Whether or not Rand lived up to her own ideals is completely irrelevant to their validity. This is not to say that the social security scandal (?) has any merit to it, but rather that it’s an utterly moot point. It’s only brought up in order to attack Rand’s ideas by proxy.
If one were to simply say: “who cares?” then suddenly her antagonists must face those dreaded intangibles if they wish to press the issue.
Harrison,
I tend to agree with you. Rand’s work and her convictions will be judged by her critic, and most severely by her worst critics. Unless someone is well-read in the complete context of Rand’s full body of work, and assuming the reader has relatively stable conceptual faculties, that someone could not make a credible comment on her life. The advocates of collectivism could take any number of “perceived contradictions” related to Rand, and make it into a condemnation of Objectivism.
It’s been my experience that most of the more recent curiosity-seekers exploring Rand and her ideas have been motivated by recent politics. Mainly, the media “conservatives” using her as an inspiration for their own validation; (I had her that Rush Limbaugh invoked her name; true or false?) Anyway, people are talking about her, and if aspersions are cast on her ideas by “the Left,” it doesn’t matter, because they hate any entity that condemns their precious entitlements. It does bother when I see “conservatives” using her concepts out of context without being able to fully understand and argue Rand’s views properly. It disseminates information that only muddles public perception. Those people foisting the placards on the top the OP, I have to wonder if they actually read Atlas Shrugged, or whether they merely talked to someone who had. Positive misrepresentation of Objectivism can be as destructive, or more so, than negative criticisms.
In any case, I think we can expect opposition and misinformation from collectivists for the foreseeable future, and on to infinity. It’s the guys who think they “got it” that worry me more.
I had her that Rush Limbaugh invoked her name; true or false?
Doubtful. I listen to his show and several years ago I heard someone ask him directly what he thought of Ayn Rand’s ideas. He replied cautiously that he was familiar with her work and thought that a few of her ideas were very good ones.
I would be rather surprised if he had gone on to invoke her name.
Positive misrepresentation of Objectivism can be as destructive, or more so, than negative criticisms.
I am not sure if I agree. I’m chewing on an idea at the moment and the questions which occur to me are “destructive to whom and by what method?”
Harrison,
I view Objectivism as an answer to those who seek a solution to not only their own personal contradictions and conundrums, but as an ideology possibly integrated into wider swaths of American life. On the rare occasion that I have encountered people who have heard of Ayn Rand, or have read some of her works, the message seems skewered. They might agree with the minimalist government, which she supports, but the “whole philosophy thing” is rejected, usually because it is viewed as “anti-Christian.” While I have never met anyone who has read as much of the works of Ayn Rand as I have, the few people who have a passing interest are usually those with strong Christian convictions. I suppose I’m exposing the fact that I’m not circulating in the best of company, but this has been my experience. As soon as the guy reading Atlas Shrugged learns that Rand was atheist, the remainder of the philosophical message is dismissed.
As far as my statement about destruction, let me try to put it into context. I’ve seen these placards espousing “I am John Galt,” and so on, carried by some folks identifying themselves as Tea Party members. While I might agree with some of what the Tea Party advocates, much of their rhetoric is confusing and conflicted. Associating “John Galt” or Ayn Rand with this quilt-work ideology is not doing much good for her legacy, and quite possibly doing it some damage by association.
As mentioned in the earlier post, “The Left” have a popular advantage when targeting Rand. Altruism is the central theme of American politics. The Tea Party people seem to claim altruism as their motivation every bit as much as the Occupy Wall Street guys. What do you suppose Rand would say to any of them if she had the chance?
The Tea Party people seem to claim altruism as their motivation every bit as much as the Occupy Wall Street guys. What do you suppose Rand would say to any of them if she had the chance?
I don’t believe she would have much to say to them, at all. If some people have crippled their own minds beyond repair then for what purpose should one deal with them, any more than is absolutely necessary?
It’s like that scene in the Fountainhead, where Dominique asks Roark what he thinks of Toohey, to which he laughs:
‘Why on Earth should anyone think of Ellsworth Toohey?’ (or something along such lines).
Ellsworth Toohey: There’s the building that should have been yours. There are buildings going up all over the city which are great chances refused and given to incompetent fools. You’re walking the streets while they’re doing the work that you love but cannot obtain. This city is closed to you. It is I who have done it! Don’t you want to know my motive?
Howard Roark: No!
Ellsworth Toohey: I’m fighting you and shall fight you in every way I can.
Howard Roark: You’re free to do what you please!
Ellsworth Toohey: Mr. Roark, we’re alone here. Why don’t you tell me what you think of me in any words you wish.
Howard Roark: But I don’t think of you!
[Roark walks away and Toohey’s head slumps down]
from the IMdb, so from the movie script, though I believe Rand had control of the screenplay and its editting
I don’t think it was necessarily wrong for Rand to accept the public benefits, but it seems intellectually dishonest to claim it was restitution if she accepted more than she paid in. That would be the pertinent question.
Actually it was likely entirely correct for her to accept the money… given that it was taken from her in the first place.
What would Rand have done with her own money if her right to choose what to do with it had not been violated, i.e. what could she have done instead of paying for the inefficient “services” and “redistribution” mandated by the government and taken in the form of income tax (not to mention all the other taxes…) .
Rand, was the victim of theft; this is not hyperbole; money was taken from her without her consent. It is hard to tell what amount she had to pay in but assuming her average income tax was 30% over the span of her career as script writer and author, imagine what funds she could have had; she could have saved it, invested it, or bought extended private medical insurance, she would have certainly been able to get the medical treatment with what she earned.
BUT FOR the government’s theft of her resources, she would not have needed assistance and more than likely, when the final tally was made, all the medical treatment she received would not have amounted to the value of what she would have had, had they not taken it from her…
..throw in alcohol tax, property tax, education tax (she had no children), tobacco tax, and on top of that all taxes used for programs she would not have supported had the “institutions/departments” been private organizations… you have a bonanza of value misappropriated from one who was farthest from sanctioning that misappropriation.
no matter how much medical treatment she supposedly received, the government got off easy if you ask me.
I understand that’s the argument; it’s just not very appealing to me.
People from Rand’s generation made out like BANDITS through Social Security and Medicare (the “Greatest Generation” was by far the greediest and most entitled in all American history), receiving out in public benefits many times in real terms what they paid in. They expanded government more than any other generation and essentially set up a Ponzi scheme to enrich themselves later in life, so saying these benefits are “restitution” doesn’t make logical sense. Restitution is supposed to make one whole, not bestow a massive and continuing windfall to the wronged individual - and if you understand how these programs work, by collecting they are at the same time wronging somebody else.
I think it’s an open question whether Rand got out more than she paid in (we’ll likely never know - she probably paid a lot in taxes, but she probably collected a lot in benefits too). But as I was saying, I don’t think “restitution” is the appropriate mode of thinking about the issue in the first place (e.g., if I pay payroll taxes for 5 years, then “hurt my back” and collect SSDI checks for the rest of my life, is that also restitution?).
I blame those who set up the perverse incentives to which individuals respond. “Hate the game” and all that.
I understand that’s the argument; it’s just not very appealing to me.
Would you be so kind as to clarify?
I thought I already explained, but in case I was unclear, I don’t buy the “restitution” argument justifying the acceptance of any and all public benefits because often the person is receiving more out of the system than he or she paid in. This was especially true in the case of Rand’s generation, which voted in socialists like FDR who set up Social Security and later Medicare - little more than Ponzi schemes to pay them out a huge annuity on the backs of future generations. Also, these benefits can’t be thought of as restitution since they are being taken directly from other people, not the government (e.g., there is no Social Security trust fund).
What is this, a little collective condemnation?
This was especially true in the case of Rand’s generation, which voted in socialists like FDR who set up Social Security and later Medicare - little more than Ponzi schemes to pay them out a huge annuity on the backs of future generations.
Check post #8, a contributor, named, phareign, sighted Ayn Rand’s justification. I think it highly unlikely that Rand would have voted for FDR, or any socialist.
I didn’t mean to claim Rand voted for FDR - just that she and her generation paid very little into Social Security and Medicare while the returns they received from these programs on the backs of future generations were astronomical. I don’t see how receiving benefits can be considered “restitution” if it is many times the amount of what was taken. Nor do I see how in the Objectivist framework two wrongs make a right by stealing from somebody else to pay said restitution.
I didn’t mean to claim Rand voted for FDR - just that she and her generation paid very little into Social Security and Medicare while the returns they received from these programs on the backs of future generations were astronomical. I don’t see how receiving benefits can be considered “restitution” if it is many times the amount of what was taken. Nor do I see how in the Objectivist framework two wrongs make a right by stealing from somebody else to pay said restitution.
Right or wrong doesn’t matter when the law is the law.
Right or wrong doesn’t matter when the law is the law.
Well, yes, that’s essentially my point. Instead of Rand’s rather lame rationalization: “I’m, uh… receiving restitution for what was taken from me… yeah, that’s the ticket…” we should call it what it is and lay the blame at those who further these social programs and incentivize individuals to take advantage of them.
Instead of Rand’s rather lame rationalization: “I’m, uh… receiving restitution for what was taken from me… yeah, that’s the ticket…”
Rand wrote an article about accepting scholarships which should give you a better idea of how articulate she was and to what extent (if any) she was rationalizing away this subject.
Also, here is an article which discusses in detail some fact surrounding Rand and her supposed but often cited Social Security income:
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2011/10/lying-about-ayn-rand-and-social.html
I know I will accept social security and medicaid when I retire (and yes, I expect it will be around, even if in reduced form).
Also, I advocate abolishing social-security, but not by throwing granny out of the system.
Restitution is supposed to make one whole, not bestow a massive and continuing windfall to the wronged individual - and if you understand how these programs work, by collecting they are at the same time wronging somebody else.
(e.g., if I pay payroll taxes for 5 years, then “hurt my back” and collect SSDI checks for the rest of my life, is that also restitution?).
Disability insurance is just that–insurance. If you pay in for one month and receive a lifetime of benefits, you are getting what you deserve. Yes, the current system is not set up like private insurance and hence introduces moral hazard into the equation. However, this example may not serve your purpose well. Medicare is not really insurance but a defined benefit plan. That is a better example.
Concerning restitution, the fraudulent way programs are constructed will someday, if we comply fully, undo themselves. Rand was consistent in complying fully to the fraudulent system of her day, as she recommended we do.
People on SSDI aren’t actually disabled. It’s a socially acceptable form of welfare for people who don’t want to do the difficult or low-paying jobs available to them.
http://thenewversailles.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/none-dare-call-it-welfare/
As I’ve said before, I wonder what the political landscape and election campaigns topics would like if taxes on incomes(wage earners) were not withheld by the employer, but remitted by the employee after receiving their ‘gross’ pay, the payroll tax collection scheme prior to WW2.