Ayn Rand

[HumbleTangerine]

Hey, in regards to the whole welfare thingy! In an article from 1966 Rand herself addressed this issue. You can read the whole thing here (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/govern...ships.html) but I'll quote the essential parts.

"Many students of Objectivism are troubled by a certain kind of moral dilemma confronting them in today’s society. We are frequently asked the questions: “Is it morally proper to accept scholarships, private or public?” and: “Is it morally proper for an advocate of capitalism to accept a government research grant or a government job? I shall hasten to answer: “Yes”—then proceed to explain and qualify it. There are many confusions on these issues, created by the influence and implications of the altruist morality.

The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims."

In other words, it's no longer relevant whether it's a myth that she used welfare in the last years of her life or not. The hypocrite argument is invalid, at least in this area.

[Virge]

Wooooo! Now I can smell the tight panties of some hard core ultra liberals getting real crusty over this, Tangerine.

So, tell me if I have this right. Was Ayn Rand was saying that people who advocate forcibly taking money from other people in order to pay for their altruistic plans through government should not be eligible for them???

If so, I see how it makes sense. That's very consistent with things she said in her definition of sex ------ and in a truly altruistic situation the people advocating taking money from others for altruistic purposes should themselves be altruistic enough not to benefit from the things they advocate.... and we all know that never happens... hence the hypocrisy of it!.

[LucasVonSeattle]

I would wholeheartedly disagree with the supposition that Ayn Rand had money stolen from her by paying into the system. Those systems were setup for the good of society and if she didn't like them, she had more than ample opportunity to move to another country. Instead of using her beliefs about how the government was stealing from her to promote herself and her writings, perhaps she could have done something, such as entering politics or working for change. But then, that would have removed the very thing that was making her famous. She was a cunning self-marketer, using the ill-feelings of a subset of society, a subset I would like to add that is in the minority and generally lacks empathy and compassion. But ultimately, she falls into line with the likes of L. Ron Hubbard and Stewart Traill, but less dangerous.

[meninlove]

Wooooo! Now I can smell the tight panties of some hard core ultra liberals getting real crusty over this, Tangerine.

So, tell me if I have this right. Was Ayn Rand was saying that people who advocate forcibly taking money from other people in order to pay for their altruistic plans through government should not be eligible for them???

If so, I see how it makes sense. That's very consistent with things she said in her definition of sex ------ and in a truly altruistic situation the people advocating taking money from others for altruistic purposes should themselves be altruistic enough not to benefit from the things they advocate.... and we all know that never happens... hence the hypocrisy of it!.

Well..someone, let's say a guy, who has spina bifida campaigning so that others with the same affliction are not marginalized like he was should in fact benefit from any positive changes he could engender.

Long ago, men with AIDS campaigned for gov't funded treatment for those who couldn't afford it, and some of those campaigning were themselves, poor.
*feels sad thinking about this*

[HumbleTangerine]

I would wholeheartedly disagree with the supposition that Ayn Rand had money stolen from her by paying into the system. Those systems were setup for the good of society and if she didn't like them, she had more than ample opportunity to move to another country. Instead of using her beliefs about how the government was stealing from her to promote herself and her writings, perhaps she could have done something, such as entering politics or working for change. But then, that would have removed the very thing that was making her famous. She was a cunning self-marketer, using the ill-feelings of a subset of society, a subset I would like to add that is in the minority and generally lacks empathy and compassion. But ultimately, she falls into line with the likes of L. Ron Hubbard and Stewart Traill, but less dangerous.

If you live in a country where money is taken from you against your will every month, does it stop being theft just because the money goes to good things and you could move to a tax paradise?

I don't understand how anyone can deny that taxation is theft. The government demands you pay a percentage of your income and if you refuse you will be punished. Most people, myself included, don't mind contributing to welfare systems, health-care, education etc. but those who do not consent to it ARE in fact being stolen from. Something that is taken non-consensually by threat of force is obviously theft.

[Aike]

I just wanted to point out that in Rand's philosophy the government's only job is to maintain security and make sure people don't use force against one another.

I also see your point about collectivism vs. individualism and, as I've said many times in this thread, I do advocate a welfare state. You make a fair point in saying that social institutions can enable your right to exercise your freedom, but generally I still stand firm in my opinion that collective well-being usually comes at the expense of the individual. Like we've already discussed, taxation is a prime example.

Other examples include restrictive drug policies, governmental monopolies, legislation to make sure the parental leave of parents is shared evenly etc. These are all policies that exist for the purpose of protecting the collective. Restrictive drug policies as a precaution to stop drug abuse, governmental monopolies either to limit the availability of potentially harmful products or due to a mistrust of private operators and parental leave legislation to promote gender equality. All of these legislations basically say the same thing: because individuals can't be trusted to handle their own lifes responsibly, the government will make sure the "wrong" decisions are unavailable. This works well for the collective but is terribly restrictive to responsible individuals who dream of freedom and independence. They generally have two options. Either accept that collectivism is good for the irresponsible masses that can't make responsible decisions for themselves or oppose the system as being unjust. To me, none of these sides lack legitimacy.

The government is essentially very involved in the way you live, work, handle your family, run your business etc. for better or for worse. I believe in a welfare state, and I believe in reasonable levels of governmental supervision but how can you say that collectivism doesn't go against the individual? Or, maybe, my point is rather that collectivism goes against the individualist.

EDIT: I thought of a more outrageous example. There are political parties in Sweden that want to remove both children's and parents' right to choose which school to attend. Studies show that the freedom to choose school is causing segregation, so parties to the far-left inevitably see the opportunity for less freedom of choice and more governmental control for the good of the collective! They advocate a society where the government places every child in the closest school to his/her home. They'll have no say in the matter unless there are "special needs", presumably that children who need resources not available at all schools get the opportunity of choice. In my case I would have ended up at a quite rowdy school with low overall results, unmotivated students and several outbursts of homophobia.

Sorry for late response. I was at Pride yesterday and just sort of partied all day

My ideal solution for cases like drug policy would be to have the community to decide in a democratic fashion on the limits as to which drugs should be permitted and how the allowed ones should be regulated. Of course, this is just an ideal, and in practice this happens through the institution of representative democracy. Moreover, I do not think of drugs as a matter of individual choice. Our choices are always social. It would be frankly quite ridiculous to say to the families of alcoholics that the only person affected is the individual choosing to drink alcohol. The same goes for alcohol related crime and accidents. (I would not ban alcohol but I do favor government monopoly on it.) In Uneunsae's words: "It is impossible to live in a vacuum, to live only as you see fit and pretend to wash your hands of the effects your way of life has on others."

Taxation is a very poor example for me. One's income is not determined by one's own individual efforts but by one's status in the class hierarchy. Moreover, one's socio-economic status is not chosen by individuals, it is rather determined largely by one's family background (the "inherited" predisposed patterns of behavior etc.), government policies and, most of all, by the structural logic of capitalism, which accumulates wealth to the few at the expense of the majority of population. In other words, meritocracy is an illusion or, rather, . In this light taxation merely redistributes the money unfairly "earned" in the first place.

About schools and segregation. It's not a myth that enabling parents to choose causes or, rather, sustains and strengthens segregation. Moreover, this apparent freedom of choice is usually only granted to the wealthier upper and middle classes (who can afford tuitions and so on). I'm not sure how developed the system of private schools is in Sweden so I can't really say how restricted possibilities there exist for the lower classes to choose a school for their kids. However, in case of, for example, England the freedom of choice is basically denied to working-class families who simply don't have the resources to send their kids to the better (=expensive and bourgeois) schools. And I would like to point out that restricting parents' freedom of choice is merely an attempt to counter-act already prevailing segregation and, as such, does not really affect the root causes of segregation.

[Virge]

Aike of Stockholm Sweden said,
"One's income is not determined by one's own individual efforts but by one's status in the class hierarchy."

If this is true in Sweden the Aike should be seeking to escape to any of most nations where this is not true.... and Sweden should be brought up before the world courts for such a social class system that keeps people from being paid according to their skills and efforts rather than their class.

[Aike]

Aike of Stockholm Sweden said,
"One's income is not determined by one's own individual efforts but by one's status in the class hierarchy."

If this is true in Sweden the Aike should be seeking to escape to any of most nations where this is not true.... and Sweden should be brought up before the world courts for such a social class system that keeps people from being paid according to their skills and efforts rather than their class.

Nordic countries actually fair better in social mobility than countries where inequality prevails, as documented by Wilkinson & Pickett. By the way, USA is on the bottom of their chart. Truly the land of opportunity.

EDIT: Sorry, browser fail.

[Virge]

Originally Posted by memechose
Aike of Stockholm Sweden said,
"One's income is not determined by one's own individual efforts but by one's status in the class hierarchy."

memechose:
If this is true in Sweden the Aike should be seeking to escape to any of most nations where this is not true.... and Sweden should be brought up before the world courts for such a social class system that keeps people from being paid according to their skills and efforts rather than their class.

Aike:
Nordic countries actually fair better in social mobility than countries where inequality prevails, as documented by Wilkinson & Pickett. By the way, USA is on the bottom of their chart. Truly the land of opportunity.

memechose:
So where did you come up with the idea that one's income is not related to their individual efforts? You cut the feet off your own argument with this.

[Aike]

@memechose, of course individuals always have, to some extent, a possibility to affect their lives. I just don't think it extends all that far. And by the way, even if social mobility is relatively higher in Nordic countries, one's class background still has an effect on one's own or one's children's later socio-economic status.

Besides, things get more complicated when we focus not only on restrains external to the individual but also those internal to him/her. Even if we removed all the external obstacles from the way of individuals to achieve success, why is it that they're still predisposed to act in a way typical of, for example, their socio-economic family background? "The individual" is not some kind of an autonomous agent equipped with freedom of choice but rather the product of all sorts of factors influencing his or her mentality.