time we are willing to even give the lower levels of earnings a bit of a negative tax rate). The point is that earning income in this nation means taking advantage of tremendous amounts of infrastructure, social policy and relative economic stability, if everyone had to individually pay for all of the infrastructure access, social policy and economic benefit as a part of earning their income, the overwhelming majority would not be able to afford the cost of having a job or running a business.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Hmmm... okay, give me the third option. If I have excluded the middle then I apologize.

BTW: I would ask you to do the same and consider what I'm saying and also what Rand has said. It works both ways.

I have no problem with addressing what you say, without trying to read into or distort your words. Rand is a dead third party, we can use her writings if you wish, but I doubt that we can easily fit them into the issues that seem to be at the heart of this discussion.

[IchabodPlain]

Originally Posted by Trakar

((no problem at all!))

In general, I agree with your assessment. I disagree about the injustice done to her, because, of my understanding of taxation and it being a tithe on earnings to pay for the benefits that enabled the earnings in the first place, rather than as a "lock-box" savings account she was forced to pay into and then gave her the ability to rationalize taking benefits as already paid for.

I don't mean to imply that I agree with her, just trying to see it from her (or any Objectivist's) point of view; or more commonly: Playing Devil's Advocate. She viewed compulsory taxation as an injustice, but had no realistic options to avoid it. Maybe she she saw the benefits as compensation, albeit not satisfactory for the harm inflicted. Maybe she needed the money. From a rational, self-interested perspective, she's foolish to not accept the money she's entitled to - just as she's foolish to go to jail for refusal to pay tax, or what she believes amounts to robbery.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by IchabodPlain

I dont' mean to imply that I agree with her, just trying to see it from her (or any Objectivist's) point of view; or more commonly: Playing Devil's Advocate. She viewed it as an injustice, but had no realistic options to avoid it. Maybe she she saw it as compensation, albeit not satisfactory for the harm inflicted. Maybe she needed the money. From a rational, self-interested perspective, she's foolish to not accept she's entitled to, just as she's foolish to go to jail for refusal to pay tax, or what she believes amounts to robbery.

Oh, I've no problem with pragmatism over principle, I'm sure most, if not all, have walked that path at least a time or two. That said, it is hypocritical to sacrifice one's principles upon the alter of convenience/comfort (unless one's principals are oriented around always maintaining a high-level of comfort/convenience --- which one might be able to interpret out of Rand's "philosophy"

from Galt’s speech: “Happiness is a state of non-contradictory
joy—a joy without penalty or guilt, a joy that does not clash with any of
your values and does not work for your own destruction. ... Happiness is
possible only to a rational man, the man who desires nothing but rational
goals, seeks nothing but rational values and finds his joy in nothing but
rational actions.”

[Darat]

If you want to understand the person behind the professed philosophy/ideology of objectivists I can understand being interested in seeing how close she herself lived to what she preached. But whether she was the world's worst or best objectivist it wouldn't alter whether her ideology is good or bad. You have to criticise that on its own merits, harping on about what she (as a person) did or didn't do in regards to her ideology is a classic example of an ad hominem if you use it to argue against or for her ideology.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Trakar

Rand called taxes "evil," she wasn't just against one program, she considered taxation to be robbery.....

No, that is incorrect. She recognized certain valid functions of government, for which funding was necessary.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

The inconsistency is readily apparent. A person who is opposed to Medicare or Social Security on principle is being inconsistent in accepting either.

Maybe she just opposed Medicare and Social Security for others.

There. No hypocrisy.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Darat

If you want to understand the person behind the professed philosophy/ideology of objectivists I can understand being interested in seeing how close she herself lived to what she preached. But whether she was the world's worst or best objectivist it wouldn't alter whether her ideology is good or bad. You have to criticise that on its own merits, harping on about what she (as a person) did or didn't do in regards to her ideology is a classic example of an ad hominem if you use it to argue against or for her ideology.

Now what is your problem? Stereotyping and creating demogagues is time tested, well established principle of propaganda. Please get with the program here and being honing your skills at taking tiny bits of the truth, turning them into big lies, and then repeating those lies with variations.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Begs the question. Your premise explicitly assumes your conclusion.

Her money. So if someone stole your money and offered to give it back you would refuse it on the grounds that stealing is immoral?

She could have but that would be irrational. It's rational to want back what someone took from you. Taking money back from the thief doesn't validate stealing.

She is not stealing her money back but money they stole from others. Receiving stolen goods as it were.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by respect

Who was she stealing from? Expecting receipt of a forced purchase is not stealing. That she would have preferred to not have to make the purchase at all does not make receiving what she paid for hypocritical, given that she had to buy it.

These are not investment plans you know. She paid for others and considers that wrong. But when others paid for her it was ok.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by RandFan

So, the world is black and white with no moral dilemma or practical realities that result in conflict?

Ah I see you are beginning to understand her world view.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I have a dystopic preference.

She was forced into the contract and her property was taken from her..

So she had to them take property from others it is the only moral act. You steal from me, I steal from your kids, they steal from someone else and so on. That is the moral social contract you are proposing.

[Eddie Dane]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

She didn't criticise the society her characters created in Galt's Gulch, though. And Galt himself certainly embodied everything she idealized in Objectivism - his famous filibuster of a speech about Objectivism in the book is literally Rand putting her own words in Galt's mouth.

In fact, Galt's actions in withdrawing from an Evil Socialist Society and going and starting his own society, with blackjack, and hookers, sparked a whole recent movement (albeit one that's all talk and no action) among conservatives about "Going Galt".

Wait, that book actually stops being boring after 500 pages?
Shame I stopped reading after 70, then.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Darat

If you want to understand the person behind the professed philosophy/ideology of objectivists I can understand being interested in seeing how close she herself lived to what she preached. But whether she was the world's worst or best objectivist it wouldn't alter whether her ideology is good or bad. You have to criticise that on its own merits, harping on about what she (as a person) did or didn't do in regards to her ideology is a classic example of an ad hominem if you use it to argue against or for her ideology.

Not exactly. If she couldn't live by her own ideals it speaks to the practicality of them.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Darat

If you want to understand the person behind the professed philosophy/ideology of objectivists I can understand being interested in seeing how close she herself lived to what she preached. But whether she was the world's worst or best objectivist it wouldn't alter whether her ideology is good or bad. You have to criticise that on its own merits, harping on about what she (as a person) did or didn't do in regards to her ideology is a classic example of an ad hominem if you use it to argue against or for her ideology.

As far as I can tell, this thread isn't about her philosophy, it is merely about her personal actions. I have not once, over the last several pages, made the argument that her philosophy should be rejected because she was a hypocrite. I have argued that she, personally, acted hypocritically in taking personal advantage of a system that she publically argued was funded through evil and criminal processes and should be abolished. To make it perfectly clear, I don't feel her ideas should be rejected because she was a hypocrite, I feel that her ideas should be rejected because they are based upon a distorted sense of privilege and entitlement, and ultimately dysfunctional. The topic however, is over whether or not her actions were hypocritical, there had to be some discussion of the espoused beliefs in order to categorize whether or not her actions were contradictory to her words.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Quote:

Rand called taxes "evil," she wasn't just against one program, she considered taxation to be robbery

No, that is incorrect. She recognized certain valid functions of government, for which funding was necessary.

Quite possible, this doesn't negate or contradict my statement. However, she does equate, unequivocally, taxes with force and regards being forced to pay taxes of any kind, for any reason, to be an abhorrent and criminal endeavor, at least to my readings of her words. If you have any referrences where she makes exceptions for taxes to fund government services that she actually approves of I'd be most interested in reading those references.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Not exactly. If she couldn't live by her own ideals it speaks to the practicality of them.

Not really, that argument is still pretty much using an ad hominem to attack the ideology rather than the individual. You can use her hypocrisy to attack her personally but to take it from the realms of being an ad hominem you would need to show that the ideology itself leads to hypocrisy. Personally I think you can show that it has to lead to such hypocrisy or a better way of expressing it since it is an ideology we are discussing, that one can show the ideology is logically inconsistent (which is done simply by pointing out - as mhaze does above - that it is not against "force" being used by government despite it claiming that such "force" is wrong).

[Eddie Dane]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

How about being a sociopathic hypocrite who idolized a guy who butchered a little girl in front of her desperate father?

???

What is this about?

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Darat

Personally I think you can show that it has to lead to such hypocrisy or a better way of expressing it since it is an ideology we are discussing, that one can show the ideology is logically inconsistent (which is done simply by pointing out - as mhaze does above - that it is not against "force" being used by government despite it claiming that such "force" is wrong).

I see MHaze asserting that she held that there were some functions of government that were desirous, but I haven't found any statement of hers where she doesn't claim that taxes are an illegitimate form of forcing people to do something they don't freely choose to do. Given this I would like to see any reference to government functions she approves of and how she proposes funding those government actions,...but while that might constitute a seperate case of hypocrisy, it seems ancilliary to whether or not her application for and acceptance of social security and medicare were hypocritical to her espoused beliefs that such systems were the result of, and themselves, "evil" and criminal behavior.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane

???

What is this about?

Been discussed here a few times before - this will link you to one of the better threads that discussed it a little while back: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...49#post6487949

Please note this post should not be considered an altruistic act, that would be irrational!

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Trakar

I see MHaze asserting that she held that there were some functions of government that were desirous, but I haven't found any statement of hers where she doesn't claim that taxes are an illegitimate form of forcing people to do something they don't freely choose to do. Given this I would like to see any reference to government functions she approves of and how she proposes funding those government actions,...but while that might constitute a seperate case of hypocrisy, it seems ancilliary to whether or not her application for and acceptance of social security and medicare were hypocritical to her espoused beliefs that such systems were the result of, and themselves, "evil" and criminal behavior.

From the Wikipedia article (and it is referenced):

Quote:

...snip....

Objectivism views the state as both legitimate and critically important[74] in order to protect individual rights.[75] Rand opposed anarchism because she saw putting police and courts on the market as an inherent miscarriage of justice. Objectivism holds that the proper functions of a government are "the police, to protect men from criminals—the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders—the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objectively defined laws," the executive, and legislatures.[76] Furthermore, in protecting individual rights, the government is acting as an agent of its citizens and "has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens"[77] and it must act in an impartial manner according to specific, objectively defined laws.[78] Objectivists Leonard Peikoff and Yaron Brook have since expressed support for other government functions.[79][80]


...snip...

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Darat

From the Wikipedia article (and it is referenced):

Sounds like an unfunded mandate. Is there a reference to how they prefer to fund these government functions?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Trakar

Sounds like an unfunded mandate. Is there a reference to how they prefer to fund these government functions?

That's one of the points at which objectivism reveals itself to be more a religion than anything else. Apparently if we were all rational i.e. objectivists (because that would be the result of us being rational) we would all fund the government we needed by voluntary contributions so no force would be required.

Rand herself would often handwave problems of how to get to that point by saying all we had to do was agree with the principles. If I recall correctly the clearest she was ever on this issue is in "The Virtue of Selfishness", don't know if the text of that is available online.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Darat

That's one of the points at which objectivism reveals itself to be more a religion than anything else. Apparently if we were all rational i.e. objectivists (because that would be the result of us being rational) we would all fund the government we needed by voluntary contributions so no force would be required.

Rand herself would often handwave problems of how to get to that point by saying all we had to do was agree with the principles. If I recall correctly the clearest she was ever on this issue is in "The Virtue of Selfishness", don't know if the text of that is available online.

That is actually the reference I have been using as my primary source of infromation regarding her beliefs and statements.

There is an online copy at:
http://tfasinternational.org/ila/Ayn...elfishness.pdf

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane

???

What is this about?

Read and be disgusted.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Trakar

That is actually the reference I have been using as my primary source of infromation regarding her beliefs and statements.

There is an online copy at:
http://tfasinternational.org/ila/Ayn...elfishness.pdf

It's certainly an interesting and purposefully controversial refutation of the morality of altruism. I would think if someone read all the way through it, and understood the arguments, he'd have a fair understanding of Rand's thinking on these subjects. I prefer the Lexicon, because it provides her view on key ideas and concepts really fast. That's why I use it here as a reference.

Originally Posted by Darat

That's one of the points at which objectivism reveals itself to be more a religion than anything else. Apparently if we were all rational i.e. objectivists (because that would be the result of us being rational) we would all fund the government we needed by voluntary contributions so no force would be required.

Rand herself would often handwave problems of how to get to that point by saying all we had to do was agree with the principles. If I recall correctly the clearest she was ever on this issue is in "The Virtue of Selfishness", don't know if the text of that is available online.

Correct, re voluntary payment of taxes in a perfect society.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/taxation.html

But this can mean many things in practice. For example, I choose to live in a town in Texas, where what my taxes pay is considerably different than if I chose to live in Boston or San Francisco. Again, if I went to a rural area, city and hospital district taxes would drop out, and that's yet another choice.

Finally, I think we can all (for persons from every country) note that for $1 of tax payment, there is something there that we disagree with the spending on. Whether it comprises 1% or 75% of the $1. Thus if Rand is a hypocrite by way of this OP's argument (demonstrably false argument both in premises and logic) then we all are.

Incidentally, with the Internet and at least the theoretical capability of it to handle micropayments, some larger part of Rand's concepts such as this issue of voluntary taxation may be moving into the realm of possibility.

[BenBurch]

I wish I still had access to all of the bound volumes of The Objectivist Review.

I recall her saying some things about accepting social security and medicare in there, but I don't want to make an ass of myself by misrepresenting what she said - last read these 35 years ago.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

I wish I still had access to all of the bound volumes of The Objectivist Review.

I recall her saying some things about accepting social security and medicare in there, but I don't want to make an ass of myself by misrepresenting what she said - last read these 35 years ago.

Actually, I think the magazine was just "The Objectivist" - must be confusing it with another title.

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by Darat

That's one of the points at which objectivism reveals itself to be more a religion than anything else. Apparently if we were all rational i.e. objectivists (because that would be the result of us being rational) we would all fund the government we needed by voluntary contributions so no force would be required.

Rand herself would often handwave problems of how to get to that point by saying all we had to do was agree with the principles. If I recall correctly the clearest she was ever on this issue is in "The Virtue of Selfishness", don't know if the text of that is available online.

The argument I have seen for a minimal "nightwatchman" state is in Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia (my review here), where the author accepts that it is coercive to some free souls who would prefer to uphold their rights independently and who would not voluntarily fund it. But the argument is that the inefficient, hazardous and messy nature of such independent rights protection constitutes harm (expense) to others, for which they owe compensation, and so a minimal state funded by compulsion is therefore ethically consistent with strong-form libertarianism.

I don't know how that compares to objectivism.

As I note (see link), it seems to veer rather into utilitarianism (equality of marginal change in utility for all) rather than libertarianism (equality of rights and freedoms for all and the proscription of harm/force)

[BenBurch]

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/149...e_needed_them/

Quote:

Evva Joan Pryor, who had been a social worker in New York in the 1970s, was interviewed in 1998 by Scott McConnell, who was then the director of communications for the Ayn Rand Institute. In his book, 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand, McConnell basically portrays Rand as first standing on principle, but then being mugged by reality. Stephens points to this exchange between McConnell and Pryor.

“She was coming to a point in her life where she was going to receive the very thing she didn’t like, which was Medicare and Social Security,” Pryor told McConnell. “I remember telling her that this was going to be difficult. For me to do my job she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory. So that started our political discussions. From there on – with gusto – we argued all the time.

The initial argument was on greed,” Pryor continued. “She had to see that there was such a thing as greed in this world. Doctors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn’t watch it. Since she had worked her entire life, and had paid into Social Security, she had a right to it. She didn’t feel that an individual should take help.”

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by Darat

You have to criticise that on its own merits, harping on about what she (as a person) did or didn't do in regards to her ideology is a classic example of an ad hominem if you use it to argue against or for her ideology.

That's a pretty big if, though. Certainly, not everyone here thinks that Rand's ideology lives or dies by whether or not she actually held the values she claimed to.

We have people saying that Rand acted wrongly according to the ideas she set out about morality, and people denying that she did. That has no direct consequence for her the truth of her ideology, particularly if you don't think normative claims are truth-apt.

Among the problems with Rand's pseudophilosophy, however, is that it's extremely demanding--property rights may not ever be violated. She thereby inherits a raft of known problems--how does she deal with initial acquisition, for example? Better philosophers than Rand have grappled with the issue, but she seems to be unaware that it's even an issue at all.

And Rand's inability to live according to the ideas she laid out serves as a useful illustration in that regard. In the real world, people have a very hard time holding to these values, which limits their usefulness.

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

Among the problems with Rand's pseudophilosophy, however, is that it's extremely demanding--property rights may not ever be violated. She thereby inherits a raft of known problems--how does she deal with initial acquisition, for example? Better philosophers than Rand have grappled with the issue, but she seems to be unaware that it's even an issue at all.

"Justice in acquisition" was John Locke's theory, which never dealt with running out of stuff. Later libertarians added a proviso that it is OK to take from the providence of nature so long as you leave some for others. But that fails because it not only means you can't appropriate the last piece of gold (because there would be none left); you also can't appropriate the second last (since the last piece is off limits so second last effectively leaves none available). Then by extension, you can't actually even take the first piece of gold either, and all property acquisition is rendered as the denial of others to acquire property.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Actually, I think the magazine was just "The Objectivist" - must be confusing it with another title.

I have one of those, it's a blue bound thing about 3" IIRC. Don't know where it is offhand...

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by mhaze

I have one of those, it's a blue bound thing about 3" IIRC. Don't know where it is offhand...

Yeah, it was reprinted at some point.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

That's a pretty big if, though. Certainly, not everyone here thinks that Rand's ideology lives or dies by whether or not she actually held the values she claimed to.

We have people saying that Rand acted wrongly according to the ideas she set out about morality, and people denying that she did. That has no direct consequence for her the truth of her ideology, particularly if you don't think normative claims are truth-apt.

Among the problems with Rand's pseudophilosophy, however, is that it's extremely demanding--property rights may not ever be violated. She thereby inherits a raft of known problems--how does she deal with initial acquisition, for example? Better philosophers than Rand have grappled with the issue, but she seems to be unaware that it's even an issue at all.

And Rand's inability to live according to the ideas she laid out serves as a useful illustration in that regard. In the real world, people have a very hard time holding to these values, which limits their usefulness.

Of course you've accepted the premise, and the logic, and the conclusion of the OP without question and in doing so, ignored actual facts - evidence presented - that these were false, so your further comments have no merit.

But I've thought of an entertaining analogy.

POTUS Kennedy entertained Marilyn Monroe in the closet at the White House, so his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis was no good.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by Francesca R

"Justice in acquisition" was John Locke's theory, which never dealt with running out of stuff. Later libertarians added a proviso that it is OK to take from the providence of nature so long as you leave some for others.

That's Locke's proviso--"enough and as good left in common for others."

Quote:

But that fails because it not only means you can't appropriate the last piece of gold (because there would be none left); you also can't appropriate the second last (since the last piece is off limits so second last effectively leaves none available). Then by extension, you can't actually even take the first piece of gold either, and all property acquisition is rendered as the denial of others to acquire property.

An elegant inductive argument. Proudhon is more or less correct here--property is theft. The Georgists probably have the most interesting take on it.

Most of the modern libertarian writers I read go directly for utilitarian justifications--enforceable property rights are good because things just work out better that way. That leaves plenty of room for taxation, of course--things work out even better that way.

[Eddie Dane]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Read and be disgusted.

Wow.

To quote Walter from the Big Lebowski:
'At least the Nazi's -you know- had an ethos'.

This is why people who like Rand act like jerks for two weeks after reading Atlas Shrugged: they are connecting to their inner psychopath.