It's just interesting to note that one of the biggest reasons for why America can never have a reasoned debate on governmental policy happens to fall into the same hole that argues for government intervention. The famous attacker of "parasites" within the system became a "parasite" herself.
If only the invisible hand were unfettered, it would have healed her with nothing more than natural market forces. The socialists killed her with all those bank regulations.
I think this is an argument we see way too much of on this bbs. People want to expect individual action from someone (usually an ideological opponent) when they propose to take that action collectively. Ayn Rand would rather the social net not exist, but it did exist and she paid into it, so why not use it? Refusing to use it wouldn't stop whatever negative effect she thought it had.
Where did her book money go? Why was she reluctant to use it in the first place, before changing her mind, though? Assuming you are right about there not being a contradiction for a person to take advantage of the "social net" when because she has paid into it, the story still illustrates the folly of not having such "social net" at all. Sometimes, things like poor health or economic events happen even to successful people that have consequences that are more than what an individual can handle on his/her own. Having a "social net" saving people fro utter disaster is beneficial on both an individual and a collective level.
I don't know. People quote her extensively and they even made an institute in her name. Maybe Objectivists should rip a page off of L Ron Hubbard and leave his name and mug out of his uhhh visionary views.
Agreed. If she paid into the system and didn't use it, she's just throwing away money. I don't think that's a position she would advocate either.
From Reason: Unless it's revealed that Rand didn't pay income tax or Social Security "investments" during her working life, I'm not seeing the hypocrisy here. You don't have the legal right to opt out of income tax. You also can't avoid payi...ng into the Social Security pyramid unless you are a government worker (a piece of hypocrisy that is far more widespread and of much greater moment than the hijinx of an old lady three decades dead). Some commenters are making the case that Rand used her married name "Ann O'Connor" and thus must have been up to something sneaky, since she was using an assumed name. But wasn't "Ayn Rand" the assumed name? Presumably the O'Connor name was the one under which taxes and FICA were taken from her in the first place. It would be a scandal for more than libertarians if that were not the case, but details of Rand’s life are as opaque to outsiders as the circumstances of L. Ron Hubbard’s death. Stephens notes that the other two founding broads of libertarianism – Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson – went to considerable lengths to avoid taking charity from Uncle Sam. (It’s harder to turn down Social Security than you think.) I’d be happy if this dustup resulted in a boost for either of those two over Rand, whose unquestioning dittoheads I can never get along with: A while back I ran into some Ayn Rand Institute folks, and our conversation – no exaggeration – began with my saying Anthem was a pretty shady book and within three minutes had reached the inevitable conclusion that I would propagandize for the Nazis if the pay was right because my life has no meaning. They really are like that! But the Randicare brouhaha is completely opportunistic. This is all part of the game of holding libertarians to some standard you would never imagine imposing on a follower of mainstream politics. If a Democrat complains about a bad day at the DMV, nobody claims he deserves it because he wants the regulations that make the DMV inevitable. But let a libertarian send a letter through the U.S. Postal Service and he’s fricking Tartuffe. It's a goofy game, but you can see why it's so tempting to play, given that libertarians have such a stranglehold on foreign policy, drug prohibition, financial regulation, health care, and so many areas of public policy. <iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PBKgWVQgTeE?hd=1" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>
Ayn Rand managed to accrue a fortune by deriding a certain class of people as parasitical in nature, it is just hypocritical beyond belief that she would voluntarily choose to be part of this class, even though the resources she accrued from her previous actions allowed her the freedom to not be so. In fact, her acceptance of the system speaks to the reality of it-it is a crutch for those in hard times, not for `parasites`. She herself seems to have accepted that. Given this, why her ideological shadow still hangs over American politics is beyond me. I could pull out all these graphs and charts about how a strong social safety net allows for more integration in the world economy (by allowing a bulwark against the fluctuations of free trade) and etc. etc. but I think it speaks more that the very founder of anti-welfare state ideology chose to embrace it in her time of (it must be pointed out given her massive wealth) relative unease.
From the article: [rquoter]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.”[/rquoter] I would be curious to know more about consequence of this discussion as Ayn Rand very much knew that greed existed. In fact in Atlas Shrugged her idealized society is called "The Utopia of Greed." I don't know if she just figured that these doctors would not be so greedy or would give her a break on the fees.
Except in the original article it cites people who didn't take advantage of the social safety net. [rquoter]Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Pat” Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. Lane, with whom Rand corresponded for several years, once quit an editorial job in order to avoid paying Social Security taxes. The Cato Institute says Lane considered Social Security a “Ponzi fraud” and “told friends that it would be immoral of her to take part in a system that would predictably collapse so catastrophically.” Lane died in 1968.[/rquoter] Rand knew of and was in touch with people who disagreed with such things as social security and Medicare and didn't use them. In Randian terms those things would be considered immoral as they are state sanctioned redistributions of wealth. We can argue whether it was smart for Rand to take advantage of those programs but I think it is pretty clear she was a hypocrite particularly coming from someone who preached ideological fidelity as being essential the same morality.
The only thing ideology actually accomplishes is keeping things quiet so the wealthy/politically-powerful can continue dominating the country.
Are the "parasites" Rand railed against only those who take Social Security and Medicare benefits without paying the relevant taxes or do they include also those who paid the relevant taxes?
This isn't so much about whether you pay into it or not in Randian terms it is what Rand considers an immoral use of force to take one's labor. In Atlas Shrugged Rand's heroes aren't upset that they aren't getting compensated for their work, many of them turn down great wealth rather than work for a system that they see has taking away the ability of them to control the fruit of their own labor. In this sense a government mandated savings program is immoral even if it is well intentioned, that just makes it more evil, because it forces you to put your earnings into something that you were forced into. In Atlas Shrugged she makes the argument that it is better to drop out of society than be forced to contribute to it.
Well, I think it's because she was a blow-hard who painted herself into a rhetorical corner and if everyone knew she was collecting her benefits, they'd call her a hypocritical parasite. And, everyone is probably right. From everything I know about her, she seems to be the Fatty Fat b*stard of pop-philosophy. I don't want to be put on the hook for defending Ayn Rand, with whom I do not agree at all. I'm merely annoyed at the formula that seems to keep recurring (which, ironically, seems oddly Randian to me). "If you don't want the tax break, you can choose to pay extra." "If you don't want guaranteed emergency health care, you can refuse it." On things like this, individuals have zero measurable effect on outcomes; it's only in collective action that these policies have an effect.
This is just flat wrong. It is not hard at all to turn down SSA benefits. If you do not apply for them, you do not receive them.
Us liberals hold them to that standard, because they themselves are the ones who uphold that standard. Quoting you: Yes, we know they're like that. The Ayn Rand dittoheads aren't the exception, they are by far the vocal majority from the right both here in the BBS and in the media. There is no moderation from the right in the media. None. All proposals for increased regulation of banks are the actions of the encroaching nanny state. The public option was a proposed government takeover of healthcare. Any collection of tax and spending of it on.... anything is sending us on the slippery slope to communism/socialism/Marxism. There is absolutely zero discussion of a good government regulation from the right. It doesn't exist. The argument is black and white. There is good and evil, and if you think a government should actually exist and collect taxes then you're an evil commie. This, no exaggeration, is the quality of dialogue coming from the right in this country. There is absolutely zero acknowledgement of the fact that there are positives to socialism and negatives to capitalism. With this in mind, it is only fair to hold them to the lofty Utopian standards which they themselves claim to uphold.
I think we can call Rand a hypocrite because that, by her own definition, she was a parasite/looter, etc., for taking the benefits. Now, if someone's philosophy isn't the "militant" version of individualism that Rand had and wouldn't deem someone a parasite for taking benefits as long as you also paid the relevant taxes that funded the benefits, it's a different story. But then, it seems many Republicans, such as Paul Ryan, sees Rand as their hero, so I do wonder to whether they subscribe to her philosophy, and if they do hold the same philosophy as Rand, it would seem legitimate to question them for taking actions similar to Rand. Also, another question is whether the amount of contributions paid by these individuals into the system at equals what they got out of it. It seems that the answer is "no" for, for example, many of the old folks on social security and medicare, and that's why these systems are budget busting liabilities, especially in the mid to long term. If the tea partiers on the electric scooters carrying oxygen tanks know that the cost of their benefits outstrip their contribution, does it raise a moral consistency problem if they are calling recipients of other government benefits moochers?
Except that Rand herself argues for individual action over the collective. The point of Atlas Shrugged isn't that a mass movement stops the engine of the world it is that a handful of people change the world. You might not like the formula but in this case it is specifically justified given what Rand's arguments are and the nature with which she made those.
