Rand-bashing article

The Critics of Objectivism
41

Robert, it seems to me you’re taking a cheap shot not only at Ayn Rand, but every person who lives long enough to collect on an entitlement program, regardless as to how it came into existence.

 

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.

Whether one chooses to call it “restitution” or “winning the lottery of life,” those who paid into the program over the course of their lives are legally, if not morally, entitled to it. To counter your point, those people were legally forced to pay into the program, whether they approved of it or not. In Rand’s case, she did not approve of it. Nonetheless, she was forced to make the sacrifice, when some other private insurance policy may have better suited her moral sensibility. You continue to condemn her, and others of her generation, in spite of the fact that not only did they have their choices limited by government policies, but in addition, many of them made sacrifices losing opportunities, fortunes, or both in the Great Depression, and many others risked their lives and limbs in the Second World War. Some never collected, because they died, (“losing the lottery of life”). While I’m not one for collective praise, (such as calling them “The Greatest Generation”) I recognize the difficulty of their plight, and the general ideology of their times, (being that of an American-form of socialism).

 

The Social Security Insurance program is abused, but not so much by the members of Rand’s generation. For those among them who out-live and consume more than their life’s contributions, I’m quite sure it was not so intentional as to accuse them of a scam or Ponzi Scheme, as you seem to see it. SSI is unsustainable in its present form, and I hope some day policy-makers find an option that is practical and moral. In its present form, it is neither. But we who earn our wages and salaries have only one other choice, and that is to violate federal laws. How far will that take you?

1 Like
42

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 gather you did not quite “get” the character “Ragnar Danneskjöld” of Atlas Shrugged… or at least you would disagree with him.

 

You use the word “steal”.  That is caused by a fundamental misunderstanding in the context of what “initiation” of force is.

 

Redistribution generally results from producers paying more into a system than what they get out (a lot more) and others getting a lot more from the system than what they pay in.  Carving out things Rand did not want to “get” or “fund”, you actually believe over her lifetime she falls below the threshold of provider to dependent? 

 

You claim Rand lived as a parasite?

1 Like
43

Honestly, I don’t think it’s worthwhile to try to calculate how much Rand (or anyone else) “paid in” to such a scheme versus how much they “took out.” I wouldn’t think to look for morality there.

But for those who think that such calculations are important, I think it’s worth considering that we’re not necessarily talking about a 1-to-1 relationship, dollar for dollar.

If a person is taxed early in their life, it possibly prevents certain investment opportunities and a greater resultant wealth. Also, governmental intervention into the economy can result in poor outcomes in the marketplace. Given Capitalism, who knows how (in)expensive healthcare may have been for Rand – or, for that matter, how many other areas of economic life would have been cheaper, again resulting in the potential for a greater overall personal wealth.

Governmental interference in the economy – infringements upon liberty generally – make us all poorer, not only for the specific monies that we’re individually taxed, but also in innumerable and incalculable other ways, as production is punished and made more difficult, and the entire system is thereby made inefficient.

1 Like
44

Perhaps the fault is mine if I was unclear, but I don’t criticize individuals for using public benefits. That falls into the progressive trap of making us all hypocrites for using public roads, the mail, and so on. The distinction I use is whether someone is simply using the existing system or whether they are taking specific actions to make the problem worse. If you are entitled to Social Security, by all means take it, not because of the “restitution” argument, which makes little sense for those receiving more than they paid, but because that’s simply the system into which you were born a participant - as you say, forced to accept its terms. However those who get doctors to certify bogus disabilities so they can not work and collect SSDI or a police/fire disability pension are engaging in immoral behavior and making the situation in this country worse. I blame those who created and perpetuate Social Security and Medicare - the politicians and the voters - not those who merely accept the terms into which they were forced.