Ayn Rand received government aid

[dudalb]

For someone who made such a fetish of having logic and reason as her highest values, Ayn Rand was very illogical a lot of the time...particularly in her ignoring of reality when it clashed with her theories.
The real irony is that Rand is actually a crappy defender of capitalism,since she condemned attempts to defend capitalism on the grounds that it benefited the poor more then other systems as being immoral and evil. Leaving out whether that argument is correct or not, to condemn it out of hand is bizarre for a defender of capitalism.

 

[BenBurch]

She did not see herself as a defender of capitalism so much as a defender of egoism.

Capitalism is in her world a consequence of that.

 

[bookitty]

Were they expecting a return profit for their investment?
You help people because you want to.

If you're an empathetic person, sure. If you're Ayn Rand, you help people because you personally will benefit from the relationship and for no other reason. Allowing anyone else to access your resources (whether you earned them or inherited them) is a morally wrong. In the Ayn Rand world, leaving a child to die without medical attention because its parents are poor is a virtue.

 

[EGarrett]

And, Objectivists leave all sorts of other data out of their fantasy view of the world. For example, what happens to the less skilled/less intelligent/less well off people that should be left to their own devices?

Not necessarily. I just got done watching a few minutes of Rand on Donahue (always a refreshing thing to hear a person's actual words after a load of half-assed strawmen are thrown at you from others)...and Rand herself says that children are the responsibility of their parents, and she has nothing against appealing to private charities and voluntary assistance. Her problem is with mandatory welfare.

And before you try to claim that voluntary charity doesn't work...look up how profitable panhandling is, on average.

They resort to crime and revolution.

You'd be amazed at the ingenuity of human beings when you just give them opportunities to reach their goals. I don't know if you noticed this...but the countries that offer communist free rides have and have had millions of people leaving and risking their lives to get into the capitalist United States that makes NO promises, particularly to illegal immigrants, but has no cap on an individual's potential.

I don't see Mexican immigrants coming to the United States in order to start revolutions and steal. I do see plenty who have come here looking to get honest work though.

And what about the ghetto child that would succeed but doesn't have the relatives or loved ones with the resources to help the child reach that potential? Or what about the unemployed man who doesn't have a rich wife to support him?

Get rid of minimum wage laws and licensing requirements, and I guarantee you'd see these people's situations rapidly improve.

So not only do Objectivists ignore human nature in their fantasy economy,

As opposed to your perfectly realistic view...

 

[I Am The Scum]

Get rid of minimum wage laws and licensing requirements, and I guarantee you'd see these people's situations rapidly improve.

I'd like to see some evidence for this.

 

[Mycroft]

Interesting. Does this diminish the tenets of her philosophy or not? It surely is not an undignified thing to receive government aid (in my opinion), but does it speak to the feasibility of Objectivism?

I really don't understand the hatred I see directed at Ayn Rand. She put out some interesting ideas for consideration, but it's not as though anyone created a society based on them. Nobody hates Marx as much as they hate her, yet tens of millions have died trying to make his ideas work.

She does a pretty good job in illustrating the problems with communism, even if her proposed alternate doesn't make perfect sense.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Nobody hates Marx as much as they hate her...

I'm pretty sure this part isn't true. Watch American cable news for 1-2 days.

 

[EGarrett]

I'd like to see some evidence for this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Hong_Kong

Hong Kong has remained as the world's freest economy, according to Index of Economic Freedom since the inception of the index in 1995.[5] The economy, governed under Positive non-interventionism, is highly dependent on international trade and finance and in 2009 the real economic growth fell by 2.8% as a result of the global financial turmoil. Despite the downturn, Hong Kong’s economic strengths, including a sound banking system, virtually no public debt, a strong legal system, ample foreign exchange reserves, rigorous anti-corruption measures and close ties with the mainland China, enable it to quickly respond to changing circumstances.[6]

Hong Kong's gross domestic product, between 1961 and 1997, has grown 180 times while per capita GDP rose by 87 times.

They also to this point have had no minimum wage law and their unemployment rate is almost half that of the USA.

 

[EGarrett]

I really don't understand the hatred I see directed at Ayn Rand. She put out some interesting ideas for consideration, but it's not as though anyone created a society based on them. Nobody hates Marx as much as they hate her, yet tens of millions have died trying to make his ideas work.

On a childlike, half-considered level of thinking (which is where most of us operate in regard to new ideas that we haven't taken a personal interest in), Ayn Rand's ideas sound evil and scary. She talks about "selfishness" and the evils of altruism. Which makes it sound like she's against sharing and being good to each other. People then don't bother to investigate whether this is actually the case, they just look for some random factoids or quotes to back up this initial reaction and then present it as their educated opinion.

For what it's worth, Rand herself absolutely hated these types of people. She said she spent her whole life looking for someone to honorably hear and challenge her ideas, but eventually gave up the search.

 

[BenBurch]

...

And before you try to claim that voluntary charity doesn't work...look up how profitable panhandling is, on average.

...

Rand is inconsistent and full of custard in that case because she makes a significant point of philanthropy and charity being evil.

 

[EGarrett]

Rand is inconsistent and full of custard in that case because she makes a significant point of philanthropy and charity being evil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUwTHn-9hhU&feature=player_detailpage#t=364s

Y'know what, let me just transcribe it...

DONAHUE: What in the Ayn Rand civil context would be appropriate societal measures to accommodate the ungifted?
RAND: Their own parents. And a chance to give their parents to earn money. If, however, their parents are poor, and cannot assume it, it's a heavy burden, then they can appeal to private charity. As it was always done before welfare statism in this country.
DONAHUE: You want private charity as well for the gifted?
RAND: If necessary. They usually, in a free society, won't need it. They'll make their own way, just so (long as) you don't stop them. But private charity cannot be done by means of tax collection, which means by force. Private charity is up to you. And if it's a worthy cause, if there's a normal child who certainly cannot help it, it's perfectly alright to help him, but not at the expense of your own child.

 

[BenBurch]

I heard it when it aired.


ETA: In case you haven't figured it out, I used to BE an Objectivist.

 

[EGarrett]

Then where does she contradict herself?

 

[BenBurch]

She contradicts her previous writing on the subject. She frequently does; part of what finally made me reject her entire philosophy.

 

[EGarrett]

Quote please.

 

[I Am The Scum]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Hong_Kong

Hong Kong has remained as the world's freest economy, according to Index of Economic Freedom since the inception of the index in 1995.[5] The economy, governed under Positive non-interventionism, is highly dependent on international trade and finance and in 2009 the real economic growth fell by 2.8% as a result of the global financial turmoil. Despite the downturn, Hong Kong’s economic strengths, including a sound banking system, virtually no public debt, a strong legal system, ample foreign exchange reserves, rigorous anti-corruption measures and close ties with the mainland China, enable it to quickly respond to changing circumstances.[6]

Hong Kong's gross domestic product, between 1961 and 1997, has grown 180 times while per capita GDP rose by 87 times.

They also to this point have had no minimum wage law and their unemployment rate is almost half that of the USA.

Sorry, that's not what I was asking for. I have never denied that laissez faire capitalism can lead to a country's great economic strength. I do, however, deny that it is in the blue collar man's best interest.

There's also this:

Despite being one of the world's richest economies, the Gini Coefficient indicates that the wealth gap continues to widen in Hong Kong. As of 2006 Hong Kong's measurement is at 53.3, which means the difference between the rich and poor is far greater than that of the mainland China.[11]

I also checked on Wikipedia a few times for "economy of [country]" and tried about 10 or so all around the world. Hong Kong is very much on the low end when you consider the rate of industry to service jobs. Everything else I checked was at least double. That might have something to do with it.

So I think you're actually only proving my point

 

[EGarrett]

Sorry, that's not what I was asking for. I have never denied that laissez faire capitalism can lead to a country's great economic strength. I do, however, deny that it is in the blue collar man's best interest.

That's why I added that they have almost half the US's unemployment rate while having had no minimum wage laws to this point.

There's also this:

I also checked on Wikipedia a few times for "economy of [country]" and tried about 10 or so all around the world. Hong Kong is very much on the low end when you consider the rate of industry to service jobs. Everything else I checked was at least double. That might have something to do with it.

So I think you're actually only proving my point

Gini stats say nothing about opportunity. The people in question are a man who is married but unemployed and a ghetto youth who has the ability to succeed. A country without minimum wage laws and with a minimum of barriers to practicing a service would allow both far more possibilities. The unemployed man would have far less barriers to receiving income proportionate to his level of skill and the ghetto youth could get entry-level menial work darn near anywhere in that society and be able to learn a skill and move up from there.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Hey, why stop there? We can waive the laws against child labor and then we'd have even more opportunity!

Too bad "having opportunity" is not the same thing as an increase in well-being.

 

[EGarrett]

Hey, why stop there? We can waive the laws against child labor and then we'd have even more opportunity!

Yes, and?

Too bad "having opportunity" is not the same thing as an increase in well-being.

Actually, it's as close as you can get in a real society. You can't rig things to hand feed people success or prosperity, and when you do your society ends up falling apart and everyone tries to leave to go to the place that promises only opportunity and not well-being.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

I'd like to see some evidence for this.

Look at all the happy, healthy, wealthy people in that worker's paradise called Somalia. No minimum wage or crazy government regulations getting between anyone and their success.