Taking government money

[Hazmatac]

Is it wrong to take government healthcare, or any type of government money? Why I think it might be wrong is that you are consenting to the government from taking money from the producers if you do. Thoughts?

[Pokarrin]

Not if you have been forced into the position of having no affordable health care available except that which the government provides. You cannot be expected to sacrifice your life for a code of ethics intended to help you live successfully. To clarify, I don't mean forced in the sense that your employer doesn't pay you enough, I mean forced in the sense that the government has regulated any rational means of providing healthcare out of existence. If the government has made itself the only provider of food, or made private food production prohibitively expensive, the moral choice is not to starve (though you will anyway if the government is in charge). You are not responsible for the government's decision to steal from the productive, and have little power to stop it.

[Jake_Ellison]

It's not wrong, but unlike private healthcare, you shouldn't count on it being as advertised.

[Zip]

You are paying for it, why not use it when you have to pay for it?

[DavidOdden]

From a moral perspective, narrowly focusing on "taking money" meaning directly receiving cash payments would miss the point. You ought to be asking something more general like "should one avoid any and all government benefits?". The underlying reasoning that would even suggest "never take government money" would in fact lead to a much broader conclusion. Now try to live (in a civilized society) and yet shun all government benefits, such as roads, water, electricity, products which have been inspected for suitability by a government agency, medicines developed with government research support, etc. Life would be impossible. A moral code which forces you to choose death over life has a flaw.

I think the correct question to ask is whether the choice you are considering is a gain or loss of value, from an integrated, long-term perspective. Receiving a tax-funded scholarship so that you can complete your education would most likely be a gain in value. Receiving state welfare support when you have the opportunity to work for a living would be the destruction of value.

[Greebo]

If "they" are going to force me to pay for them, then when "they" determine that I'm "entitled" to some of my own sweat back, I'm going to take it back.

[John McVey]

If "they" are going to force me to pay for them, then when "they" determine that I'm "entitled" to some of my own sweat back, I'm going to take it back.

Dr Peikoff said exactly the same thing, once, too. I don't recall where - one of his taped lectures, IIRC (ie well before the podcast series).

There is also the argument in The Question of Scholarships, in The Voice of Reason. That also goes into more detail, and is similar to what both Professor Odden and Dr Peikoff describe. There are a number of threads in the forum on related issues, all regarding some variant of taking government money, and they all end up coming back to that essay and arguments drawn from it.

JJM

[Old Toad]

Ayn Rand explained:

...

The issue is primarily ideological, not financial. Minimizing the financial injury inflicted on you by the welfare-state laws, does not constitute support of welfare statism (since the purpose of such laws is to injure you) and is not morally reprehensible. Initiating, advocating or expanding such laws, is.

In a free society, it is immoral to denounce or oppose that from which one derives benefits—since one's associations are voluntary. In a controlled or mixed economy, opposition becomes obligatory—since one is acting under force, and the offer of benefits is intended as a bribe.

So long as financial considerations do not alter or affect your convictions, so long as you fight against welfare statism (and only so long as you fight it) and are prepared to give up any of its momentary benefits in exchange for repeal and freedom—so long as you do not sell your soul (or your vote)—you are morally in the clear. The essence of the issue lies in your own mind and attitude.

It is a hard problem, and there are many situations so ambiguous and so complex that no one can determine what is the right course of action. That is one of the evils of welfare statism: its fundamental irrationality and immorality force men into contradictions where no course of action is right.

...

--Ayn Rand, The Objectivist—June 1966, The Question Of Scholarships (emphasis added).

As noted by John McVey, this is a recurring topic. It is a good question, and I am very glad that Ayn Rand helped us with thinking through the principles involved.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Old Toad

[Space Patroller]

You are paying for it, why not use it when you have to pay for it?

This matches what Ayn Rand said about collecting social security and that she "intended to get her money's worth out of it"

Find and read "The Question of Scholarships".

In terms of government money, she said that whatever you could get is a small fraction of the amount you could have made in a free-market system and is rightfully yours as recompense SO LONG AS you do not advocate the system by which this is done or seek to worsen it by advocationg more of it.

She operated, both implicitly and explicitly from the dictum "The agressor is responsible for the consequences of his actions". She also said "The only thing you can do with a criminal is try to crack his skull before he cracks yours"

Beyond that there are other consideration. Some persons are treated differentially BY LAW due to physical impediments. One such is "legally blind". If you think the being able to drive a car in the culture of the last 60 years makes no crucial difference, especially for young persons in the suburbs, try being an 18 year old, especially a boy, without independent transportation: i.e."wheels". Additionally, you automatically come under the pruview of State social service agencies that are great at throwing money into education and re-hab but suck on a galactic scale in the job acquisition phase, so it's not like you can opt out of the system anyway.

This condition is considered as a total disability. This affects hiring practices due to the governemnt-insurance connections.

One would think that such persons would be entitled to a full middle-class income, which had the welfare system not balooned to include the able-bodied parasitical or those made disabled by their onw choice, such as drug use, or thsoe who's condition was of their own making like pregnancy via a scumbag, would not amount to much in the way of welfare budgeting.

This is not to say that breaking through the systme cannot be done. You always here stories, but you find that the person either had connections, or put in heroic effort or got lucky.

Here's one story: In Rhode Island back in 1981, I heard on the radio that there was a company, may have even been Robert Half, that compiled a list of availible jobs in the New England/Middle Atlantic States. It cost $US300. I told the counsellor (really a kind of liason officer) at RI Division of Services for the Blind. and he said to me "Why don't you get it". I said "well this is $300 that I can't afford and this would be more in you guys' line of doing since you could use it for all the clients' job search". Care to guess where that went? Their job search methodology was so totally out of whack for persons with advanced education "get out there and pound the pavement". that it's a joke. I got a million of them.

[rem1100]

I would certainly accept it, even though I thouroughly disagree with the concept. In this case boycotting isn't going to sway the government.

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

In terms of government money, she said that whatever you could get is a small fraction of the amount you could have made in a free-market system and is rightfully yours as recompense SO LONG AS you do not advocate the system by which this is done or seek to worsen it by advocating more of it.

Indeed, and even more so when you're advocating against it.

[anonrobt]

This matches what Ayn Rand said about collecting social security and that she "intended to get her money's worth out of it"

And that is exactly what I am doing, while still can [because it is only going to get worse as time goes on]...