|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:49 am Post subject: Ayn Rand, welfare queen |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Ayn Rand was not only a schlock novelist, she was also the progenitor of a sweeping �moral philosophy� that justifies the privilege of the wealthy and demonizes not only the slothful, undeserving poor but the lackluster middle-classes as well.
Her books provided wide-ranging parables of "parasites," "looters" and "moochers" using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes' labor. In the real world, however, Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor (her husband was Frank O'Connor).
|
| Quote: |
Evva Joan Pryor, who had been a social worker in New York in the 1970s, was interviewed in 1998 by Scott McConnell, who was then the director of communications for the Ayn Rand Institute. In his book, 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand, McConnell basically portrays Rand as first standing on principle, but then being mugged by reality. Stephens points to this exchange between McConnell and Pryor.
�She was coming to a point in her life where she was going to receive the very thing she didn�t like, which was Medicare and Social Security,� Pryor told McConnell. �I remember telling her that this was going to be difficult. For me to do my job she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory. So that started our political discussions. From there on � with gusto � we argued all the time.
|
| Quote: |
Rand had paid into the system, so why not take the benefits? It's true, but according to Stephens, some of Rand's fellow travelers remained true to their principles.
Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel �Pat� Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. Lane, with whom Rand corresponded for several years, once quit an editorial job in order to avoid paying Social Security taxes. The Cato Institute says Lane considered Social Security a �Ponzi fraud� and �told friends that it would be immoral of her to take part in a system that would predictably collapse so catastrophically.� Lane died in 1968.
|
As far as I know, Americans do indeed "pay into" social security, but do they pay into medicare as well? I always thought that that was funded out of general tax revenue, not by specifically directed contributions.
I guess Rand could have argued that, as a rich person, she had paid more taxes than most, and thus wasn't commiting that huge a theft by taking advantage of the system(as opposed to say, a pauper who pays very little and then rings up huge medical bills). Still, though, since there are many people who paid more in taxes than Ayn Rand did, she was probably(by her own moral calculations) stealing from someone.
Plus, libertarians always argue that Social Security robs "future generations". So, even if Rand had paid into it, that doesn't absolve her of robbing the not-yet-born.
link |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
goniff
Joined: 31 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
ayn rand's "literary works" certainly destroyed more than a few forests
as literary works go they make great door stops... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| it's been how many decades and people continue to demonize and warp whatever she says. I mean seriously, what choice did she really have? She talked about a more ideal world with less socialism and because of that she is some anti-Christ with horns growing out of her head. She tried to warn everyone of the dangers of socialism yet even as many countries are beginning to fail, socialism is the last thing they want to talk about. We still don't like to even talk about the government dispensing favors to corporations as if it's some taboo in this day in age. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:08 am Post subject: Re: Ayn Rand, welfare queen |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
As far as I know, Americans do indeed "pay into" social security, but do they pay into medicare as well? I always thought that that was funded out of general tax revenue, not by specifically directed contributions.
|
Yes, we "pay into" medicare as well. It is another payroll deduction.
And the financial genius that is Obama cut our contribution to both when negoiating the tax extension deal with the GOP in December. My bi-weekly paycheck went up about 50 bucks at the beginng of this year. yay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
"The victims [of state arrogation] do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it.
The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the �right� to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money�and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration"
- Ayn Rand
Indeed, Rand's position is that supporters of state arrogation shouldn't be entitled to use social welfare benefits, but opponents of it should be.
I too advocate the abolition of social welfare programs but would collect payments from them, if the occasion arose, without a moment's pause, because they are mandatory programs and, had I been given the choice, I would have opted out and thereby accumulated more personal capital. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Indeed, Rand's position is that supporters of state arrogation shouldn't be entitled to use social welfare benefits, but opponents of it should be.
I too advocate the abolition of social welfare programs but would collect payments from them, if the occasion arose, without a moment's pause, because they are mandatory programs and, had I been given the choice, I would have opted out and thereby accumulated more personal capital. |
Okay. But when in it comes to something like Medicare, does an Ayn Rand sit down and figure out how much money exactly was stolen from her by Medicare payments over the years, and then ensure that she does not avail herself of state health-insurance over and above that amount?
Or, roughly the same case: If you're an opponent of the welfare state, but have only been paying taxes for a year, should you forego accepting welfare payments, because you'll likely be getting more back than you put in? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
Okay. But when in it comes to something like Medicare, does an Ayn Rand sit down and figure out how much money exactly was stolen from her by Medicare payments over the years, and then ensure that she does not avail herself of state health-insurance over and above that amount?
Or, roughly the same case: If you're an opponent of the welfare state, but have only been paying taxes for a year, should you forego accepting welfare payments, because you'll likely be getting more back than you put in? |
I think people are perfectly entitled to receive what they have contributed, or slightly less, as in a system of insurance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I think people are perfectly entitled to receive what they have contributed, or slightly less, as in a system of insurance. |
Sure. But I'm still kind of wondering if Ayn Rand, having contributed X amount of money to Medicare over the years, would have instructed the doctors in the emergency room not to perform a certain life-saving surgery, if that would push her return over the X limit.
Also: What about the accusation that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme? As I understand it, the idea is that the Baby Boomers are robbing Gen X, who in turn are robbing Gen Y, and so on and so forth.
But if you want to argue that Gen Yers are entitled to dip into SS because they were robbed of their money, isn't that just robbing Peter(Gen Z) to pay Paul(Gen Y)? The ethical equivalent would be saying that if a criminal gang steals my property and sells it, I have a right to buy someone else's stolen propery from the same gang, as compensation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU
| Quote: |
| Ayn Rand on Israel and the Middle East |
Charming lady. |
So Ayn Rand sided with Israel because they were more technologically advanced?
I guess she would have supported the Soviets in Afghanistan as well.
Incidentally, I remember watching that Donahue episode when it first aired in the 1970s. Watching it again, I liked the way old Phil let her have it full-throttle in his rebuttal.
Donahue really wasn't a bad show back in pre-Geraldo days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So Ayn Rand sided with Israel because they were more technologically advanced? |
Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum is being dishonest about why she supports Israel and thinks the Arabs 'savages'.
Ok libertarians. I want you all to think very strongly about why you've been convinced into a rugged individualism - free of ethnic/national identity - by a group of libertarians who continue to hold such identities for themselves.
Internationalist progressives should do the same. These ideas are dangerous and ruining Western societies.
...
Rand was right to use the insurance schemes she paid into. Her working to undo them is typical of a radical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
Sure. But I'm still kind of wondering if Ayn Rand, having contributed X amount of money to Medicare over the years, would have instructed the doctors in the emergency room not to perform a certain life-saving surgery, if that would push her return over the X limit. |
I've no idea what Ayn Rand's position is on that. If her position was one of unabashed entitlement, that would be very hypocritical. But knowing her, she might find a facetious way of justifying it, such as "the opponents of state arrogation should be entitled to every single penny of the proceeds, and the supporters of it entitled to not a penny".
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Also: What about the accusation that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme? |
Only time will tell
But there is one enormous difference between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme: Technological change. Over the past century, new technologies have enabled the output of the country to grow much faster than its population. To be more precise, the U.S. population has more than tripled since the early 1900s, while the U.S. economic output has gone up by more than 20 times.
But here�s the rub. Ultimately our ability to make good on the �Ponzi-like� nature of Social Security depends on the continued march of technological progress�and in particular, innovation which boosts output and living standards. If we leave the younger generation a good legacy�a sound scientific and technological base, combined with an innovative and flexible economy and an educated workforce�then Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. The economy grows, and there�s more than enough resources for everyone.
But if instead we�the current generation�invest in homes, flat-screen televisions and SUVs, then we don�t leave the next generation with the technological �seed corn� they need. If the technological progress slows, then Social Security does turn out to be Ponzi-like�with unfortunate consequences for everyone.
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2008/12/is_social_secur.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Menino80
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| . She tried to warn everyone of the dangers of socialism yet even as many countries are beginning to fail, socialism is the last thing they want to talk about. |
Maybe because socialism isn't the cause of theses failures?
Look at UK and US per capita income growth since 1990 by PPP. The UK beats the US, 108%-104.5% |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Menino80 wrote: |
| recessiontime wrote: |
| . She tried to warn everyone of the dangers of socialism yet even as many countries are beginning to fail, socialism is the last thing they want to talk about. |
Maybe because socialism isn't the cause of theses failures?
Look at UK and US per capita income growth since 1990 by PPP. The UK beats the US, 108%-104.5% |
Socialism causes the failure. All growth is in spite of socialist interference and manipulation. The inevitable failure is a result of said interference and manipulation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Menino80
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Menino80 wrote: |
| recessiontime wrote: |
| . She tried to warn everyone of the dangers of socialism yet even as many countries are beginning to fail, socialism is the last thing they want to talk about. |
Maybe because socialism isn't the cause of theses failures?
Look at UK and US per capita income growth since 1990 by PPP. The UK beats the US, 108%-104.5% |
Socialism causes the failure. All growth is in spite of socialist interference and manipulation. The inevitable failure is a result of said interference and manipulation. |
No, it's not.
Debate over, pack it up. Move along. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
