When Ayn Rand Collected Social Security and Medicare, After Years of Opposition(openculture.com)
openculture.com
When Ayn Rand Collected Social Security and Medicare, After Years of Opposition
http://www.openculture.com/2016/12/when-ayn-rand-collected-social-security-medicare.html
36 comments
>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.
Basically things that Ayn Rand hates are bad--except when Ayn Rand does them and then it's because the things are unreasonable, not Ayn Rand.
Basically things that Ayn Rand hates are bad--except when Ayn Rand does them and then it's because the things are unreasonable, not Ayn Rand.
Ayn Rand didn't use force to take anyone's money. That's what she hated. When those who took her money offered her a small portion back, her philosophy didn't require her to refuse it.
Like if she was in a forced labour concentration camp, her philosophy wouldn't require her to refuse to eat the food she was offered.
Like if she was in a forced labour concentration camp, her philosophy wouldn't require her to refuse to eat the food she was offered.
Rand was extremely influential to me, but you're absolutely right on this. I stopped calling myself an Objectivist long ago because I kept getting into arguments with others who took the label over things that Rand did that are blatantly against her first principles, but that Rand held a contradictory position.
In particular, Rand supported US foreign aid to Israel in her later years despite strongly denouncing the concept of foreign aid in its entirety prior.
In particular, Rand supported US foreign aid to Israel in her later years despite strongly denouncing the concept of foreign aid in its entirety prior.
It wasn't taken by force but instead by Rand's personal complicity and implicit consent by living within a society that has decided to enact the Social Security and Medicare programs and levy fees and taxes associated with those programs. And given that she received more than she put in, there was no principle for her to stand behind.
If that's the case, then I hope you will be just as eager to take personal responsibility for the US's war crimes, if the day of reckoning ever comes. But I have a feeling you will instead try to focus on your personal efforts to end US wars, rather than get sucked into the implication that being a US citizen made you a de facto supporter of the war crimes.
I would be the first person you might ask to admit my complicity in war crimes perpetrated by my government. I am involved in anti-war and pro-human movements but I readily admit that my quality of life is built on the backs of many innocent lives and deaths.
So, you're just as much of a hypocrite as Rand? She also dedicated her life to ending behaviors she hated in the US government, but was nevertheless subjected to the consequences of her failure to stop them.
No, I am what you would call honest and imperfect, whereas Rand is dishonest and imperfect.
No, you're not. You live in the US. You pay taxes. Those taxes pay to kill/torture/subjugate people around the world. If you don't leave the country, giving up an entire life that you made for yourself with friends and family here, then you are the exact same type of hypocrite. You say you hate the wars. You even take some actions to try to stop them, but in the end, you pay for them and/or work for the entity that is perpetuating them.
(note: I obviously believe neither of you are hypocrites. I'm just trying to make a point.)
(note: I obviously believe neither of you are hypocrites. I'm just trying to make a point.)
You may have won an Internet Argument(TM) (or they gave up). The glory!
She was against it. She specifically did NOT give the government her consent. But she was forced to pay it anyway under threat of jail.
If you threaten to kidnap people and put them in a cage, you can't go around saying you have their "consent" when they give in to your threats.
If you threaten to kidnap people and put them in a cage, you can't go around saying you have their "consent" when they give in to your threats.
By your logic, any slave in the Old South who didn't try to escape the plantation "consented"to whatever was done to them.
You don't think government taxes by force? What about all the people imprisoned for not paying their taxes?
She became a wealthy woman from her successful books, so she paid far more in than she ever took out. Her estate was valued at about a million dollars when she died in 1982. Her total receipts from social security $14,000.
She became a wealthy woman from her successful books, so she paid far more in than she ever took out. Her estate was valued at about a million dollars when she died in 1982. Her total receipts from social security $14,000.
>given that she received more than she put in
Do you by any chance have the numbers ?
Do you by any chance have the numbers ?
Do you have numbers that prove me otherwise?
Of course I am repeating a common talking point of the critics of Social Security. I am ok with her having received more than she contributed, monetarily.
Of course I am repeating a common talking point of the critics of Social Security. I am ok with her having received more than she contributed, monetarily.
>Do you have numbers that prove me otherwise?
burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
> I am ok with her having received more than she contributed, monetarily.
Its not relevant what your personal opinion on the matter is. You made a specific claim, ask is for you to back it up.
burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
> I am ok with her having received more than she contributed, monetarily.
Its not relevant what your personal opinion on the matter is. You made a specific claim, ask is for you to back it up.
You pay for social security and medicare your entire working life with a separate direct tax. It is not an entitlement or a handout, it is quite similar to a pension.
It's supposed to be. But due to demographic shifts and dishonest officials the program now requires ample supply of young workers in order to be able to pay out the benefits to older workers. Inevitably, benefits get cut.
If trends continue, the program will eventually turn into pure welfare.
If trends continue, the program will eventually turn into pure welfare.
Most of the supposed difficulties with social security and medicare are entirely manufactured by politicians to push some specific agenda for an industry who would benefit directly from particular changes, if not privatization.
FICA is essentially just an automated savings program, it's not particularly complex.
FICA is essentially just an automated savings program, it's not particularly complex.
If someone threatens to put you in a cage if you don't give them your money, are you a hypocrite for getting your money back from them that they took from you, at a later date?
That's akin to Nozick's argument, not Rand's.
If Rand wanted to prove a point, she should have sued for her money instead of collecting it in a tidy monthly check. The former would be completely frivolous, but also necessarily consistent with her ideology. As it was, collecting social security and then confabulating the reasons reeks of intellectual bankruptcy.
If Rand wanted to prove a point, she should have sued for her money instead of collecting it in a tidy monthly check. The former would be completely frivolous, but also necessarily consistent with her ideology. As it was, collecting social security and then confabulating the reasons reeks of intellectual bankruptcy.
No, Rand wants everything to be determined by lawsuits. But if the law/governmemt is corrupt, there is no reason to just sit there and take it while you are being abused.
This is a fully consistent argument.
It is morally OK to steal money from thieves who took your money.
This is a fully consistent argument.
It is morally OK to steal money from thieves who took your money.
Her reasons were given a long time before she ever received social security (1974). Rand's moral system did not require her to file lawsuits that had no chance of success.
"If all men were angels, no government would be necessary." -James Madison
Since Tragedy of the Commons and the reality of human nature, libertarianism is a dog-whistle for utopian anarchism ("rugged individualism"), a nearly polar-opposite over-reaction to another failed utopian system: communism. The proven (still flawed, and often recalibrating) workable middle-ground, balancing competing tyrannies is something approaching democratic socialism... America though is currently much more on the libertarian side for poor people and welfare state for the rich due to the undue, corrupting influences of billionaires' lobbyists and their money (tax code, corporate welfare, etc.) In countries like the UK, France and other parts of Europe there is guaranteed healthcare... In America, if you are dying in an ER and broke without Obamacare, you will likely be forced into bankruptcy from hospital bills.
Since Tragedy of the Commons and the reality of human nature, libertarianism is a dog-whistle for utopian anarchism ("rugged individualism"), a nearly polar-opposite over-reaction to another failed utopian system: communism. The proven (still flawed, and often recalibrating) workable middle-ground, balancing competing tyrannies is something approaching democratic socialism... America though is currently much more on the libertarian side for poor people and welfare state for the rich due to the undue, corrupting influences of billionaires' lobbyists and their money (tax code, corporate welfare, etc.) In countries like the UK, France and other parts of Europe there is guaranteed healthcare... In America, if you are dying in an ER and broke without Obamacare, you will likely be forced into bankruptcy from hospital bills.
The real question is, if her welfare expenses equaled or exceeded what she had "stolen" would she have stopped taking it back and been happy to die?
This argument, which I see come up every few years, is disingenuous and misleading propaganda at best. I don't even like Ayn Rand, but to have her name smeared by anti-intellectual shit like this so much worse than the overly-simplified libertarian utopias she tried to convince us could exist.
Edit: apparently I need to have a supporting argument for why this is "anti-intellectual shit" or else I face a ban or something. The reason: Ayn fought to change the US into something that fit her vision of a properly organized society. She failed to make that change, and the US continued to be organized in a manner that she very much disagreed with. The fact that she participated in the legal framework that she was subjected to doesn't make her a hypocrite, nor does it imply that she changed her opinion of welfare states at the end of her life. The fact that the author of this article comes to this conclusion, or the fact that he even thinks its noteworthy to rub in her face her failures to insight the changes wished for, is anti-intellectual shit.
Edit: apparently I need to have a supporting argument for why this is "anti-intellectual shit" or else I face a ban or something. The reason: Ayn fought to change the US into something that fit her vision of a properly organized society. She failed to make that change, and the US continued to be organized in a manner that she very much disagreed with. The fact that she participated in the legal framework that she was subjected to doesn't make her a hypocrite, nor does it imply that she changed her opinion of welfare states at the end of her life. The fact that the author of this article comes to this conclusion, or the fact that he even thinks its noteworthy to rub in her face her failures to insight the changes wished for, is anti-intellectual shit.
> disingenuous and misleading propaganda [...] anti-intellectual shit
This is the kind of thing the HN guidelines refer to as name-calling and ask you to edit out: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Indeed if you did edit it all out, this comment would arguably be reduced to nothing. Please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN.
This is the kind of thing the HN guidelines refer to as name-calling and ask you to edit out: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Indeed if you did edit it all out, this comment would arguably be reduced to nothing. Please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN.
citation needed.
Inspired by Rand's naive theories, greenspan and his ilk did indeed implement a policy of robbing those producers of wealth that did not also happen to be owners of politicians. That is a fact in my books. Interesting article thanks for the post.
Social security was supposed to be an investment program so the benefits were earned after years of contributions.
The problem is, demographics have changed and so it became a welfare program. To make matters worse, it became unsustainable without significant cuts, which makes the payroll tax not a required investment but a regressive penalty.
The problem is, demographics have changed and so it became a welfare program. To make matters worse, it became unsustainable without significant cuts, which makes the payroll tax not a required investment but a regressive penalty.
She answered this question regarding accepting public scholarships but the principle is the same. The money was taken from her by force so she had every right to recoup her losses.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government_grants_and_scho...