Ayn Rand Signed on for Medicare and social Security

[A'isha]

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

Only if their ethos included the stance that no one should live in a country which engaged in wars like that.

Most critics of the Iraq war weren't against the United States, or even against the United States engaging in wars in general. They were against the US engaging in that specific war for the specific reasons it was started.

It's the difference between "I don't want my tax money going to support that specific government program", "I don't want any tax money going to any government program", and "I'm going to write a novel all about how people who espouse my philosophy pack up and leave society rather than let the government make them pay taxes".

 

[respect]

Only if their ethos included the stance that no one should live in a country which engaged in wars like that.

Most critics of the Iraq war weren't against the United States, or even against the United States engaging in wars in general. They were against the US engaging in that specific war for the specific reasons it was started.

It's the difference between "I don't want my tax money going to support that specific government program", "I don't want any tax money going to any government program", and "I'm going to write a novel all about how people who espouse my philosophy pack up and leave society rather than let the government make them pay taxes".

He said that principled opposition would require refusing to pay taxes or leaving the country.

By that standard, it is damn near impossible to oppose any action of government without being a hypocrite.

 

[A'isha]

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).

She didn't criticise the society her characters created in Galt's Gulch, though. And Galt himself certainly embodied everything she idealized in Objectivism - his famous filibuster of a speech about Objectivism in the book is literally Rand putting her own words in Galt's mouth.

In fact, Galt's actions in withdrawing from an Evil Socialist Society and going and starting his own society, with blackjack, and hookers, sparked a whole recent movement (albeit one that's all talk and no action) among conservatives about "Going Galt".

 

[A'isha]

He said that principled opposition would require refusing to pay taxes or leaving the country.

No, he said that principled opposition to paying taxes would require refusing to pay taxes or leaving the country.

The equivalent would be people who opposed the war refusing to fight in the war or leaving the country. Which no one had to do during the Iraq war because no one was forcing protesters to join the military. But principled opposition to the Vietnam war certainly resulted in people doing just that.

By that standard, it is damn near impossible to oppose any action of government without being a hypocrite.

Which is why no one but you is using that standard.

 

[RandFan]

She didn't criticise the society her characters created in Galt's Gulch, though. And Galt himself certainly embodied everything she idealized in Objectivism - his famous filibuster of a speech about Objectivism in the book is literally Rand putting her own words in Galt's mouth.

In fact, Galt's actions in withdrawing from an Evil Socialist Society and going and starting his own society, with blackjack, and hookers, sparked a whole recent movement (albeit one that's all talk and no action) among conservatives about "Going Galt".

No disagreement.

 

[RandFan]

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.

That could be argued but I don't at all think it is axiomatic. The world really isn't at all so black and white. Of course, you can always just assert that it is but that's not really compelling.

 

[RandFan]

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)

I've not a clue what you are on about here. And FTR: just asserting that something is hypocritical doesn't make it so. Look into the concept of nuance. Your black and white thinking and assertions isn't advancing the discussion.

 

[respect]

No, he said that principled opposition to paying taxes would require refusing to pay taxes or leaving the country.

The equivalent would be people who opposed the war refusing to fight in the war or leaving the country. Which no one had to do during the Iraq war because no one was forcing protesters to join the military. But principled opposition to the Vietnam war certainly resulted in people doing just that.



Which is why no one but you is using that standard.

Not just taxes, but paying into Social Security and Medicare.

But just to be clear here, are you in agreement with Trakar that the options are to never be critical of Social Security and Medicare, commit tax evasion, leave the country or be a hypocrite?

 

[RandFan]

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.

That something is an option resolves nothing. There is still a conflict.

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.

Again, you are just making baseless assertions. This does nothing to obviate thousands of years of moral philosophy. If you want to think so then fine but really, it doesn't. And FTR: not that I'm arguing in favor of the categorical imperative only that you are demonstrating that you think you've resolved something that you haven't.

 

[RandFan]

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

It's hardly difficult. Your use of the word "selfish", it would seem to me is taken out of context. Otherwise I cannot make sense of your comment. Rational self interest does not mean "selfish" in the colloquial sense, that is not the way Rand intended it. Not that she ever advocated charity it's just that rational self interest does not preclude charity.

But let's advance the discussion, what exactly do YOU mean by selfish?

 

[RandFan]

The original statement ... seemed to be in reference to actual, legal contracts between individual parties...

No. This was a mistake on your part.

, 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.

Again with the assertion. There is no euphemism and there are no mental gymnastics. Social contract theory isn't a euphemism for anything. See game theory. See selfish gene. See thousands of years of social philosophy. Social contracts are the rights and responsibilities inherent to living in a society. That is exactly the intent of the original statement. If society dictates a responsibility and provides a right in exchange for that responsibility THEN THERE IS A DEFACTO CONTRACT. One that could even be held up in court.

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.

It would be nice if you could address the issues without bald assertions and at least demonstrate that you understand the argument I'm making.

I've no investment in objectivism. I support strong social safety nets and Keynesian economics. Whatever it is you think I'm arguing in favor of is simply wrong. I understand you are invested in a strong dislike of Rand but you've not made any coherent argument why that is rational. You haven't even demonstrated that you know or understand what "rational self interest" is as you advance a caricature of objectivism without a moment to consider that perhaps that caricature is just a straw man.

 

[RandFan]

She didn't criticise the society her characters created in Galt's Gulch, though. And Galt himself certainly embodied everything she idealized in Objectivism - his famous filibuster of a speech about Objectivism in the book is literally Rand putting her own words in Galt's mouth.

Agreed. Doesn't rebut my point though.

In fact, Galt's actions in withdrawing from an Evil Socialist Society and going and starting his own society, with blackjack, and hookers, sparked a whole recent movement (albeit one that's all talk and no action) among conservatives about "Going Galt".

Yeah, and some people have started religions based on Star Wars. Doesn't mean that George Lucas actually believes in the force.

 

[theprestige]

How does one get forced into a contract?

Taxation is a good example: You don't have the option of not paying, but on the other hand the government owes you something in return for the money it takes from you.

You might be against the government taking money from you, but if they do it anyway, it's not hypocritical to insist on getting what was promised in return.

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

I'm not sure what you mean by this. What I was trying to say is, "[y]ou might be against the government taking money from you, but if they do it anyway, it's not hypocritical to insist on getting what was promised in return."

I hope that's clear enough for you.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

And the point is that she could have done the moral thing by her philosophy and refused to accept it. As the moral thing was for her to go untreated and die in a ditch she could have chosen to do that. She instead choose to receive money she considered stolen.

She could have lived as if the world worked how she wanted it to, a proponent of universal health care can not. It is the difference of opting out of an institution you think is immoral and opting into something that should exist but does not.

 

[respect]

And the point is that she could have done the moral thing by her philosophy and refused to accept it. As the moral thing was for her to go untreated and die in a ditch she could have chosen to do that. She instead choose to receive money she considered stolen.

She could have lived as if the world worked how she wanted it to, a proponent of universal health care can not. It is the difference of opting out of an institution you think is immoral and opting into something that should exist but does not.

Wrong, she would have had the money she had paid in taxes had she lived in a world she considered ideal.

 

[ponderingturtle]

He said that principled opposition would require refusing to pay taxes or leaving the country.

By that standard, it is damn near impossible to oppose any action of government without being a hypocrite.

That was wrong it does not mean that principled opposition supports what she did. Someone stole my car so I will steal yours, that is moral right? So where are the keys?

 

[RandFan]

And the point is that she could have done the moral thing by her philosophy and refused to accept it.

Begs the question. Your premise explicitly assumes your conclusion.

As the moral thing was for her to go untreated and die in a ditch she could have chosen to do that. She instead choose to receive money she considered stolen.

Her money. So if someone stole your money and offered to give it back you would refuse it on the grounds that stealing is immoral?

She could have lived as if the world worked how she wanted it to...

She could have but that would be irrational. It's rational to want back what someone took from you. Taking money back from the thief doesn't validate stealing.

 

[Lurker]

Not necessarily. If she had been forced to pay into the system her entire adult life, why shouldn't she get something out of it? He main objection was to being forced to pay in. You may as well criticize her for driving on public roads, or using municipal water.

Megadittos.


(What? Bad timing?)

 

[RandFan]

Someone stole my car so I will steal yours, that is moral right? So where are the keys?

Someone stole my car. If they return it I will accept it without justifying their actions. So, where are the keys to my car Uncle Sam?

FTR: I don't believe taxation is theft.

 

[respect]

That was wrong it does not mean that principled opposition supports what she did. Someone stole my car so I will steal yours, that is moral right? So where are the keys?

Who was she stealing from? Expecting receipt of a forced purchase is not stealing. That she would have preferred to not have to make the purchase at all does not make receiving what she paid for hypocritical, given that she had to buy it.