Ayn Rand Signed on for Medicare and social Security

[RandFan]

How does one get forced into a contract?

See "social contract theory".

 

[A'isha]

What part of the philosophy of Ayn Rand rejects any and all public services? I didn't read that part.

Wasn't that the whole purpose of Galt's Gulch, and the philosophy of the people that fled society to live there?

 

[Trakar]

But principles are not necessarily black and white. If you could save someone's life by lying would you or would your principle against lying prevent you from doing so ala Kant? Is it wrong to kill another person to save yourself?

You don't kill the person and you don't violate your principles regarding lying.

ETA: I strongly recommend the free online Justice Course with Michael Sandel. He explores why principles are not as black and white as we might at first think.

Most people rationalize their hypocrisy.

 

[RandFan]

So there is no limit to social programs in her philosophy as essentially everyone paid in at some point?

?

source

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.

I don't see why her philosophy would limit social programs of another socioeconomic system?

 

[RandFan]

You don't kill the person and you don't violate your principles regarding lying.

Not according to many moral philosophers. According to Kant's categorical imperative lying would absolutely be a violation. You are simply rationalizing to resolve the dissonance.

Most people rationalize their hypocrisy.

Brother don't I know. Just to let you know. It is demonstrable that we evolved to be rationalization machines. Social and personal needs inherently breed conflict. There are no absolute perfect resolutions to many conflicts. If there were we would not have a term like moral dilemma.

 

[Trakar]

You simply don't know what you are talking about. You've found a likely target, some kind of enemy and are mindlessly attacking. I invite you to actually look at what Rand wrote concerning her taking medicare benefits and her philosophy, and then report back as to whether in some fashion there is some hypocrisy or whatever...

egoism as the virtue of selfishness

nothing hypocritical about a self-centered, self important, entitled individual acting in a selfish manner.

 

[RandFan]

Wasn't that the whole purpose of Galt's Gulch, and the philosophy of the people that fled society to live there?

AIU, Atlas Shrugged is a work of fiction to popularize her philosophy. It was not meant to be a rigorous treatise. She was trying to make a point by painting two extremes. It's typical of fiction to popularize philosophy. I've never read anything she wrote that called for anarchy, in fact she was harshly critical of it (see The Virtue of Selfishness).

 

[Trakar]

See "social contract theory".

Ah, linguistic somersaults, how cute!

 

[RandFan]

egoism as the virtue of selfishness

nothing hypocritical about a self-centered, self important, entitled individual acting in a selfish manner.

Helping others is a selfish act. Rational self interest does not preclude charity or social consciousness. It precludes devaluing and/or sacrificing self interest for the good of society through govt force. That's not to say Rand was a big fan of charity. Not even close but she did not advocate that no one ever help others or to ever cooperate.

 

[RandFan]

Ah, linguistic somersaults, how cute!

Ah rhetoric without substance. Now that's cute. It doesn't obviate "social contract" theory (a staple of liberal/progressive thought) but it's a nice way to avoid responding.

 

[Trakar]

It takes about 30 seconds to locate this:

Myth #6. “Rand was a hypocrite for receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits.”

Fact: There was no hypocrisy in Rand’s recouping the contributions she had been forced to make to those programs – for decades, in the case of Social Security. She never maintained that one should surrender expropriated property to the State. Moreover, some years before age 65, she publicly announced that any opponents of such programs should recoup their forced contributions. And she did so. She said what she would do, it is consistent with her philosophy, and she did it. Here’s primary source material on her saying it: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexi…

Myth #7. “Rand hated Social Security and Social Security recipients.”

Fact: Rand said, openly, that opponents of the system should recoup what was taken from them. (The entitlement systems themselves are bad economics and should be phased out. The horrendous unfunded liabilities they are accruing bear this out, and may be the bankruptcy of our government.) Rand was in favor of welfare being phased out gradually, over a period of years, anyhow. So many of these spasmodic arguments against her hold no water: if programs are to be phased out gradually, she obviously was not draconian about their use.

As all this shows, there is a powerful thrust to show that Ayn Rand was a purely hateful hypocrite. Unfortunately, it reveals a thrust of both hypocrisy (in a near-total inattention to fact) and hate. That Rand must be turned into a cartoon ogre on such spurious grounds – when there are some legitimate things to criticize her on (though we would do well to attempt to understand her first in her depths) – is an unfortunate display of an almost unparalleled level of reactivity to a public figure, even in our almost incredibly reactive times.

But the most astounding illogic about Rand is yet to be covered: that she was a sociopath.​

http://fuguewriter.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/internet-myths-about-ayn-rand/

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government_grants_and_scholarships.html

Cheers!

So the Rand apologist organizations think that she was brilliant and that all detractions are incorrect,...doesn't seem hypocritical in the least.

 

[RandFan]

So the Rand apologist organizations think that she was brilliant and that all detractions are incorrect,...doesn't seem hypocritical in the least.

? Honestly I've no idea how this follows. What?

 

[RandFan]

FTR: I'm not an objectist.

• I do not champion Rand's philosophy.
• I do not believe Rand was a rigorous philosopher.
• I do not believe her are ideas for society result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

My purpose is to enure her ideas are not misrepresented and to propigate her important role of popularizing capitalism and the importance of the individual as opposed to Stalinism and Maoism that placed the importance of the state over the individual.

 

[Trakar]

What part of the philosophy of Ayn Rand rejects any and all public services? I didn't read that part.

Objectivism

with the exception of a strong police force to enforce the law (which is hypocritical in itself, given her objection that the application of force is the apostasy of the rational)

 

[Trakar]

?

I don't see why her philosophy would limit social programs of another socioeconomic system?

From your source:

In other words, programs like Social Security and Medicare aren’t optional. We are forced to pay into them or we go to jail for tax evasion.

The principled option would be to refuse to pay and pay the penalty for refusal,...or immigrate to a place without the onerous taxations that you've taken a principled stand against.

 

[Trakar]

Not according to many moral philosophers. According to Kant's categorical imperative lying would absolutely be a violation. You are simply rationalizing to resolve the dissonance.

The only dissonance is in attributing the decisions and actions of another to one's own decisions and actions. Even in an extreme example where a gun is held to your head and you are given the option of killing another or being killed, the option to kill another person is still yours and how you act in such a situation is the determinant of your moral behavior. The law, may or may not side with your decision, but ultimately the decision to kill or not kill another person is yours, not the person's holding the gun to your head.

Brother don't I know. Just to let you know. It is demonstrable that we evolved to be rationalization machines. Social and personal needs inherently breed conflict. There are no absolute perfect resolutions to many conflicts. If there were we would not have a term like moral dilemma.

The only dilemma here is between words advocated for and preferred and the consequent results inherent to actually living with the results of the pragmatic application of those words.

 

[Trakar]

egoism as the virtue of selfishness

nothing hypocritical about a self-centered, self important, entitled individual acting in a selfish manner.

Helping others is a selfish act. Rational self interest does not preclude charity or social consciousness. It precludes devaluing and/or sacrificing self interest for the good of society through govt force. That's not to say Rand was a big fan of charity. Not even close but she did not advocate that no one ever help others or to ever cooperate.

I don't see the connection between my comment and your response to it?

 

[Trakar]

Ah rhetoric without substance. Now that's cute. It doesn't obviate "social contract" theory (a staple of liberal/progressive thought) but it's a nice way to avoid responding.

The original statement and my question of it, both seemed to be in reference to actual, legal contracts between individual parties, your spinning of the term in to a reference regarding a socio-philosophical euphemism is an example mental gymnastics to avoid the implications of the actual question I asked.

Looking in the mirror while painting and then claiming the result is a portrait of me, is your problematic penchant, not something I am terribly interested in engaging.

 

[respect]

So then she would have thought that she should be kicked into a ditch to die like the vermin she was, but the imperfect society prevented that ideal result?

The point should have been obvious. People often disagree with aspects of their societies and work to change them, but have to live in the realities of the society while they pursue their goals. For example, advocates of a single payer health care system don't have one, they have to deal with real options if they want medical care. Likewise, the government doesn't give you an option not to contribute to Social Security and Medicare. Expecting what you have paid for while thinking the system itself is flawed is not hypocrisy. It would have been hypocritical had she expected repayment from the government but told others not to accept it as a display of principle.

 

[respect]

The principled option would be to refuse to pay and pay the penalty for refusal,...or immigrate to a place without the onerous taxations that you've taken a principled stand against.

So all critics of the Iraq war should have left the country or be labeled hypocrites?